Normal view

How to manage the lifecycle of Amazon Machine Images using AMI Lineage for AWS

12 March 2026 at 17:59

As organizations scale their cloud infrastructure, maintaining proper lifecycle management of Amazon Machine Images (AMIs) is a critical component of their security and risk management goals. AMIs provide the essential information required to launch Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) instances, however; they present security and compliance challenges if not tracked and managed throughout their lifecycle. This blog post explores how organizations can meet their evolving security and compliance requirements by managing potential vulnerabilities across the AMIs deployed throughout their AWS environment.

At the end of 2024, AWS announced lineage supportfor Amazon EC2, providing source details for your AMIs. With this lineage information, you can trace copied or derived AMIs back to their original source. The source AMI information is available for AMIs that were created using specific API commands like CreateImage, CopyImage, and CreateRestoreImageTask. If the AMI was created using a different API command, the ID and AWS Region of the source AMI don’t appear, which can create visibility gaps that potentially impact security and compliance efforts.

To address these gaps and provide comprehensive AMI governance, organizations need to build additional capabilities to analyze the scope of impact of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), ensure deployed resources originate from an approved golden image, and respond to audit inquiries that require a clear chain of custody for AMIs. A well-designed solution should also help track and enforce approved AMI creation patterns across all accounts and AWS Regions. The AMI lineage solution described in this post is designed to help you manage your organization’s AMI hierarchy and lifecycle, including tracking AMI origins and usage throughout its AWS environment. By implementing this solution, your security teams can quickly understand the scope of impact when security vulnerabilities are discovered, help ensure compliance with organizational policies, and maintain better visibility into their AMI estate.

The solution in this blog post uses Amazon Neptune, a high-performance graph database, along with native AWS security services to maintain a comprehensive view of AMI relationships and enable proactive security monitoring. With the solution in place, you can enforce controls on AMI sourcing, including validation of marketplace AMIs through service control policies (SCPs), and maintain compliance with organizational and regulatory requirements throughout the AMI lifecycle.

Solution overview

AMI Lineage provides a comprehensive governance solution that uses AWS security services and Neptune to create and maintain a hierarchical graph representation of their AMI relationships. This solution helps security and compliance teams understand the complete history of their AMIs including where they originated from, enforce organizational policies such as requiring all AMIs to be encrypted, and rapidly assess security impacts across their organization.
The solution integrates core AWS services with security and governance capabilities. The core components of the solution in the security tooling account are:

  • Neptune: A purpose-built, high-performance graph database securely stores and manages the AMI relationship data.
  • AWS Lambdafunctions serve as the processing engine for the solution. They process AMI lifecycle events (such as CreateImage, CopyImage, DeregisterImage), evaluate them against compliance rules, and update the Neptune graph database. The functions are configured with least-privilege AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) permissions to enhance security.
  • Amazon API Gateway provides secure REST endpoints for lineage queries and security assessments. Authentication is handled using a combination of API keys and IAM roles to help ensure that only authorized users and systems can access the data.

From a governance perspective, this solution provides comprehensive AMI origin validation to help ensure AMIs come from approved sources, including the validation of AWS Marketplace AMIs against a list of trusted vendors. Lifecycle management capabilities enforce AMI retention policies and deprecation processes. Compliance monitoring tracks adherence to organizational and regulatory requirements, while security event scope assessment capabilities quickly identify affected resources when security vulnerabilities are discovered. A detailed audit trail maintains a complete history of AMI creation, modification, and usage patterns.

Architecture

The AMI Lineage solution follows AWS security best practices with a multi-account deployment architecture designed to maximize security while maintaining operational efficiency. The architecture distributes responsibilities across three primary account types: an organization management account, a centralized security tooling account, and multiple member accounts.

This architectural approach helps ensure that sensitive operations and data remain centralized in the security tooling account while enabling distributed monitoring and policy enforcement across the organization. The clear separation of concerns enhances security while maintaining the scalability needed for large-scale AWS deployments.

Figure 1: AMI Lineage solution architecture and workflow

Figure 1: AMI Lineage solution architecture and workflow

The workflow and architecture shown in figure one includes the following:

  1. Policy enforcement: The organization management account is the central point for control. It uses AWS Organizations to enforce SCPs that prevent non-compliant AMI actions across the member accounts.
  2. Event capture: When an AMI lifecycle event (like CreateImage or CopyImage) occurs in a member account, a local Amazon EventBridge rule captures it.
  3. Centralized processing: The event is securely forwarded from the member account’s EventBridge to the central EventBridge in the security tooling account.
  4. Data ingestion and analysis: A Lambda function is triggered in the security tooling account. This function processes the event, analyzes it for compliance, and updates the Neptune graph database with the new AMI relationship data. AWS Security Hub and Amazon GuardDuty in the security tooling account also receive and analyze findings from member accounts.
  5. Query and visualization: Security teams query the lineage data through a secure API Gateway endpoint. By doing this, they can to visualize AMI hierarchies, investigate security findings from Security Hub, and assess the scope of impact for a given AMI.

The organization management account serves as the central control point for policy enforcement and organizational oversight. This account hosts SCPs that prevent non-approved AMI usage across the organization and manages organization-wide EventBridge rules that capture AMI events from member accounts. Cross-account trust policies configured in this account enable secure communication between the management account and the security tooling account.

Additionally, the management account establishes Security Hub in delegated administrator mode, designating the security tooling account as the centralized security administrator for the organization. From the security tooling account, Security Hub can be then configured to aggregate all Regions down to one core Region for easier evaluation by security personnel.

The security tooling account acts as the central hub for AMI lineage processing and storage. This account hosts the Neptune graph database cluster with encrypted storage, helping to ensure that AMI relationship data is securely maintained. Lambda functions running in this account process events, handle API requests, and evaluate compliance with least-privilege permissions. API Gateway provides secure REST endpoints for lineage queries and security assessments. Security Hub custom insights and findings are centralized here in the security tooling account as the Security Hub delegated administrator account, along with Amazon Simple Notification Service (Amazon SNS) topics for notifications and alerts. The Amazon Virtual Private Cloud (Amazon VPC) infrastructure supporting these services is also deployed in the security tooling account, providing network-level isolation and security.

The solution enables distributed monitoring and enforcement by deploying lightweight components into each member account across the organization. Each member account includes AWS Config rules for continuous compliance monitoring, cross-account IAM roles to enable secure access from the security tooling account, and local EventBridge rules that forward AMI-related events to the central processing system.

Security and compliance integration extends throughout the solution. IAM manages least-privilege access control and permissions across components. AWS CloudTrail records API activity for audit trails and compliance reporting, while Security Hub centralizes security findings and compliance status across your AMI estate. GuardDuty provides threat detection for AMI-related activities. SCPs enforce organization-wide controls on AMI creation and usage patterns, and AWS Config tracks AMI configuration changes and evaluates compliance rules.

How it works

The AMI Lineage solution operates through a continuous monitoring and automated response system that maintains comprehensive visibility into your AMI landscape. When AMI lifecycle events occur in your organization, EventBridge rules capture these activities, including creation, copying, modification, and deregistration events. Lambda functions in the security tooling account are then called upon to process these events with appropriate security controls and update the Neptune graph database in real-time, while CloudTrail logs provide a comprehensive audit trail of AMI-related activities.

The system tracks critical security and compliance metadata that forms the foundation of effective AMI governance. This includes:

  • Source AMI information and validation status to help ensure lineage integrity
  • Creation method and timestamp data for comprehensive audit trails
  • Cross-Region and cross-account relationships to understand the full scope of AMI distribution
  • Instance launch history with security context to track usage patterns
  • AMI state changes including deprecation and deregistration for lifecycle management
  • Compliance status along with policy violations to maintain organizational standards.

Security teams use this comprehensive data through secure API calls to visualize complete AMI hierarchies and relationships, providing clear insight into how AMIs are related across your infrastructure. The compliance of your AMI estate is continuously tracked through a combination of services:

  • Detection: AWS Config rules deployed in member accounts check for policy violations (for example, incorrect tags and public permissions).
  • Aggregation: These findings, along with vulnerability data from services like Amazon Inspector, are aggregated in AWS Security Hub.
  • Correlation: Lambda functions in the security tooling account correlate this information with the lineage data in Neptune. Because of this correlation, you can see not just that an AMI is non-compliant, but also its entire downstream impact. When security events like CVE findings are discovered, teams can quickly assess the scope of impact across their entire AMI estate. The solution monitors AMI usage patterns for security anomalies and enforces governance controls through automated policy checks.

The solution provides robust automated policy enforcement capabilities that operate continuously to maintain security and compliance. The system helps ensure that only approved AMIs with verified lineage history can be used to launch new instances, automatically blocking attempts to use non-compliant images. SCP controls on AMI creation and usage are enforced organization-wide, preventing unauthorized AMI operations before they can impact your environment. When policy violations are detected, the system can trigger automated responses to security events and maintain compliance with organizational standards through real-time enforcement.

Implementation

Before deploying the AMI Lineage solution, you need to establish the proper security and governance foundation across your organization. Your AWS Organizations management account requires administrative permissions, and your organization must be enabled with all features to support the policies used in this solution. You will also need a dedicated security tooling account to host the solution’s core components, with cross-account IAM roles configured to allow secure access. Finally, essential security services must be configured at the organization level, including Security Hub, CloudTrail organization trails for audit logging, and encryption keys using AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) for data protection.

From a technical perspective, ensure you have Python 3.8 or later installed if deploying from a local environment, along with AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI) version 2 installed and configured with appropriate security credentials. You’ll also need an Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) bucket for deployment artifacts, encrypted using SSE-KMS with a customer-managed key to align with best practices for protecting deployment assets.

The complete AMI Lineage solution is available as open source code in the AWS Samples repository. You can clone the repository and follow the deployment instructions. The repository includes the necessary AWS CloudFormation templates, Lambda functions, and deployment scripts referenced in the following phases.

Deployment

The deployment process follows a five-phase approach that builds security and compliance capabilities progressively:

  1. Security foundations
  2. Security controls
  3. EventBridge rules
  4. Core infrastructure
  5. Compliance and monitoring

Phase 1 – Establishing security foundations

The first phase establishes the security foundation by configuring AWS Organizations security services. This involves enablingSecurity Hub in the management account and designating the security tooling account as the delegated administrator, enablingnullGuardDuty with the security tooling account configured as thenulldelegated administrator, and enabling an organizational wide CloudTrail trail for audit logging.

# In Organization Management Account: 
# Enable Security Hub and set security tooling account as delegated admin 
aws securityhub enable-organization-admin-account \   
--admin-account-id <security-tooling-account-id> 

# Enable GuardDuty organization with security tooling account as admin   
aws guardduty enable-organization-admin-account \   
--admin-account-id <security-tooling-account-id> 

# Create organization trail with encryption aws cloudtrail create-trail \   
--name ami-lineage-trail \   
--s3-bucket-name <your-secure-bucket> \   
--is-organization-trail \   
--kms-key-id <your-kms-key-id> \   
--enable-log-file-validation

Phase 2 – Security controls

The second phase deploys base security controls through organization-wide SCPs. These policies enforce AMI governance controls by preventing the use of non-approved AMIs and helping to ensure that proper tagging and approval workflows are followed.

# In Organization Management Account: 
# Deploy organization-wide SCPs 
aws organizations create-policy \   
--content file://ami-governance-scp.json \   
--name "AMI-Governance-Controls" \   
--type SERVICE_CONTROL_POLICY 

# Attach to organizational units 
aws organizations attach-policy \   
--policy-id <policy-id> \   
--target-id <ou-id>

Phase 3 – EventBridge rules

The third phase deploys organization-wide EventBridge rules from the management account to capture AMI events across member accounts and forward them to the security tooling account for processing. These rules listen for specific API calls captured by CloudTrail.

An example of the event pattern used to capture CreateImage and CopyImage events looks like this:

{
	"source": ["aws.ec2"],
	"detail-type": ["AWS API Call via CloudTrail"],
	"detail": {
		"eventSource": ["ec2.amazonaws.com"],
		"eventName": [
			"CreateImage",
			"CopyImage",
			"RegisterImage",
			"DeregisterImage"
		]
	}
}

# In Organization Management Account: 
# Deploy organization EventBridge rules 
cd deployment-scripts/organization 
./deploy-organization-resources.sh

Phase 4 – Core infrastructure

The fourth phase focuses on core infrastructure deployment in the security tooling account. This is where the primary processing and storage components are deployed, following security best practices by centralizing sensitive operations in a dedicated account.

# Switch to Security Tooling Account context 
# Deploy Neptune cluster with encryption in security tooling account 
cd deployment-scripts/shared 
./deploy-shared-resources.sh

This deployment script handles multiple components in the security tooling account. The Neptune cluster deployment includes encryption and VPC configuration to help ensure secure storage and access to AMI lineage data. Lambda functions are deployed with security controls and configured with VPC attachment, which allows for secure Neptune access in the VPC, appropriate IAM roles with least-privilege permissions, and environment variables for secure configuration. API Gateway provides secure REST endpoints for external access to AMI lineage data and security assessments.

Phase 5 – Compliance and monitoring

The fifth phase establishes comprehensive compliance and monitoring capabilities across member accounts. AWS Config rules are deployed to continuously monitor AMI compliance across your organization, while EventBridge rules forward AMI events to the central processing system.

# In each Member Account: 
# Deploy AWS Config Rules and monitoring capabilities 
cd deployment-scripts/child-account   
./deploy-child-account-resources.sh

After deployment, thorough verification helps ensure that security configurations are properly implemented. This includes validating IAM permissions to help ensure least-privilege access, testing security controls to verify SCP enforcement, validating encryption settings acrosscomponents, and confirming that the security tooling account is properly configured as the Security Hub delegated administrator.

Using AMI Lineage

When deployed, AMI Lineage provides security operations and compliance monitoring capabilities through its API hosted in the security tooling account and automated monitoring systems. Security teams can query and receive complete AMI security relationships to understand the full context of AMIs in their environment.

When investigating AMIs, the system provides detailed security context including source validation information that confirms:

  • Whether AMIs come from marketplace sources or trusted accounts
  • Compliance status that shows patch levels and policy adherence
  • Vulnerability status with CVE findings and scan results
  • Comprehensive lineage data showing the complete chain of AMI relationships and approval history
# Get complete security context for an AMI (API Gateway in Security Tooling Account) 
curl -X GET "https://<api-gateway-id>.execute-api.<region>.amazonaws.com/v1/api/v1/ami/ami-1234567890abcdef0/security-context?include_compliance=true" \  
	-H "x-api-key: <your-api-key>"

For security impact assessments, such as when a new CVE is discovered, the solution provides a powerful scope of impact analysis. By querying the API with a specific finding, security teams can rapidly determine every affected resource across their entire organization that stems from a compromised or vulnerable AMI. Using that information, they can understand the full scope of their exposure and begin remediation. See Security best practices in Amazon API Gateway for helpful considerations while using API Keys.

# Assess for a security finding (Security Tooling Account API) 
curl -X POST "https://<api-gateway-id>.execute-api.<region>.amazonaws.com/v1/api/v1/security-impact" \   
	-H "Content-Type: application/json" \   
	-H "x-api-key: <your-api-key>" \   
	-d '{     "ami_id": 
		"ami-1234567890abcdef0",     
		"finding_type": "CVE",     
		"finding_id": "CVE-2024-XXXX",     
		"severity": "CRITICAL"   
	}'

This analysis returns impact information including:

  • Affected AMIs in the lineage chain
  • Running instances requiring immediate remediation
  • Affected AWS accounts and regions for coordinated response
  • Associated auto-scaling groups and launch templates that need updates
  • Compliance impact assessment for regulatory reporting
  • Detailed remediation steps prioritized by risk level.

Compliance monitoring operates continuously through automated assessment capabilities that evaluate your AMI estate against organizational policies and regulatory requirements. Teams can generate comprehensive compliance reports that show adherence to security standards across their entire infrastructure.

# Generate comprehensive compliance report (Security Tooling Account API) 
curl -X POST "https://<api-gateway-id>.execute-api.<region>.amazonaws.com/v1/api/v1/compliance-assessment" \   
	-H "Content-Type: application/json" \   
	-H "x-api-key: <your-api-key>" \   
	-d '{     
		"rules": [       
    		"required_tags",       
    		"approved_source_validation",       
    		"security_scan_status",       
    		"naming_convention",       
    		"lineage_verification"     
		],     
		"scope": "ORGANIZATION"   
	}'

The solution provides security automation and remediation through configurable automated responses to security events. Security Hub, operating in delegated administrator mode from the security tooling account, can be configured to automatically respond to findings by stopping instances using AMIs with critical vulnerabilities, quarantining instances launched from unapproved sources, and sending immediate notifications for high-severity findings.

Security visualization and reporting capabilities, centralized in the security tooling account, provide real-time dashboards showing:

  • Compliance status across the organization
  • Scoping visualization for rapid decision-making
  • AMI approval workflow status for process monitoring
  • Patch compliance metrics for maintaining security posture
  • Automated remediation activity logs for audit purposes
  • Custom security reports tailored to specific organizational needs.

For security investigations and audit purposes, the solution maintains a queryable audit trail that provides a complete history of AMIs, including creation and modification events, security scanning results and findings, approval workflow history, and compliance status changes over time.

# Query comprehensive audit history (Security Tooling Account API) 
curl -X GET "https://<api-gateway-id>.execute-api.<region>.amazonaws.com/v1/api/v1/ami/ami-1234567890abcdef0/lineage?direction=both&depth=10" \   
	-H "x-api-key: <your-api-key>"

Clean up

To decommission the AMI Lineage solution, use the following steps to prevent dependency errors. The process is the reverse of the deployment.

  1. (Optional) Back up your data. Before you begin, export critical data for your audit and compliance records. This includes generating final compliance reports from the API or creating a final snapshot of the Neptune database (you will be prompted to do this when you delete the cluster).
  2. Run cleanup in member accounts. Sign in to each participating member account and run the cleanup script from the deployment files. This removes the local EventBridge rules, AWS Config rules, and cross-account IAM roles.
    # In each Member Account 
    cd deployment-scripts/child-account
    ./cleanup-child-account-resources.sh 
    # Removes Config rules and cross-account roles from each member account

  3. Run cleanup in the security tooling account. Sign in to your security tooling account and run the cleanup script. This decommissions the core solution, including the API gateway, Lambda functions, Neptune cluster, and the associated VPC.
    # Clean up security tooling account   
    cd deployment-scripts/shared
    
    ./cleanup-shared-resources.sh 
    # Removes Neptune, Lambda, API Gateway, SNS, and Security Hub components

  4. Run cleanup in the organization management account. Sign in to your organization management account to remove the organization-level resources.
    1. Run the cleanup script to remove the organization-wide EventBridge rules.
      # Clean up organization management account
      
      cd deployment-scripts/organization
      
      ./cleanup-organization-resources.sh   
      # Removes SCPs, EventBridge rules, and cross-account trust policies

    2. In the AWS Organizations console, detach and delete the AMI-Governance-Controls SCP.
    3. In the Security Hub and GuardDuty consoles, remove the security tooling account as the delegated administrator.
  5. Delete final data and encryption keys. After the solution’s infrastructure is removed, you can delete the remaining assets.
    1. In the security tooling account,empty and delete the S3 bucket that held the deployment artifacts.
    2. In the organization management account,schedule the deletion of the KMS keys you created for encrypting the solution’s data.

Conclusion

In this blog post, we showed you how you can use the AMI Lineage solution to build a comprehensive approach to tracking the complete history of your AMIs from creation to decommissioning. By storing this data in an Amazon Neptune graph database, you can build a hierarchical view of the relationships between your EC2 instances and the AMIs they were launched from. You learned how that data can be used to improve security response and remediation and assist in auditing and compliance activities.

The solution uses AWS Organizations to provide preventative controls to help ensure that only approved AMIs are used and integrates AWS security services like Amazon GuardDuty, AWS Security Hub, and AWS Config to add additional layers of security monitoring and management. Finally, you saw how the solution can be used during a security event or when new CVEs are published, so that you can rapidly discover which systems are affected and automate responses based on those findings.

While this solution provides powerful capabilities, it’s important to consider the operational and cost aspects. The core components, particularly Neptune, have associated costs that will scale with the size of your AMI estate. We recommend implementing cost monitoring and alerts as part of your deployment. Furthermore, because the solution is event-driven, you should plan a one-time backfill process to ingest your organization’s existing AMI history into the graph database. For organizations that require this level of granular control and visibility, these operational considerations are offset by the significant gains in security posture and compliance automation.

AMI Lineage transforms AMI governance from a manual, error-prone process into an automated, comprehensive security capability that scales with your organization’s growth. By implementing this solution, your organization can gain the visibility, control, and automated response capabilities needed to maintain a strong security posture while enabling rapid, secure deployment of infrastructure across its AWS environment.


If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below. If you have questions about this post, contact AWS Support.

Luis Pastor

Luis Pastor

Luis is a Senior Security Solutions Architect at AWS leading the Infrastructure Security and Compliance Technical Field Communities. He drives security architecture for enterprise customers across financial services, healthcare, and retail, specializing in cloud security transformation and regulatory compliance frameworks. Before AWS, Luis architected security solutions in hybrid cloud environments.

George'son Tib.

George’son Tib.

George’son is a Solutions Architect focused on Infrastructure Security at AWS, working with Enterprise customers in the Auto and Manufacturing Industry. He specializes in helping organizations build robust, automated control frameworks that enhance their security posture and drive operational efficiency.

Geoff Sweet

Geoff Sweet

Geoff has been in industry since the late 1990s. He began his career in electrical engineering. Starting in IT during the dot-com boom, he has held a variety of diverse roles, such as systems architect, network architect, and, for the past several years, security architect. Geoff specializes in infrastructure security.

Bharat Lakhiyani

Bharat Lakhiyani

Bharat is a senior solutions architect at AWS. With more than 12 years of experience spanning FinOps, cybersecurity, AI/ML, and enterprise architecture, he specializes in guiding travel and hospitality customers through their digital transformation journeys. Outside of work, Bharat enjoys baking, exploring new restaurants, driving scenic routes, and hiking the trails of North Carolina.

Navigating 2026’s Converged Threats: Insights from Flashpoint’s Global Threat Intelligence Report

Blogs

Blog

Navigating 2026’s Converged Threats: Insights from Flashpoint’s Global Threat Intelligence Report

In this post, we preview the critical findings of the 2026 Global Threat Intelligence Report, highlighting how the collapse of traditional security silos and the rise of autonomous, machine-speed attacks are forcing a total reimagining of modern defense.

SHARE THIS:
Default Author Image
March 11, 2026

The cybersecurity landscape has reached a point of total convergence, where the silos that once separated malware, identity, and infrastructure have collapsed into a single, high-velocity threat engine. Simultaneously, the threat landscape is shifting from human-led attacks to machine-speed operations as a result of agentic AI, which acts as a force multiplier for the modern adversary.

Flashpoint’s 2026 Global Threat Intelligence Report

Flashpoint’s 2026 Global Threat Intelligence Report (GTIR) was developed to anchor security leaders — from threat intelligence and vulnerability management teams to physical security professionals and the CISO’s office — with the data required to navigate this year’s greatest threats, rife with infostealers, vulnerabilities, ransomware, and malicious insiders.

Our report uncovers several staggering metrics that illustrate the industrialization of modern cybercrime:

  • AI-related illicit activity skyrocketed by 1,500% in a single month at the end of 2025.
  • 3.3 billion compromised credentials and cloud tokens have turned identity into the primary exploit vector.
  • From January 2025 to December 2025, ransomware incidents rose by 53%, as attackers pivot from technical encryption to “pure-play” identity extortion.
  • Vulnerability disclosures surged by 12% from January 2025 to December 2025, with the window between discovery and mass exploitation effectively vanishing.

These findings are derived from Flashpoint’s Primary Source Collection (PSC), a specialized operating model that collects intelligence directly from original sources, driven by an organization’s unique Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIR). The 2026 Global Threat Intelligence Report leverages this ground-truth data to provide a strategic framework for the year ahead. Download to gain:

  1. A Clear Understanding of the New Convergence Between Identity and AI
    Discover how threat actors are preparing to transition from generative tools to sophisticated agentic frameworks. Learn how 3.3 billion compromised credentials are being weaponized via automated orchestration to bypass legacy defenses and exploit the connective tissue of modern corporate APIs.
  2. Intelligence on the “Franchise Model” of Global Extortion
    Gain deep insight into the professionalized operations of today’s most prolific threat actors. From the industrial efficiency of RaaS groups like RansomHub and Clop to the market dominance of the next generation of infostealer malware, we break down the economics driving today’s cybercrime ecosystem.
  3. A Blueprint for Proactive Defense and Risk Mitigation
    Leverage the latest trends, in-depth analysis, and data-driven insights driven by Primary Source Collection to bolster your security posture by identifying and proactively defending against rising attack vectors.

As attackers automate exploitation of identity, vulnerabilities, and ransomware, defenders who rely on fragmented visibility will fall behind. To keep pace, organizations must ground their decisions in primary-source intelligence that is drawn from adversarial environments, so that decision-makers can get ahead of this accelerating threat cycle.”

Josh Lefkowitz, CEO & Co-Founder at Flashpoint

The Top Threats at a Glance

Our latest report identifies four driving themes shaping the 2026 threat landscape:

2026 Is the Era of Agentic-Based Cyberattacks

Flashpoint identified a 1,500% rise in AI-related illicit discussions between November and December 2025, signaling a rapid transition from criminal curiosity to the active development of malicious frameworks. Built on data pulled from criminal environments and shaped by fraud use cases, these systems scrape data, adjust messaging for specific targets, rotate infrastructure, and learn from failed attempts without the need for constant human involvement.

2026 is the era of agentic-based cyberattacks. We’ve seen a 1,500% increase in AI-related illicit discussions in a single month, signaling increased interest in developing malicious frameworks. The discussions evolve into vibe-coded, AI-supported phishing lures, malware, and cybercrime venues. When iteration becomes cheap through automation, attackers can afford to fail repeatedly until they find a successful foothold.

Ian Gray, Vice President of Cyber Threat Intelligence Operations at Flashpoint

Identity Is the New Exploit

Flashpoint observed over 11.1 million machines infected with infostealers in 2025, fueling a massive inventory of 3.3 billion stolen credentials and cloud tokens. The fundamental mechanics of cybercrime have shifted from breaking in to logging in, as attackers leverage stolen session cookies to behave like legitimate users.

The Patching Window Is Rapidly Closing

Vulnerability disclosures surged by 12% in 2025, with 1 in 3 (33%) vulnerabilities having publicly available exploit code. The strategic gap between discovery and weaponization is increasingly vanishing, as evidenced by mass exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities in as little as 24 hours after discovery.

Ransomware Is Hacking the Person, Not the Code

As technical defenses against encryption harden, ransomware groups are pivoting to the path of least resistance: human trust. This approach has led to a 53% increase in ransomware, with RaaS groups being responsible for over 87% of all ransomware attacks.

Build Resilience in a Converged Landscape

The findings in the 2026 Global Threat Intelligence Report make one thing clear: incremental improvements to legacy security models are no longer sufficient. As adversaries transition to machine-speed operations, the strategic advantage shifts to organizations that can maintain visibility into the adversarial environments where these attacks are born.

Protecting organizations and communities requires an intelligence-first approach. Download Flashpoint’s 2026 Global Threat Intelligence Report to gain clarity and the data-driven insights needed to safeguard critical assets.

Get Your Copy

The post Navigating 2026’s Converged Threats: Insights from Flashpoint’s Global Threat Intelligence Report appeared first on Flashpoint.

What to Know About the Notepad++ Supply-Chain Attack

26 February 2026 at 15:40

Blogs

Blog

What to Know About the Notepad++ Supply-Chain Attack

In this post we examine the mechanics of the CVE-2025-15556 supply-chain attack and provide actionable steps to secure your environment.

SHARE THIS:
Default Author Image
February 26, 2026

The cybersecurity community is still grappling with a sobering realization: one of the most ubiquitous tools in the developer’s toolkit, Notepad++, was hiding a critical vulnerability for over six months. Being so deeply embedded in daily workflows, many organizations did not realize they were vulnerable until a recent security update pulled back the curtain on a sophisticated Chinese state-sponsored campaign, dubbed “Lotus Blossom.”

Investigations have confirmed that the issue wasn’t just a coding error, it was a compromise at the hosting provider level. This means that for much of 2025, even organizations that followed best practices were still potentially open to backdoors from Chinese advanced persistent threat (APT) groups. Here is what you need to know to secure your environment.

Understanding the Notepad++ Vulnerability (CVE-2025-15556)

The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2025-15556 (VulnDB ID: 430205), exploits a critical flaw in the Notepad++ updater component, WinGUP. In versions prior to the February 2026 patch, the updater failed to verify the file integrity signatures of downloaded installers.

By exploiting this lack of verification, threat actors are able to:

  • Intercept legitimate update requests originating from WinGUp servers
  • Redirect traffic to malicious servers via Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks or DNS cache poisoning
  • Deliver trojanized executables (disguised as update.exe) that appeared to be legitimate software patches

Leveraging this vulnerability, attackers have gained a persistent presence in high-value sectors. According to reports from Kaspersky, the impact has spanned government and telecommunications, critical infrastructure, and financial services.

How CVE-2025-15556 Works

The state-sponsored Lotus Blossom campaign was executed in three attack chains, between July and October 2025. Each phase evolved to evade detection by changing file sizes, IP addresses, and delivery methods.

PhaseTimeline (2025)Execution MethodPayload
Chain #1July – August1MB NSIS installer (update.exe)Multi-stage attack launching a Cobalt Strike beacon via ProShow.exe.
Chain #2September140KB NSIS installer (update.exe)Rotated C2 URLs to maintain stealth while dropping a Cobalt Strike beacon.
Chain #3OctoberBackdoor DeploymentDropped BluetoothService.exe, log.DLL, and shellcode to establish the Chrysalis backdoor.

Mapping CVE-2025-15556 to MITRE ATT&CK

Flashpoint has mapped Lotus Blossom TTPs (tactics, tools, and procedures) to the MITRE ATT&CK framework. Flashpoint analysts have identified the following techniques:

Execution

Technique TitleIDRecommendations
User Execution: Malicious FileT1204.002M1040: Behavior Prevention on Endpoint
M1038: Execution Prevention
M1017: User Training
Native APIT1106M1040: Behavior Prevention on Endpoint
M1038: Execution Prevention
Command and Scripting Interpreter: Windows Command ShellT1059.003M1038: Execution Prevention

Persistence

Technique TitleIDRecommendations
Hijack Execution Flow: DLLT1574.002M1013: Application Developer Guidance
M1047: Audit
M1038: Execution Prevention
M1044: Restrict Library Loading
M1051: Update Software
Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Registry Run Keys / Startup FolderT1547.001*MITRE currently does not list any mitigation guidance to combat this attack technique.
Create or Modify System Process: Windows ServiceT1543.003M1047: Audit
M1040: Behavior Prevention on Endpoint
M1045: Code Signing
M1028: Operating System Configuration
M1018: User Account Management

Defense Evasion

Technique TitleIDRecommendations
MasqueradingT1036M1049: Antivirus/Antimalware
M1047: Audit
M1040: Behavior Prevention on Endpoint
M1045: Code Signing
M1038: Execution Prevention
M1022: Restrict File and Directory Permissions
M1018: User Account Management
M1017: User Training
Obfuscated Files or InformationT1027M1049: Antivirus/Antimalware
M1047: Audit
M1040: Behavior Prevention on Endpoint
M1017: User Training
Obfuscated Files or Information: Dynamic API ResolutionT1027.007*MITRE currently does not list any mitigation guidance to combat this attack technique.
Deobfuscate/Decode Files or InformationT1140*MITRE currently does not list any mitigation guidance to combat this attack technique.
Process InjectionT1055M1040: Behavior Prevention on Endpoint
M1026: Privileged Account Management
Reflective Code LoadingT1620*MITRE currently does not list any mitigation guidance to combat this attack technique.
Execution Guardrails: Mutual ExclusionT1480.002M1055: Do Not Mitigate
Indicator Removal: File DeletionT1070.004*MITRE currently does not list any mitigation guidance to combat this attack technique.

Discovery

Technique TitleIDRecommendations
File and Directory DiscoveryT1083*MITRE currently does not list any mitigation guidance to combat this attack technique.
Ingress Tool TransferT1105M1031: Network Intrusion Prevention

Collection

Technique TitleIDRecommendations
Data from Local SystemT1005M1057: Data Loss Prevention

Command and Control

Technique TitleIDRecommendations
Application Layer Protocol: Web ProtocolsT1071.001M1031: Network Intrusion Prevention
Encrypted ChannelT1573M1031: Network Intrusion Prevention
M1020: SSL/TLS Inspection

Exfiltration

Technique TitleIDRecommendations
Exfiltration Over C2 ChannelT1041M1057: Data Loss Prevention
M1031: Network Intrusion Prevention

Protecting Against CVE-2025-15556

Proactive defense requires not only reactive patching of CVE-2025-15556, but also active threat hunting using the TTPs identified by Flashpoint analysts. Flashpoint recommends the following actions:

  1. Immediate Update: Ensure all instances of Notepad ++ are updated to v8.9.1 or higher immediately. This version enforces the signature verification that was missing in previous releases.
  2. Audit System Paths: Scan for malicious file paths used for persistence.
  3. Network Defense: Monitor and block traffic to malicious domains.
  4. Endpoint Hardening: Implement Behavior Prevention on Endpoints (M1040) and Audit (M1047) to detect unauthorized registry run keys or new system services.

Outpace Threat Actors Using Flashpoint

Software trust is only as strong as the infrastructure behind it. As organizations respond to these recent updates, having best-in-class vulnerability intelligence and direct visibility into threat actor TTPs is the best defense.

Leveraging Flashpoint vulnerability intelligence, organizations can move beyond CVE and NVD, by gaining deeper technical analysis and MITRE ATT&CK mapping to defend against sophisticated threat actors. Request a demo to learn more.

Begin your free trial today.

The post What to Know About the Notepad++ Supply-Chain Attack appeared first on Flashpoint.

N-Day Vulnerability Trends: The Shrinking Window of Exposure and the Rise of “Turn-Key” Exploitation

11 February 2026 at 16:46

Blogs

Blog

N-Day Vulnerability Trends: The Shrinking Window of Exposure and the Rise of “Turn-Key” Exploitation

In this post we explore the data-driven shrinkage of the Time to Exploit (TTE) window from 745 days to just 44, and examine why N-day vulnerabilities have become the “turn-key” weapon of choice for modern threat actors.

SHARE THIS:
Default Author Image
February 11, 2026

The race between defenders and threat actors has entered a new, more volatile phase: the rapidly accelerating exploitation of N-day vulnerabilities. Different from zero-days, N-day vulnerabilities are known security flaws that have been publicly disclosed but remain unpatched or unmitigated on an organization’s systems.

Historically, enterprises operated under the assumption of a “patching grace period,” the designated window of time allowed for a vendor to test and deploy a fix before a system is considered non-compliant or at high risk. However, this window is effectively collapsing, with Flashpoint finding that N-days now represent over 80% of all Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEVs) tracked over the past four years.

The Collapse of the Time to Exploit (TTE) Window

The most sobering trend for security operations (SecOps) and exposure management teams is the dramatic reduction in Time to Exploit (TTE). In 2020, the average TTE, the time between a vulnerability’s disclosure and its first observed exploitation, was 745 days. By 2025, Flashpoint found that this window has now plummeted to an average of just 44 days.

202520242023202220212020
Average TTE44115296405518745

This contraction represents a strategic shift in adversary tempo. Attackers are no longer waiting for complex, bespoke exploits; they are moving at breakneck speeds to weaponize public disclosures.

N-Days Provide a “Turn-Key” Exploit Advantage

Adversaries have gained a significant advantage through the rapid weaponization of researcher-published Proof-of-Concept (PoC) code. When a fully functional exploit is released alongside a vulnerability disclosure, it becomes a “turn-key” solution for attackers. By combining these ready-made exploits with internet-wide scanning tools like Shodan or FOFA, even unsophisticated threat actors can conduct mass exploitation across large segments of the internet in hours.

A prime example of this path of least resistance approach was observed in the leaked internal chat logs of the BlackBasta ransomware group. Analysis revealed that of the 65 CVEs discussed by the group, 54 were already known KEVs. Rather than spending resources on original zero-day research, threat actors are simply leveraging known, yet unpatched and exploitable vulnerabilities for their campaigns.

Defensive Software is a Primary Target for N-Days

The very software designed to protect enterprise firewalls, VPN gateways, and edge networking devices is consistently the most targeted category for both N-day and zero-day exploitation.

Because cybersecurity devices must be internet-facing to function, they provide a constant, unauthenticated attack surface. In 2025 alone, Flashpoint observed 37 N-days and 52 zero-days specifically targeting security and perimeter software. The requirement for these systems to remain open to external traffic means they will continue to be disproportionately targeted by advanced persistent threat (APT) groups and cybercriminals alike.

Attributing N-Day Attacks

While tracking the “how” of an attack is critical, tracking who is responsible remains a fragmented challenge for the industry. Attribution is often hampered by naming fatigue, where different vendors assign their own designated unique monikers to the same actor. For instance, the widely known threat actor group Lazarus has over 40 distinct designations across the industry, including “Diamond Sleet,” “NICKEL ACADEMY,” and “Guardians of Peace”.

Despite these naming complexities, global activity patterns remain clear. China remains the most active nation-state actor in the vulnerability exploitation space, consistently outpacing Russia, Iran, and North Korea in both the volume and scope of their campaigns.

Obstacles for Enterprise Security: Asset Blindness and the CVE Dependency Trap

Why are organizations struggling to keep pace? The primary factor isn’t a lack of effort, but a lack of visibility.

1. The Asset Inventory Gap

The single greatest breakthrough an enterprise can achieve is not a new AI tool, but a complete asset inventory. Most large organizations are lucky to have an accurate inventory of even 25% of their total assets. Without knowing what you own, vulnerability scans can take days or weeks to return results that the adversary is already using to probe your network.

2. The CVE Blindspot

Most traditional security tools are CVE-dependent. However, thousands of vulnerabilities are disclosed every year that never receive an official CVE ID. These “missing” vulnerabilities represent a massive blindspot for standard scanners. Intelligence-led exposure management requires looking beyond the CVE ecosystem into proprietary databases like Flashpoint’s VulnDB™, which tracks over 105,000 vulnerabilities that public sources miss.

Move Towards Intelligence-Led Exposure Management Using Flashpoint

To survive in an era where weaponization can happen in under 24 hours, organizations must shift from reactive patching to a threat-informed and proactive security approach. This means:

  • Prioritizing by Exploitability and Threat Actor Activity: Focus on vulnerabilities that are remotely exploitable and have known public exploits, rather than just high CVSS scores.
  • Adopting an Asset-Inventory Approach: Moving away from slow, periodic scans in favor of continuous asset mapping that allows for immediate triage.
  • Operationalizing Intelligence: Embedding real-time threat data directly into SOC and IR workflows to reduce the “mean time to action”.

The goal of exposure management is to look at your organization through the adversary’s lens. By understanding which N-days threat actors are actually discussing and weaponizing in the wild, defenders can finally start to close the window of exposure before a potential compromise can occur.

Flashpoint’s vulnerability threat intelligence can help your organization go from reactive to proactive. Request a demo today and gain access to quality vulnerability intelligence that enables intelligence-led exposure management.

Request a demo today.

The post N-Day Vulnerability Trends: The Shrinking Window of Exposure and the Rise of “Turn-Key” Exploitation appeared first on Flashpoint.

Flashpoint Weekly Vulnerability Insights and Prioritization Report

Blogs

Blog

Flashpoint Weekly Vulnerability Insights and Prioritization Report

Week of December 20 – December 26, 2025

Anticipate, contextualize, and prioritize vulnerabilities to effectively address threats to your organization.

SHARE THIS:
Default Author Image
December 31, 2025

Flashpoint’s VulnDB™ documents over 400,000 vulnerabilities and has over 6,000 entries in Flashpoint’s KEV database, making it a critical resource as vulnerability exploitation rises. However, if your organization is relying solely on CVE data, you may be missing critical vulnerability metadata and insights that hinder timely remediation. That’s why we created this weekly series—where we surface and analyze the most high priority vulnerabilities security teams need to know about.

Key Vulnerabilities:
Week of December 20 – December 26, 2025

Foundational Prioritization

Of the vulnerabilities Flashpoint published this week, there are 34 that you can take immediate action on. They each have a solution, a public exploit exists, and are remotely exploitable. As such, these vulnerabilities are a great place to begin your prioritization efforts.

Diving Deeper – Urgent Vulnerabilities

Of the vulnerabilities Flashpoint published last week, four are highlighted in this week’s Vulnerability Insights and Prioritization Report because they contain one or more of the following criteria:

  • Are in widely used products and are potentially enterprise-affecting
  • Are exploited in the wild or have exploits available
  • Allow full system compromise
  • Can be exploited via the network alone or in combination with other vulnerabilities
  • Have a solution to take action on

In addition, all of these vulnerabilities are easily discoverable and therefore should be investigated and fixed immediately.

To proactively address these vulnerabilities and ensure comprehensive coverage beyond publicly available sources on an ongoing basis, organizations can leverage Flashpoint Vulnerability Intelligence. Flashpoint provides comprehensive coverage encompassing IT, OT, IoT, CoTs, and open-source libraries and dependencies. It catalogs over 100,000 vulnerabilities that are not included in the NVD or lack a CVE ID, ensuring thorough coverage beyond publicly available sources. The vulnerabilities that are not covered by the NVD do not yet have CVE ID assigned and will be noted with a VulnDB ID.

CVE IDTitleCVSS Scores (v2, v3, v4)Exploit StatusExploit ConsequenceRansomware Likelihood ScoreSocial Risk ScoreSolution Availability
CVE-2025-33222NVIDIA Isaac Launchable Unspecified Hardcoded Credentials5.0
9.8
9.3
PrivateCredential DisclosureHighLowYes
CVE-2025-33223NVIDIA Isaac Launchable Unspecified Improper Execution Privileges Remote Code Execution10.0
9.8
9.3
PrivateRemote Code ExecutionHighLowYes
CVE-2025-68613n8n Package for Node.js packages/workflow/src/expression-evaluator-proxy.ts Workflow Expression Evaluation Remote Code Execution9.0
9.9
9.4
PublicRemote Code ExecutionHighHighYes
CVE-2025-14847MongoDB transport/message_compressor_zlib.cpp ZlibMessageCompressor::decompressData() Function Zlib Compressed Protocol Header Handling Remote Uninitialized Memory Disclosure (Mongobleed)10.0
9.8
9.3
PublicUninitialized Memory DisclosureHighHighYes
Scores as of: December 30, 2025

NOTES: The severity of a given vulnerability score can change whenever new information becomes available. Flashpoint maintains its vulnerability database with the most recent and relevant information available. Login to view more vulnerability metadata and for the most up-to-date information.

CVSS scores: Our analysts calculate, and if needed, adjust NVD’s original CVSS scores based on new information being available.

Social Risk Score: Flashpoint estimates how much attention a vulnerability receives on social media. Increased mentions and discussions elevate the Social Risk Score, indicating a higher likelihood of exploitation. The score considers factors like post volume and authors, and decreases as the vulnerability’s relevance diminishes.

Ransomware Likelihood: This score is a rating that estimates the similarity between a vulnerability and those known to be used in ransomware attacks. As we learn more information about a vulnerability (e.g. exploitation method, technology affected) and uncover additional vulnerabilities used in ransomware attacks, this rating can change.

Flashpoint Ignite lays all of these components out. Below is an example of what this vulnerability record for CVE-2025-33223 looks like.



This record provides additional metadata like affected product versions, MITRE ATT&CK mapping, analyst notes, solution description, classifications, vulnerability timeline and exposure metrics, exploit references and more.

Analyst Comments on the Notable Vulnerabilities

Below, Flashpoint analysts describe the five vulnerabilities highlighted above as vulnerabilities that should be of focus for remediation if your organization is exposed.

CVE-2025-33222

NVIDIA Isaac Launchable contains a flaw that is triggered by the use of unspecified hardcoded credentials. This may allow a remote attacker to trivially gain privileged access to the program.

CVE-2025-33223

NVIDIA Isaac Launchable contains an unspecified flaw that is triggered as certain activities are executed with unnecessary privileges. This may allow a remote attacker to potentially execute arbitrary code.

CVE-2025-68613

n8n Package for Node.js contains a flaw in packages/workflow/src/expression-evaluator-proxy.ts that is triggered as workflow expressions are evaluated in an improperly isolated execution context. This may allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the n8n process.

CVE-2025-14847

MongoDB contains a flaw in the ZlibMessageCompressor::decompressData() function in mongo/transport/message_compressor_zlib.cpp that is triggered when handling mismatched length fields in Zlib compressed protocol headers. This may allow a remote attacker to disclose uninitialized memory contents on the heap.

Previously Highlighted Vulnerabilities

CVE/VulnDB IDFlashpoint Published Date
CVE-2025-21218Week of January 15, 2025
CVE-2024-57811Week of January 15, 2025
CVE-2024-55591Week of January 15, 2025
CVE-2025-23006Week of January 22, 2025
CVE-2025-20156Week of January 22, 2025
CVE-2024-50664Week of January 22, 2025
CVE-2025-24085Week of January 29, 2025
CVE-2024-40890Week of January 29, 2025
CVE-2024-40891Week of January 29, 2025
VulnDB ID: 389414Week of January 29, 2025
CVE-2025-25181Week of February 5, 2025
CVE-2024-40890Week of February 5, 2025
CVE-2024-40891Week of February 5, 2025
CVE-2024-8266Week of February 12, 2025
CVE-2025-0108Week of February 12, 2025
CVE-2025-24472Week of February 12, 2025
CVE-2025-21355Week of February 24, 2025
CVE-2025-26613Week of February 24, 2025
CVE-2024-13789Week of February 24, 2025
CVE-2025-1539Week of February 24, 2025
CVE-2025-27364Week of March 3, 2025
CVE-2025-27140Week of March 3, 2025
CVE-2025-27135Week of March 3, 2025
CVE-2024-8420Week of March 3, 2025
CVE-2024-56196Week of March 10, 2025
CVE-2025-27554Week of March 10, 2025
CVE-2025-22224Week of March 10, 2025
CVE-2025-1393Week of March 10, 2025
CVE-2025-24201Week of March 17, 2025
CVE-2025-27363Week of March 17, 2025
CVE-2025-2000Week of March 17, 2025
CVE-2025-27636
CVE-2025-29891
Week of March 17, 2025
CVE-2025-1496
Week of March 24, 2025
CVE-2025-27781Week of March 24, 2025
CVE-2025-29913Week of March 24, 2025
CVE-2025-2746Week of March 24, 2025
CVE-2025-29927Week of March 24, 2025
CVE-2025-1974 CVE-2025-2787Week of March 31, 2025
CVE-2025-30259Week of March 31, 2025
CVE-2025-2783Week of March 31, 2025
CVE-2025-30216Week of March 31, 2025
CVE-2025-22457Week of April 2, 2025
CVE-2025-2071Week of April 2, 2025
CVE-2025-30356Week of April 2, 2025
CVE-2025-3015Week of April 2, 2025
CVE-2025-31129Week of April 2, 2025
CVE-2025-3248Week of April 7, 2025
CVE-2025-27797Week of April 7, 2025
CVE-2025-27690Week of April 7, 2025
CVE-2025-32375Week of April 7, 2025
VulnDB ID: 398725Week of April 7, 2025
CVE-2025-32433Week of April 12, 2025
CVE-2025-1980Week of April 12, 2025
CVE-2025-32068Week of April 12, 2025
CVE-2025-31201Week of April 12, 2025
CVE-2025-3495Week of April 12, 2025
CVE-2025-31324Week of April 17, 2025
CVE-2025-42599Week of April 17, 2025
CVE-2025-32445Week of April 17, 2025
VulnDB ID: 400516Week of April 17, 2025
CVE-2025-22372Week of April 17, 2025
CVE-2025-32432Week of April 29, 2025
CVE-2025-24522Week of April 29, 2025
CVE-2025-46348Week of April 29, 2025
CVE-2025-43858Week of April 29, 2025
CVE-2025-32444Week of April 29, 2025
CVE-2025-20188Week of May 3, 2025
CVE-2025-29972Week of May 3, 2025
CVE-2025-32819Week of May 3, 2025
CVE-2025-27007Week of May 3, 2025
VulnDB ID: 402907Week of May 3, 2025
VulnDB ID: 405228Week of May 17, 2025
CVE-2025-47277Week of May 17, 2025
CVE-2025-34027Week of May 17, 2025
CVE-2025-47646Week of May 17, 2025
VulnDB ID: 405269Week of May 17, 2025
VulnDB ID: 406046Week of May 19, 2025
CVE-2025-48926Week of May 19, 2025
CVE-2025-47282Week of May 19, 2025
CVE-2025-48054Week of May 19, 2025
CVE-2025-41651Week of May 19, 2025
CVE-2025-20289Week of June 3, 2025
CVE-2025-5597Week of June 3, 2025
CVE-2025-20674Week of June 3, 2025
CVE-2025-5622Week of June 3, 2025
CVE-2025-5419Week of June 3, 2025
CVE-2025-33053Week of June 7, 2025
CVE-2025-5353Week of June 7, 2025
CVE-2025-22455Week of June 7, 2025
CVE-2025-43200Week of June 7, 2025
CVE-2025-27819Week of June 7, 2025
CVE-2025-49132Week of June 13, 2025
CVE-2025-49136Week of June 13, 2025
CVE-2025-50201Week of June 13, 2025
CVE-2025-49125Week of June 13, 2025
CVE-2025-24288Week of June 13, 2025
CVE-2025-6543Week of June 21, 2025
CVE-2025-3699Week of June 21, 2025
CVE-2025-34046Week of June 21, 2025
CVE-2025-34036Week of June 21, 2025
CVE-2025-34044Week of June 21, 2025
CVE-2025-7503Week of July 12, 2025
CVE-2025-6558Week of July 12, 2025
VulnDB ID: 411705Week of July 12, 2025
VulnDB ID: 411704Week of July 12, 2025
CVE-2025-6222Week of July 12, 2025
CVE-2025-54309Week of July 18, 2025
CVE-2025-53771Week of July 18, 2025
CVE-2025-53770Week of July 18, 2025
CVE-2025-54122Week of July 18, 2025
CVE-2025-52166Week of July 18, 2025
CVE-2025-53942Week of July 25, 2025
CVE-2025-46811Week of July 25, 2025
CVE-2025-52452Week of July 25, 2025
CVE-2025-41680Week of July 25, 2025
CVE-2025-34143Week of July 25, 2025
CVE-2025-50454Week of August 1, 2025
CVE-2025-8875Week of August 1, 2025
CVE-2025-8876Week of August 1, 2025
CVE-2025-55150Week of August 1, 2025
CVE-2025-25256Week of August 1, 2025
CVE-2025-43300Week of August 16, 2025
CVE-2025-34153Week of August 16, 2025
CVE-2025-48148Week of August 16, 2025
VulnDB ID: 416058Week of August 16, 2025
CVE-2025-32992Week of August 16, 2025
CVE-2025-7775Week of August 24, 2025
CVE-2025-8424Week of August 24, 2025
CVE-2025-34159Week of August 24, 2025
CVE-2025-57819Week of August 24, 2025
CVE-2025-7426Week of August 24, 2025
CVE-2025-58367Week of September 1, 2025
CVE-2025-58159Week of September 1, 2025
CVE-2025-58048Week of September 1, 2025
CVE-2025-39247Week of September 1, 2025
CVE-2025-8857Week of September 1, 2025
CVE-2025-58321Week of September 8, 2025
CVE-2025-58366Week of September 8, 2025
CVE-2025-58371Week of September 8, 2025
CVE-2025-55728Week of September 8, 2025
CVE-2025-55190Week of September 8, 2025
VulnDB ID: 419253Week of September 13, 2025
CVE-2025-10035Week of September 13, 2025
CVE-2025-59346Week of September 13, 2025
CVE-2025-55727Week of September 13, 2025
CVE-2025-10159Week of September 13, 2025
CVE-2025-20363Week of September 20, 2025
CVE-2025-20333Week of September 20, 2025
CVE-2022-4980Week of September 20, 2025
VulnDB ID: 420451Week of September 20, 2025
CVE-2025-9900Week of September 20, 2025
CVE-2025-52906Week of September 27, 2025
CVE-2025-51495Week of September 27, 2025
CVE-2025-27224Week of September 27, 2025
CVE-2025-27223Week of September 27, 2025
CVE-2025-54875Week of September 27, 2025
CVE-2025-41244Week of September 27, 2025
CVE-2025-61928Week of October 6, 2025
CVE-2025-61882Week of October 6, 2025
CVE-2025-49844Week of October 6 2025
CVE-2025-57870Week of October 6, 2025
CVE-2025-34224Week of October 6, 2025
CVE-2025-34222Week of October 6, 2025
CVE-2025-40765Week of October 11, 2025
CVE-2025-59230Week of October 11, 2025
CVE-2025-24990Week of October 11, 2025
CVE-2025-61884Week of October 11, 2025
CVE-2025-41430Week of October 11, 2025
VulnDB ID: 424051Week of October 18, 2025
CVE-2025-62645Week of October 18, 2025
CVE-2025-61932Week of October 18, 2025
CVE-2025-59503Week of October 18, 2025
CVE-2025-43995Week of October 18, 2025
CVE-2025-62168Week of October 18, 2025
VulnDB ID: 425182Week of October 25, 2025
CVE-2025-62713Week of October 25, 2025
CVE-2025-54964Week of October 25, 2025
CVE-2024-58274Week of October 25, 2025
CVE-2025-41723Week of October 25, 2025
CVE-2025-20354Week of November 1, 2025
CVE-2025-11953Week of November 1, 2025
CVE-2025-60854Week of November 1, 2025
CVE-2025-64095Week of November 1, 2025
CVE-2025-11833Week of November 1, 2025
CVE-2025-64446Week of November 8, 2025
CVE-2025-36250Week of November 8, 2025
CVE-2025-64400Week of November 8, 2025
CVE-2025-12686Week of November 8, 2025
CVE-2025-59118Week of November 8, 2025
VulnDB ID: 426231Week of November 8, 2025
VulnDB ID: 427979Week of November 22, 2025
CVE-2025-55796Week of November 22, 2025
CVE-2025-64428Week of November 22, 2025
CVE-2025-62703Week of November 22, 2025
VulnDB ID: 428193Week of November 22, 2025
CVE-2025-65018Week of November 22, 2025
CVE-2025-54347Week of November 22, 2025
CVE-2025-55182Week of November 29, 2025
CVE-2024-14007Week of November 29, 2025
CVE-2025-66399Week of November 29, 2025
CVE-2022-35420Week of November 29, 2025
CVE-2025-66516Week of November 29, 2025
CVE-2025-59366Week of November 29, 2025
CVE-2025-14174Week of December 6, 2026
CVE-2025-43529Week of December 6, 2026
CVE-2025-8110Week of December 6, 2026
CVE-2025-59719Week of December 6, 2026
CVE-2025-59718Week of December 6, 2026
CVE-2025-14087Week of December 6, 2026
CVE-2025-62221Week of December 6, 2026

Transform Vulnerability Management with Flashpoint

Request a demo today to see how Flashpoint can transform your vulnerability intelligencevulnerability management, and exposure identification program.

Request a demo today.

Digital Supply Chain Risk: Critical Vulnerability Affecting React Allows for Unauthorized Remote Code Execution

Blogs

Blog

Digital Supply Chain Risk: Critical Vulnerability Affecting React Allows for Unauthorized Remote Code Execution

CVE-2025-55182 (VulnDB ID: 428930), is a severe, unauthenticated RCE impacting a major component of React and its ecosystem, putting global applications at immediate, high-fidelity risk.

SHARE THIS:
Default Author Image
December 4, 2025

The React team disclosed a critical vulnerability impacting three products in the React Server Components (RSC) that allows for unauthenticated remote code execution. 

Flashpoint’s vulnerability research team assesses significant enterprise and supply chain risk given React’s ubiquity: the impacted JavaScript library underpins modern UIs, with 168,640 dependents and more than 51 million weekly downloads.

How CVE-2025-55182 Works

CVE-2025-55182 (VulnDB ID: 428930) impacts all React versions since 19.0.0, meaning that this issue has been potentially exploitable since November 14, 2024. This vulnerability stems from how React handles payloads sent to React Server Function endpoints and deserializes them.

Flashpoint’s VulnDB entry for CVE-2025-55182

Depending on the implementation of this library, a remote, unauthenticated threat actor could send a crafted payload that would be deserialized in a way that causes remote code execution. This would lead to a total compromise of the system hosting the application, allowing for malware such as infostealers, ransomware, or cryptojackers (cryptocurrency mining) to be downloaded.

A working exploit for CVE-2025-55182 has already been published that is effective against some installations. In addition, Amazon has reported that two threat actors, attributed to Chinese Advanced Persistent Threat Groups (APTs), have begun to exploit this vulnerability. Those groups are:

  • Earth Lamia (STAC6451, REF0657, CL-STA-0048)
  • Jackpot Panda (iSoon, DRAGNET PANDA, Anxun Information, deepclif, Poison Carp, Houndstooth Typhoon)

Understanding the Impact and Scope of CVE-2025-55182

It is critical that security teams fully understand the potential downstream scope and impact so that they can fully focus on mitigation, rather than time-consuming research. While the vendor has provided a full disclosure, there are several important caveats to understand about CVE-2025-55182:

  1. Applications not implementing any React Server Function endpoints may still be vulnerable as long as it supports React Server Components.
  2. If an application’s React code does not use a server, it is not affected by this vulnerability.
  3. Applications that do not use a framework, bundler, or bundler plugins that support React Server Components are unaffected by this vulnerability.

Additionally, several React frameworks and bundlers have been discovered to leverage vulnerable React packages in various ways. The following frameworks and bundlers are known to be affected:

  • next
  • react-router
  • waku
  • @parcel/rsc
  • @vitejs/plugin-rsc
  • rwsdk

NPMJS.com currently shows that the react-dom package, which is effectively part of React, has 168,640 dependents. This means that an incredible number of enterprise applications are likely to be affected. Nearly every commercial application is built on hundreds, sometimes thousands of components and dependencies. Furthermore, applications coded via Vibe and similar technology are also likely to leverage React: potentially amplifying the downstream risk this vulnerability poses.

How to Mitigate CVE-2025-55182

For mitigation, the React library has released versions 19.0.1, 19.1.2, and 19.2.1 that resolve the issue. Flashpoint advises organizations to upgrade their respective libraries urgently. Security teams leveraging dynamic SBOMs (Software Bill of Materials) can drastically increase risk mapping and triage for deployed React versions.

CloudFlare has upgraded their web-application firewall (WAF) to protect against CVE-2025-55182. It is available for both free and paid plans but requires that React application traffic is proxied through the CloudFlare WAF.

To avoid confusion, security teams should ignore CVE-2025-66478. It has been rejected for being a duplicate of the preferred CVE-2025-55182.

Mitigate Critical Vulnerabilities Using Flashpoint

Flashpoint strongly recommends security teams treat this vulnerability with utmost urgency. Our vulnerability research team will continue to monitor this vulnerability and its downstream impacts. All updates will be provided via Flashpoint’s VulnDB

Request a demo today and gain access to quality vulnerability intelligence that helps address critical threats in a timely manner.

Request a demo today.

The post Digital Supply Chain Risk: Critical Vulnerability Affecting React Allows for Unauthorized Remote Code Execution appeared first on Flashpoint.

Flashpoint’s Top 5 Predictions for the 2026 Threat Landscape

Blogs

Blog

Flashpoint’s Top 5 Predictions for the 2026 Threat Landscape

Flashpoint’s forward-looking threat insights for security and executive teams, provides the strategic foresight needed to prepare for the convergence of AI, identity, and physical security threats in 2026.

SHARE THIS:
Default Author Image
December 2, 2025

As the global threat landscape accelerates its transformation, 2026 marks an inflection point requiring defensive strategies to fundamentally shift. The volatility observed in 2025 has paved the way for an era soon to be defined by AI-weaponized autonomy, information-stealing malware, systemic instability of public vulnerability systems, and the complete convergence of digital and physical risk.

Flashpoint offers a unique window into these complexities, providing organizations with the foresight needed to navigate what lies ahead. Drawing from Flashpoint’s leading intelligence and primary source collections, we highlight five key trends shaping the 2026 threat landscape. These insights aim to help organizations not only understand what’s next but also build the resilience needed to withstand and adapt to emerging challenges.

Prediction 1: Agentic AI Threats Will Weaponize Autonomy, Forcing a New Defensive Standard

2026 will see continued evolution of AI threats, with future attacks centering on autonomy and integration. Across the deep and dark web, Flashpoint is observing threat actors move past experimentation and into operational use of illegal AI. 

As attackers train custom fraud-tuned LLMs (Large Language Models) and multilingual phishing tools directly on illicit data, these AI models will become more capable. The criminal intent shaping their misuse will also become more sophisticated. Additionally, 2026 will see a greater marketplace for paid jailbreaking communities and synthetic media kits for KYC (Know Your Customer) bypass.

These advancements are enabling criminals to move beyond simple tools and engage in scaled, autonomous fraud operations, leading to two major shifts:

  1. Agentic AI is becoming the true flashpoint: Threat actors will be using agentic systems to automate reconnaissance, generate synthetic identities, and iterate on fraud playbooks in near real-time. In this SaaS ecosystem, AI will help attackers leverage subscription tiers and customer feedback loops at scale.
  2. The attack surface will shift to focus on AI Integrations: Organizations are increasingly plugging LLMs into live data streams, internal tools, identity systems, and autonomous agents. This practice often lacks the same security vetting, access controls, and monitoring applied to other enterprise systems. As such, attackers will heavily target these integrations, such as APIs, plugins, and system connections, rather than the models themselves.

The ubiquity of automation has dramatically increased attack tempo, leaving many security teams behind the curve. While automation can replace repetitive tasks across the enterprise, organizations must not make the critical mistake of substituting human judgement for AI at the intelligence level.

This is paramount because a critical threat in 2026 is Agentic AI autonomy weaponized against soft targets—API integrations and identity systems. The only winning defense will be human-led and AI-scaled, prioritizing purposeful use to keep organizations ahead of this exponential risk.

Josh Lefkowitz, CEO at Flashpoint

These evolving AI threats will force a fundamental shift in defensive strategies. Defenders will have to shift to deploying systems around AI rather than trust them on their own.

Prediction 2: Identity Compromise via Infostealers Will Become the Foundation of Every Attack

Infostealers will become the entry point, the data broker, the reconnaissance layer, and the fuel for everything that comes after a cyberattack. This shift is already in motion and is accelerating rapidly: in just the first half of 2025, infostealers were responsible for 1.8 billion stolen credentials, an 800% spike from the start of the year. However, 2026 will redefine the malware’s role, making its most valuable output being access, rather than disruption.

Infostealers will become the upstream event that powers the rest of the attack chain. Identity and session data will be increasingly targeted, since it gives attackers immediate access into victim environments. Ransomware, fraud, data theft, and extortion will simply be downstream ways to monetize.

This upstream approach defines the new reality of the attack chain, which is already operational. Nearly every major stealer strain Flashpoint observes now exfiltrates the following:

  • Autofill PII (personable identifiable information)
  • Saved addresses
  • Phone numbers
  • Internal URLs
  • Browsing history
  • Cloud app tokens

An organization’s attack surface is no longer just composed of their own networks. It is the entire digital identity of their employees and partners. This new reality requires security teams to take a new approach. Instead of attempting to block attacks, they must proactively detect compromised credentials before they are weaponized. This will be the difference between reacting to a data breach and preventing one.

The infostealer economy has fully industrialized the attack chain, making initial compromise a low-cost commodity. Multiple security incidents in 2025 tie back to credentials found in infostealer logs. This reality has underscored the critical importance of digital trust—specifically, verifying who can access what resources. For 2026, identity is the perimeter to watch, and security teams must proactively hunt for compromised credentials before they’re weaponized.

Ian Gray, Vice President of Intelligence at Flashpoint

Prediction 3: CVE Volatility Will Force Redundancy in Vulnerability Intelligence

The temporary funding crisis at CVE in April 2025 and the subsequent CISA stopgap extension through March 2026 exposed the systemic fragility of a centralized vulnerability intelligence model. With the future of the CVE/NVD system hanging in the balance, 2026 will be defined by the urgent need for redundancy and diversification in vulnerability intelligence.

In today’s vulnerability intelligence ecosystem, nearly every organization’s vulnerability management framework relies on CVE and NVD—including its “alternatives” such as the EUVD (European Union Vulnerability Database). The CVE system has grown into a critical global cybersecurity utility, relied upon by nearly all vulnerability scanners, SIEM platforms, patch management tools, threat intelligence feeds, and compliance reports. A complete shutdown of CVE would result in a widespread loss of institutional infrastructure.

The next generation of security needs to be built on practices that are resilient, diversified, and intelligence-driven. It should be focused on providing insights that can be used to take action such as threat actor behavior, likelihood of exploitation in the wild, relevance to ransomware campaigns, and business context. Security teams will need to leverage a comprehensive source of vulnerability intelligence such as Flashpoint’s VulnDB that provides full coverage for CVE, while also cataloging more than 100,000 vulnerabilities missed by CVE and NVD.

Prediction 4: Executive Protection Will Remain a Critical Challenge as Cyber-Physical Threats Converge

The continued blurring of lines between cyber, physical, and geopolitical threats will elevate the risk to organizational leadership, turning executive protection into a holistic intelligence function in 2026. The rise of information warfare combined with physical world convergence means the threat to key personnel is no longer purely digital.

In the aftermath of the tragic December 2024 assassination of United Healthcare’s CEO, Flashpoint has seen the continued circulation and glorification of “wanted-style posters” of executives in extremist communities. Additionally, Flashpoint has seen nation-state actors participate, using espionage and influence to target high-value individuals.
Organizations must adopt an integrated approach that connects insights from threat actor chatter and a wealth of other OSINT sources. This fusion of intelligence is essential for applying frameworks to ensure the safety of leadership and key personnel.

Prediction 5: Extortion Shifts to Identity-Based Supply Chain Risk

2025 was marked by several large-scale extortion campaigns, demonstrating how the threat landscape is rapidly evolving. Ransomware operations have shifted into a straight extortion play. Flashpoint has observed a surge in new entrants to the ransomware market, accompanied by a decline in the quality and decorum of ransomware groups.

Furthermore, vishing campaigns attributed to “Scattered Spider” have highlighted weaknesses in identity, trust, and verification. Campaigns from “Scattered LAPSUS$ Hunters” have also exposed vulnerabilities in third-party integrations. These attacks culminated in extortion, showcasing that modern attacks will target trusted users and trusted applications for initial access, and will forgo ransomware in place of data access.

As this shift continues into 2026, threat actors will increasingly focus their efforts on exploiting human behavior and identity systems. Instead of attempting to spend resources on breaking network perimeters, attackers will instead socially engineer employees to gain access to corporate systems at scale. This change in TTPs will undoubtedly greatly increase supply chain risk, especially for third parties.

Charting a Path Through an Evolving Threat Landscape with Flashpoint Intelligence

These five predictions highlight the transformative trends shaping the future of cybersecurity and threat intelligence. Staying ahead of these challenges demands more than just reactive measures—it requires actionable intelligence, strategic foresight, and cross-sector collaboration. By embracing these principles and investing in proactive security strategies, organizations can not only mitigate risks but also seize opportunities to enhance their resilience.

As the threat landscape continues to rapidly evolve, staying informed and prepared are critical components of risk mitigation. With the right tools, insights, and partnerships, security teams can navigate the complexities ahead and safeguard what matters most.

Request a demo.

The post Flashpoint’s Top 5 Predictions for the 2026 Threat Landscape appeared first on Flashpoint.

Risk Intelligence Index: Cyber Threat Landscape by the Numbers

Blogs

Blog

Risk Intelligence Index: Cyber Threat Landscape by the Numbers

Flashpoint’s monthly look at the cyber risk ecosystem affecting organizations around the world, including intelligence, news, data, and analysis about ransomware, vulnerabilities, insider threats, and takedowns of illicit forums and shops.

SHARE THIS:
Default Author Image
April 13, 2023
Table Of Contents
subscribe to our newsletter

Ransomware

Flashpoint’s latest ransomware infographic paints a sobering picture of the evolving threat landscape, as cybercriminals employ increasingly sophisticated—and effective—tactics. Last month, our analysts observed a total of 397 ransomware attacks.

Key takeaways for the state of ransomware

  • Organizations in the United States bore the brunt of ransomware attacks, accounting for a staggering 211 incidents—a 66 percent increase compared to last month.
  • The top three industries targeted by ransomware were Professional Services, Internet Software & Services, and Construction & Engineering.
  • Clop ransomware has emerged as one of the most active ransomware groups, securing the second spot in March’s top 10 ranking. Last month, Clop garnered attention by exploiting a remote code execution vulnerability—allegedly enabling them to acquire data from over 100 organizations, although they only disclosed a few victim names on their blog.

Vulnerabilities

According to our intelligence, 2,245 new vulnerabilities were reported in March, with 379 of them being missed by the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) and National Vulnerability Database (NVD).

Key takeaways for the state of vulnerability intelligence

  • Approximately 34 percent of March’s disclosed vulnerabilities are rated as high-to-critical in severity, which if exploited, could pose a significant risk to an organization’s security posture.
  • Over 78 percent of March’s vulnerabilities are remotely exploitable, meaning that if threat actors are able to leverage these issues, they can execute malicious code no matter where the device is located.
  • Nearly 29 percent of March’s vulnerabilities already have a documented public exploit, which drastically lessens the difficulty to exploit.
  • Vulnerability Management teams can potentially lessen workloads by nearly 88 percent by first focusing on actionable, high severity vulnerabilities—i.e., vulnerabilities that are remotely exploitable, that have a public exploit, and a viable solution; 253 of March’s vulnerabilities meet this criteria.

Insider Threat

The tactic of recruiting insiders has become immensely popular amongst threat actors aiming to breach systems and/or commit ransomware attacks.

In March, our analysts collected 5,586 posts advertising insider services—both from threat actors seeking insiders and malicious employees offering their services. Of those, 1,127 were unique posts from individuals in illicit and underground communities.

Key takeaways for the state of insider threat intelligence

  • In March, Flashpoint tracked 5,586 posts related to insider threats activity—both from threat actors attempting to solicit insider-facilitated access and from disgruntled employees offering their services. Of the total, 1,127 were unique postings.
  • At this time, the Telecom industry is the most targeted sector, followed by Financial and Retail.
  • Looking into the state of insider threats further, Flashpoint found that the majority of insider threat related postings originated from inside the organization with malicious insiders offering their services. Most of this activity came from the Telecom sector. 

Takedowns

In March 2023, there were numerous takedowns, voluntary shutdowns, and arrests affecting ransomware, markets, account shops, card shops, and individual cybercriminals. Here are the high-profile takedowns.

Breach Forums

On March 21, 2023, mid-tier hacking forum Breach Forums was shut down following the arrest of its administrator, Conor Brian Fitzpatrick (aka “pompompurin”), six days prior.

Read the court doc here.

Worldwiredlabs

On March 3, a US Magistrate Judge issued a seizure warrant for Worldwiredlabs[.]com, a domain used by cybercriminals to sell malware, including remote access trojan (RAT) “NetWire,” which is capable of targeting and infecting major computer operating systems.

On March 7, an international law enforcement effort led to the seizure of Worldwiredlabs. The FBI had begun its investigation in 2020, and uncovered that it was the only known online distributor of NetWire.

Read the court doc here.

Get best-in-class intel

The following data is derived from the Flashpoint Intelligence Platform and VulnDB, the most comprehensive and timely source of vulnerability intelligence available. Sign up for a free trial today.

Request a demo today.

❌