More than 3.7 million fraudulent online accounts removed. Twenty-eight arrests across Ghana and Nigeria. More than $11 million in potentially freezable funds identified. And 117 human trafficking victims identified.

These were among the results of Joint Disruption Week, an international operation targeting criminal networks responsible for online fraud, including cryptocurrency investment scams, impersonation schemes, and financial extortion.

“Transnational criminal scam networks operating from West Africa suffered major disruptions last week during a coordinated international ‘Joint Disruption Week,’ an effort that produced arrests, seizures, and the largest-ever takedown of fraudulent social media accounts linked to scam centers in the region.”

Department of Justice

Hosted by the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) in London during the week beginning October 6, 2026, Joint Disruption Week brought together investigators from the DOJ, FBI, U.S. Secret Service, Homeland Security Investigations, and international law enforcement agencies, alongside private-sector organizations including Flashpoint.

Throughout the week, participants exchanged real-time intelligence and developed investigative leads to support enforcement actions in Ghana and Nigeria, as well as the disruption of online accounts and infrastructure used by scam networks.

The operation targeted criminal organizations whose activities extend across borders and online platforms. According to the DOJ, scam centers operating in West Africa share characteristics with those previously identified in Southeast Asia, including organized recruitment, training in social engineering techniques, and coordinated fraud campaigns targeting victims internationally. Some operations also involve human trafficking, with individuals coerced into participating in fraudulent activities.

By bringing together law enforcement and private-sector capabilities, Joint Disruption Week targeted both the infrastructure used to perpetrate fraud and the individuals behind these schemes.

Joint Disruption Week: The Results

The coordinated effort produced results across criminal investigations, financial intelligence, and online infrastructure disruption.

According to the DOJ:

• 28 suspects were arrested, including 19 in Ghana and nine in Nigeria.
• More than 3.7 million fraudulent accounts, Pages, and Groups were removed from online platforms.
• 117 human trafficking victims were identified in Ghana, awaiting repatriation to Nigeria.
• 89 fraud victims were identified in Ghana, associated with approximately $8.3 million in reported financial losses.
• More than $11 million in potentially freezable funds were identified through private-sector investigative efforts.
• More than 30 suspected scam centers were referred to law enforcement for further investigation.
• 356 electronic devices were seized during enforcement actions in Ghana and Nigeria.

The figures illustrate the reach of these operations. Millions of accounts can support criminal activity across multiple platforms, while the individuals directing those activities may be operating thousands of miles from their intended victims.

Disrupting the Infrastructure Behind Online Fraud

The arrests and account removals represent different aspects of the same challenge: identifying the individuals behind criminal operations while disrupting the infrastructure they use to reach victims.

Online scam networks can operate across social media platforms, messaging services, and financial systems, with evidence of criminal activity spread across multiple organizations and jurisdictions. Investigations often depend on connecting information from these different sources to identify the actors involved and the infrastructure supporting their operations.

During Joint Disruption Week, private-sector partners contributed by removing fraudulent accounts, identifying potentially recoverable funds, and sharing investigative leads with law enforcement.

Flashpoint was among the organizations specifically recognized by the DOJ for participating in the operation, alongside Meta, Microsoft, Google, OpenAI, Coinbase, Binance, Chainalysis, Elliptic, TRM Labs, and others. For threat intelligence teams, operations like this highlight the value of identifying criminal actors, understanding how their operations are structured, and connecting activity across disparate sources to support investigative action.

Together, the arrests, account removals, and financial investigations demonstrate how coordinated efforts can target multiple components of criminal operations, from the infrastructure used to perpetrate fraud to the individuals responsible.

Continuing Efforts to Disrupt Scam Networks

Joint Disruption Week marked the first coordinated international operation focused specifically on West African scam networks, according to the DOJ.

The arrests, infrastructure disruptions, and investigative leads generated during the operation represent progress against criminal organizations responsible for large-scale financial fraud and human exploitation.

Flashpoint continues to support efforts to identify and disrupt criminal activity through primary source intelligence that helps investigators understand emerging threats and the networks behind them.

For additional information on the operation and its results, read the full Department of Justice announcement.

Contact Sales

Threat intelligence teams are heading into 2027 with more than ever to monitor, driven by an acceleration in the AI threat landscape. However, their expanded mandate typically doesn’t come with a proportional budget windfall. Instead, teams are under pressure to get greater value from the intelligence, systems, and analyst expertise already available to them.

New independent research commissioned by Flashpoint shows where that pressure is being felt most. Alert noise and false positives are the most frequently cited challenges affecting threat intelligence program effectiveness, followed by analyst bandwidth, changes in the threat landscape, and integration across security tools. At the same time, AI-related threats have emerged as the leading area where practitioners want to expand intelligence coverage.

These findings point to some of the decisions that will shape threat intelligence programs in the year ahead: where to focus finite analyst capacity, how intelligence requirements need to evolve, and where AI can meaningfully support the work. Organizations are already evaluating agentic AI across threat intelligence workflows, but the research also shows that greater autonomy comes with higher expectations around accuracy, control, and measurable value.

For security leaders planning their 2027 threat intelligence strategy and budgets, this report examines:

• Which operational challenges are putting the greatest pressure on analyst capacity and threat intelligence programs today.
• How intelligence requirements are changing as AI-enabled threats create new coverage priorities.
• How threat intelligence budgets are trending in the next 12 months, and where incremental budgets will go.
• Where practitioners see the strongest applications for agentic AI, and which AI-powered workflows face a higher threshold for trust and autonomy.
• What teams need to prove before expanding AI investment, including the metrics practitioners are using to evaluate time savings, accuracy, risk reduction, and ROI.

Together, the findings provide a practical benchmark for teams evaluating their own intelligence operations: where to focus limited analyst time, where automation may have the greatest impact, and what to measure as AI becomes part of the workflow.

Executive Summary

As threat intelligence teams plan for 2027, the research shows them managing two simultaneous pressures: intelligence requirements are expanding, while the capacity available to address them remains constrained. AI is intensifying that pressure as adversaries adopt new capabilities, but also becoming part of how organizations are thinking about scaling their ability to defend their organizations.

Four findings stand out:

• The AI threat landscape is accelerating faster than threat intelligence teams can keep up. Alert noise and false positives were the most frequently cited challenge, identified by 65% of respondents, while 55% cited insufficient analyst bandwidth and half pointed to integration gaps across their security tools.
• Threat intelligence budgets are rising to close the gap. Half of respondents expect their budgets to increase over the next 12 months, including 35% anticipating meaningful increases of 10% or more. Another 40% expect spending to remain essentially flat. No respondents anticipate a decrease. Where budgets are growing, organizations are directing investment toward areas including AI-related threat coverage, additional intelligence feeds and modules, and broader program development.
• AI-related threats are the leading priority for expanded coverage and new investment. Practitioners pointed to deepfake detection, AI-accelerated vulnerability exploitation, and emerging AI-enabled threat vectors as areas where their intelligence requirements are expanding.
• Agentic AI adoption is underway, but teams are setting a high bar. Just 25% of organizations interviewed are using agentic AI in production today. Another 20% are piloting it, while 35% are planning adoption within the next 12 to 24 months. Rather than rushing toward autonomy, teams are evaluating where agents can improve workflows while maintaining intelligence quality, appropriate controls, and human oversight.

Taken together, the findings show where threat intelligence teams are feeling the greatest pressure, where they see opportunities to extend their capabilities with AI, and what will determine whether those tools earn a lasting place in the intelligence workflow. The sections that follow examine each of these findings in greater detail and what they mean for threat intelligence programs.

Operational Challenges Are Putting Pressure on Analyst Capacity

The rising AI threat landscape is increasing pressure on organizations to get more capacity from the people and systems they already have. Threat intelligence leaders therefore say the biggest barriers to program effectiveness are operational: too much noise, limited analyst bandwidth, and disconnected tools.

Alert noise and false positives emerged as the leading challenge affecting threat intelligence programs, cited by 65% of respondents. Analyst bandwidth followed at 55%, while half of respondents pointed to both the evolving threat landscape and integration gaps across their security tools.

The impact of these challenges becomes clearer at the workflow level. One healthcare practitioner described receiving alerts about email breaches that were seven or eight years old, with the same data resurfacing each time it was resold and requiring another investigation. Practitioners also described manual steps between intelligence feeds, SIEMs, SOAR platforms, ticketing systems, and response workflows.

Each unnecessary investigation or manual handoff consumes time that could otherwise go toward analysis. That becomes difficult to solve through hiring alone because threat intelligence expertise takes time to develop. As one healthcare threat intelligence leader explained:

“Good analysts take time to develop and train, and we can’t hire our way out of that problem.”

The research suggests an opportunity to look for capacity within the intelligence workflow itself. Reducing repetitive investigations, improving integration between systems, and helping analysts identify relevant intelligence faster can return more of their time to work that depends on context and judgment.

Threat Intelligence Investment Remains Resilient Heading Into 2027

The rise of AI-driven threats is driving increases in the intelligence budgets of many organizations. Among respondents who provided a budget outlook, 50% expect their threat intelligence budgets to increase over the next 12 months, while the remaining 40% expect budgets to stay essentially flat. None anticipate a decrease.

More than a third (35%) expect meaningful growth of at least 10%, suggesting that for many organizations, threat intelligence remains an area of active investment heading into 2027.

Where organizations are increasing investment is equally important. Respondents expecting meaningful growth described spending on AI defense capabilities, expanded threat intelligence feeds and modules, and broader program development. AI-related threat coverage also emerged across both flat and growing budgets as the most frequently cited area where teams want to expand coverage.

For teams heading into 2027, the findings suggest that the question is increasingly where to direct threat intelligence investment for the greatest impact. Organizations are evaluating how existing resources can address new intelligence requirements, where additional capabilities are needed, and which investments can demonstrate clear operational value.

AI-Related Threats Are Driving New Coverage Priorities

As organizations decide where to focus threat intelligence investment in the year ahead, AI is the clear priority. AI-related threats were the most frequently cited area where organizations want to expand intelligence coverage, including among teams with relatively flat budgets. Practitioners specifically pointed to deepfake detection, AI-accelerated vulnerability exploitation, and emerging AI-enabled threat vectors.

These priorities reflect activity already visible across the threat landscape. During the first half of 2026, Flashpoint tracked more than 22 million threat actor posts discussing, sharing, or advertising AI toolkits for criminal deployment. Flashpoint analysts observed AI being used across phishing, malware development, evasion, and vulnerability exploitation.

For threat intelligence teams, expanding AI coverage requires more specificity than treating “AI threats” as a single monitoring category. Deepfakes may matter because of executive impersonation or fraud. AI-accelerated exploitation may change vulnerability monitoring and prioritization. New attack tooling may affect the adversaries or TTPs a team already tracks.

The challenge extends beyond visibility into these threats. Organizations also need the expertise to understand how AI is changing adversary behavior and attack chains. That expertise is still developing. As one practitioner put it, “everybody’s learning it at the same time.”

Connecting those developments to existing PIRs and business risks gives analysts clearer collection priorities and helps teams determine what new sources, expertise, and monitoring they actually need.

Those requirements are also expanding at a time when analyst bandwidth is already constrained, creating a second question for threat intelligence leaders: where can AI support the intelligence workflow itself?

Agentic AI Adoption Is Underway

Nearly half of the organizations interviewed are already using or piloting agentic AI in threat intelligence workflows, while another 35% are planning adoption within the next 12 to 24 months. That makes agentic AI an important part of 2027 planning, but despite the attention surrounding it, threat intelligence teams are taking a measured approach. They are looking for clear business value, evidence that AI can maintain the quality of their intelligence workflows, and appropriate human oversight as agents take on more consequential tasks.

The work being handed to agents already varies considerably, from information retrieval and alert prioritization to more active tasks such as blocking IP addresses, updating blacklists, and monitoring suspicious traffic. Organizations in the pilot stage also described use cases spanning detection, validation, context generation, SIEM alert analysis, TIP querying, MITRE ATT&CK mapping, and reversible response actions.

As agents move from retrieving and analyzing information to taking actions that can directly affect security operations, accuracy and trust become increasingly important. One respondent captured the concern succinctly:

“An agent that’s confidently wrong is worse than one that’s slow.”

That concern is reflected across the research. Practitioners raised questions around data leakage, auditability, regulatory requirements, cost, and the level of control agents should have over security workflows. One retail respondent, for example, would only consider read-only AI assistants because of the risks associated with granting agents write permissions.

For teams evaluating agentic AI, that makes the workflow itself an important part of the decision. Tasks with reviewable outputs, reversible actions, and clear success criteria provide a practical starting point. As autonomy increases, teams need equally clear controls around what an agent can access, what it can change, where human approval is required, and how its actions are audited.

What the Findings Mean for Threat Intelligence Programs

As threat intelligence leaders plan for 2027, the research points to a clear set of priorities. Teams have more to monitor, limited analyst capacity, and growing interest in AI as a way to scale the work their programs already perform.

The findings also show that practitioners are selective about where they see that value. PIR coverage monitoring and intelligence briefings can extend coverage and reduce recurring work while keeping analysts involved in the intelligence process. As agents take on more consequential actions, questions around accuracy, permissions, auditability, and human oversight become more important.

For teams setting priorities for the year ahead, that creates a practical path forward: understand where analyst capacity is being consumed, connect new intelligence requirements to the risks that matter to the organization, identify workflows where automation can meaningfully extend the team, and establish clear measures of success before deployment.

The challenge for 2027 will be turning expanding intelligence requirements into an operating model that can scale for threat intelligence programs. That means making better use of existing data, systems, and analyst expertise while being deliberate about where agentic AI can extend those capabilities and where human judgment remains essential.

Methodology

Flashpoint commissioned independent qualitative research among a select group of more than 20 threat intelligence budget owners and influencers at large North American enterprises across financial services and insurance, healthcare and biotech, retail, and information technology and telecommunications during the early fall of 2026. 

Contact Sales

First discovered in April 2026, CastleStealer is a C#-based information-stealing malware that has continued to add new capabilities since its emergence. Newer samples analyzed by Flashpoint can bypass app-bound encryption in Chromium-based browsers, execute commands remotely, and exfiltrate stolen information in small encrypted transmissions rather than a single large archive.

While Flashpoint has not yet identified a large influx of threat actors using CastleStealer, its continued development makes it an emerging threat worth watching. 

What We Know About CastleStealer

CastleStealer was first publicly identified in April 2026, when it was observed using ClickFix social engineering to deliver a Python script that executed a loader referred to as “CastleLoader.”

By June, the malware had appeared in a different distribution campaign. Threat actors used malicious advertisements to direct victims to fake Node.js installation websites, where a batch script masquerading as an installer ultimately downloaded and executed a newer loader known as OXLOADER.

OXLOADER employs several techniques designed to make analysis and detection more difficult, including multiple rounds of self-decryption, obfuscated API resolution, sandbox checks, and in-memory execution. Flashpoint analysts assess that the loaders used to deliver CastleStealer appear to be developed in-house and demonstrate significant technical ability around anti-analysis and stealth. 

But the delivery chain is only one part of CastleStealer’s evolution. Newer samples show that the infostealer itself has continued to expand what it can collect and what threat actors can do after a system is compromised.

What Data Does CastleStealer Target?

Once executed, CastleStealer first checks the system’s Multilingual User Interface (MUI) languages for Russian (ru-RU). It then connects to its command-and-control (C2) infrastructure and sends a handshake packet containing its build UUID and basic information about the infected host. After establishing the connection, it gathers additional information about the victim machine and sends it to the C2. 

From there, CastleStealer begins searching for sensitive information across browsers, applications, and files on the victim’s system.

For Chromium-based browsers, CastleStealer collects login data, cookies, browsing history, web data, and information stored by browser extensions. That includes extension IDs, IndexedDB data, and extension storage. 

The malware also targets:

• Firefox: Login data, cookies, browsing history, and form history.
• Steam: Files including config.vdf, loginusers.vdf, and local.vdf, which can contain sensitive account information and settings.
• Discord and Telegram: CastleStealer searches APPDATA for directories associated with both applications.
• Files on the victim system: The malware broadly collects files while excluding several file types and files containing “backup.” It places particular emphasis on files containing “wallet” in their names.

That browser targeting has also become more capable since CastleStealer was first discovered.

Bypassing App-Bound Encryption

One of the clearest examples of CastleStealer’s evolution is its ability to target data protected by newer browser security controls.

Earlier analysis found that CastleStealer could not steal data from updated browsers using app-bound encryption. Newer samples analyzed by Flashpoint now use Chrome’s IElevator COM interface to bypass that protection, a technique also used by other modern infostealers.

The change closes a meaningful limitation present in earlier CastleStealer samples and expands the browser data available to the malware.

From Infostealer to Remote Access

Newer CastleStealer samples also give threat actors capabilities beyond stealing information from an infected machine.

CastleStealer contains basic remote shell functionality that allows an operator to send a shell command to the victim system, provide a file for execution, or send the URL of another payload that CastleStealer will download and execute. 

That capability gives an attacker additional options after the initial compromise. Instead of ending the operation once targeted information has been collected, an operator can interact with the infected system and introduce additional payloads.

How CastleStealer Exfiltrates Stolen Data

CastleStealer also differs from many other infostealers in how it sends stolen information back to its operators.

Rather than collecting stolen data into an archive and transmitting it to a C2 server or Telegram channel, CastleStealer sends smaller amounts of collected data over raw TCP. The transmissions are encrypted using AES.

Flashpoint analysts assess that transmitting data this way may help CastleStealer avoid network detections associated with a single spike caused by a large data transfer. 

The network packets follow a straightforward structure:

{4-byte size} → {AES IV} → {Encrypted Data}

Once CastleStealer completes its activity, it deletes itself using a common ping-delay self-deletion technique.

Protect Against Emerging Infostealers Using Flashpoint

CastleStealer’s development since its discovery illustrates how quickly an emerging infostealer can mature. Its operators have changed how the malware reaches victims, while the stealer itself has gained the ability to bypass browser protections, remotely execute commands and additional payloads, and exfiltrate stolen data in smaller encrypted transmissions.

CastleStealer has not yet seen the widespread adoption associated with more established infostealer families. But its trajectory makes it one to watch as its developers continue to improve both its collection capabilities and what operators can do after compromising a victim.

Flashpoint continuously monitors emerging malware, illicit communities, and threat actor infrastructure to identify these shifts as they happen. Request a demo to learn how Flashpoint’s primary source intelligence and analyst research help security teams identify emerging threats and respond before they become widespread.

Contact Sales

In today’s threat landscape, speed and actionable context are critical. When a high-priority threat emerges, pairing best-in-class threat intelligence data with hyper-responsive human expertise ensures organizations can act immediately and with confidence. To turn raw threat data into actionable defense, Flashpoint unites unmatched primary source collection, cutting-edge AI features, and over 100 analysts fluent in more than 35 languages—ensuring organizations receive localized context, rapid analysis, and long-lasting strategic value.

Flashpoint Customer Success & Support (CS) consistently delivers industry-leading responsiveness and resolution speed. Driven by strict internal Service Level Objectives (SLOs), our metrics showcase our commitment to our customer’s operational success:

• 95% CSAT Score*: The Flashpoint CS team delivered consistent high-satisfaction across every customer interaction.
• 2.5 Hours Time to Solve*: Our industry experts swiftly resolve myriad support inquiries and operational blockers.

*CSAT and Time to Solve figures are based on real customer inputs from January 1, 2026 to September 2026.

This commitment to responsiveness is why we were honored to recently be named a Customer Favorite in The Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026 report, where Forrester specifically noted that “customers laud Flashpoint’s white-glove approach to addressing diverse customer needs.” 

But what does top-level service look like behind the scenes? 

Here is a look at how Flashpoint CS operates as an extension of our customers’ security operations.

Flashpoint Industry Leaders, An Extension of Your Team

Unlike traditional CS models that limit you to a single point of contact, customers are supported by Flashpoint’s entire team of Customer Success Managers (CSM) experts. Our team is comprised of former intelligence operators and seasoned practitioners whose collective experience spans decades across critical industries and sectors, including:

• Healthcare
• Financial Services & Banking
• Vulnerability Management
• Public Sector
• Defense Sector
• Retail & Enterprise Security

Flashpoint customers are paired with a dedicated CSM who can seamlessly draw on our broader team of industry specialists. Flashpoint customers gain speedy, highly knowledgeable insights without bottlenecks. This model provides organizations with timely responses for any urgent specific sector threats, with our CS teams bringing in practitioners who have direct, real-world experience in that field.

More Than Just Support

In addition to traditional support, Flashpoint’s CS team also support clients with:

1. Tailored Onboarding & Workflows: CS works closely with new teams to configure platform workflows, set up alert parameters, and ensure rapid time-to-value from day one.
2. Interactive Training Modules & Flash Talks: Customers gain access to regular, practitioner-led sessions and training modules designed to help analysts level up on advanced platform features and emergent threat trends.
3. Proactive Enablement: Beyond issue resolution, CS provides complimentary training modules, success briefings, routinely-scheduled Flash Talks, and self-service support portal resources to keep security operators informed of evolving threat trends.
4. Community-Driven Events & FUSE: CS bridges the gap between intelligence and execution by connecting customers at our annual FUSE conference, where hundreds of security leaders collaborate on real-world workflows, cross-functional defenses, and advanced platform execution.

Proven Track Record: Voice of the Customer

Flashpoint is a customer-first intelligence provider; we turn customer feedback into action. Our CS teams serve as the direct voice of the customer, taking feature requests and quality-of-life updates to Flashpoint Ignite product managers and engineers to help shape product roadmaps.

Real-world examples of how customer feedback directly drives platform enhancements include:

• Expanding Card BIN Support for Financial Fraud Teams: When a top-10 U.S. bank raised concerns about card data visualization, CS brought the Fraud Product Manager directly into the conversation. This led to dashboard and API fixes alongside brand-new features delivered within a  month.
• Increasing Export Limits for High-Volume Investigations: Facing a critical project deadline, a risk-intelligence consultancy hit the export limit during a large-scale social media search. CS escalated the issue to product engineering, resulting in a permanent increase to the results per export for all Flashpoint customers.
• Resolving Integration Blockers for Global Insurers: When critical vulnerability and intelligence alerts weren’t reaching a global insurer’s SOC tools, CS collaborated directly with Flashpoint’s integrations engineering team to update, release, and verify the integration end-to-end.
• Unlocking Capacity for Enterprise Scaling: When a major Canadian bank approached their contractual API usage limit, their CSM partnered with Flashpoint leadership to secure expanded capacity, ensuring uninterrupted threat monitoring.

Remove Blockers Using Flashpoint

Powerful intelligence technology is only half the equation—unmatched operational support is what drives long-term success. Customer feedback reinforces our belief that Flashpoint’s recognition as a Forrester “Customer Favorite” mirrors our commitment to pairing world-class threat data with exceptional service. Request a demo and see how the combination of best-in-class data and unparalleled customer service strengthens your security operations to maximize your threat intelligence investment.

About Forrester

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

Contact Sales

Contact Sales

Contact Sales

Contact Sales

Contact Sales

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

This is just one example of how insider threats lead to modern enterprise breaches. As perimeter security, EDR coverage, and other security tools mature, threat actors continue to target the human element, seeking employees and contractors willing to provide access to corporate systems or facilitate fraudulent activity.

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

The Insider Threat Landscape: September 2026

In September 2026, Flashpoint analysts identified a total of 9,787 insider-related posts across 1,216 channels and 1,778 authors. While the volume of observed activity decreased, threat actors continued to actively seek and advertise insider access, particularly within industries where legitimate employee privileges can be exploited to facilitate fraud. These communications included threat actors attempting to recruit insiders at target organizations, insiders advertising their services, and general discussions involving insider-related threat activity.

Of these communications, Flashpoint observed 857 unique posts between September 1 and September 30, 2026.

The majority of these posts appeared in mid-tier English-language Telegram channels, where threat actors sought or advertised insider access to organizations across several industries. Much of the observed activity focused on recruiting insiders to facilitate fraud operations.

Where Insider Threat Activity is Concentrated

Retail, telecommunications, and financial services remained prominent targets for insider threat activity in September 2026. However, a significant portion of the observed activity could not be attributed to a specific industry.

Flashpoint found that 45.7% of unique insider posts fell into the “Unknown” category, meaning analysts could not determine the targeted organization or industry. Among posts with an identifiable industry, retail accounted for the largest share, followed by telecommunications, financial services, and technology.

Together, these four industries accounted for 419 unique posts, or nearly 49% of all unique insider-related activity observed during the month.

The concentration of activity in retail, telecommunications, and financial services reflects continued threat actor interest in insiders who may be positioned to facilitate fraud, provide access to customer accounts, or exploit legitimate organizational privileges.

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

Industry	Posts
Other	392
Retail	135
Telecom	116
Financial	85
Technology	83
Public Sector	41
Healthcare	3
Media	2
Total	857

Insider Threats: Recruiting vs. Advertising

Active insider threats generally involve two types of activity: an insider is recruited by a malicious outside party, or an insider advertises their access and services to interested threat actors. These arrangements can enable adversaries to exfiltrate sensitive data, install malware, compromise accounts, or carry out fraudulent activities such as SIM swaps.

In September 2026, Flashpoint analysts identified 15 notable insider recruitment and advertising posts across underground communities and chat forums. Of these, nine involved threat actors attempting to recruit insiders, while six involved actors advertising insider services.

Telecommunications accounted for the largest number of notable posts, with five instances of recruitment or advertising. Retail and technology followed with three each, while financial services and the public sector accounted for two each.

These examples illustrate how threat actors continue to seek access across industries, with particular interest in employees and contractors who can facilitate fraud or provide privileged access to organizational systems.

Flashpoint also observed numerous insider solicitations repeated across multiple discussion threads, often with limited details about the access or services being offered. Analysts could not independently verify the legitimacy of the recruitment and advertising claims.

Protect Against Insider Threats Using Flashpoint

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the Flashpoint Insider Threat Report?

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

How does Flashpoint collect insider threat data?

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

What is the difference between insider recruitment and insider advertising?

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

Contact Sales

Contact Sales

Blogs

Blog

Ransomware Risk Model: Flashpoint’s Patented Scoring Method to Inform Vulnerability Prioritization

Flashpoint was awarded U.S. Patent No. 12,705,360 for its Ransomware Risk model, which rates how closely new vulnerabilities match those used in ransomware attacks.

Vulnerability and exposure management (VM) teams need critical metadata and context that clearly show which issues pose an immediate risk to their organization. While traditional VM frameworks tell defenders how severe a vulnerability may be, they do not provide visibility into how likely threat actors are to exploit it. This leaves security teams overwhelmed in patch backlogs without a clear strategy for prioritization.

Nowhere is this prioritization gap more dangerous than with ransomware. Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) groups no longer choose targets at random. They look for specific technical conditions that make vulnerability exploitation easy, fast, and repeatable. With RaaS attacks rising by 45% period-over-period in H1 2026, organizations need a way to identify the specific traits that make a vulnerability attractive to ransomware operators before an attack occurs.

Flashpoint built the Ransomware Risk score into Flashpoint Vulnerability Intelligence to solve exactly this problem. Since 2022, it has rated newly discovered vulnerabilities based on how closely they resemble those known to be used in ransomware attacks. With the grant of the U.S. Patent No. 12,705,360 on August 11, 2026, the methodology behind the score is now formally patented. This milestone formalizes Flashpoint’s ability to cut through the noise with a proven, threat-informed signal that gives defenders the clarity they need to act on Day Zero.

“As vulnerability disclosures surge, prioritization is more important than ever for security teams. A severity score alone can’t tell you which vulnerabilities pose the greatest real-world risk of exploitation by ransomware actors.

Our patented Ransomware Risk model applies years of threat intelligence to that problem, giving customers an earlier signal and helping them prioritize based on how attackers actually operate.”

josh lefkowitz, co-founder and ceo at flashpoint

Under the Hood: How Flashpoint’s Patented Ransomware Vulnerability Model Works

The patented system evaluates newly disclosed vulnerabilities against the patterns shared by vulnerabilities ransomware groups have exploited. Rather than trying to predict what threat actors will do next, the model learns what past ransomware-exploited vulnerabilities have in common and compares each new flaw against those patterns.

The Four Step Process

Multi-Factor Fingerprinting

Every vulnerability ingested into Flashpoint Vulnerability Intelligence is profiled against more than 60 distinct technical factors. This “fingerprinting” links the vulnerability to key inputs including whether the flaw is remotely exploitable without authentication, whether it affects SCADA or Operational Technology (OT) systems, and its potential impact on data availability, which is central to extortion schemes.

Coordinate Mapping

The model turns each multi-factor fingerprint into a set of values that place it as a single point on a map, so vulnerabilities with similar profiles land close together.

Identifying the Ransomware Neighborhood (Cluster Check)

Flashpoint overlays historical threat data onto the map to establish neighborhoods where vulnerabilities previously exploited in real-world ransomware attacks aggregate.

Similarity and Likelihood Rating

When a new vulnerability is ingested, its coordinates are checked against these neighborhoods. The scoring system calculates its spatial proximity to known ransomware vectors and assigns a clear rating: Low, Medium, High, or Critical.

This four-step method, developed by Flashpoint’s Ben Haynes and Jacob Kouns, is the basis of U.S. Patent No. 12,705,360.

What It Means for Vulnerability Management Teams

By translating complex structural attributes into a single risk score, the patented model delivers four key operational advantages:

1. Prioritize Beyond CVSS: Leveraging the Ransomware Risk model, security teams can confidently prioritize 1.0 to 6.9 CVSS issues if its structural profile lands it in a “High” or “Critical” ransomware cluster.
2. Act on Day Zero: Because the Flashpoint model rates all vulnerabilities on disclosure, security teams gain actionable guidance immediately, eliminating the need to wait weeks for external exploitation reports.
3. Effectively Communicate Risk: CISOs can present clear, business-centric risk statements rather than abstract numerical scores.
4. Adaptive Ratings: Scores update in near real time as vulnerability details change, and the model keeps adjusting as new vulnerabilities join the set it compares against.

Comprehensive Vulnerability Intelligence Integration

Flashpoint’s Ransomware Risk model is built to enhance, not replace the vulnerability management frameworks organizations already rely on. In fact, it provides even greater value for security teams as our Ransomware Risk model provides clarity for every vulnerability detailed by Flashpoint Vulnerability Intelligence, including over 105,000 issues missed by CVE and NVD.

Within Flashpoint Ignite, security teams have a complete view of vulnerability risk, seeing the score alongside CVSS (v3 and v4), EPSS, Social Risk, and exploit maturity.

Protect Against Vulnerability and Ransomware Risk Using Flashpoint

Vulnerability management requires more than cataloging. It demands threat-informed prioritization that aligns security operations with real-world business risk. Flashpoint’s patented Ransomware Risk model eliminates guesswork by surfacing the flaws that match the profile of known ransomware targets, allowing security teams to patch what matters most, first. 

By combining proprietary knowledge of vulnerability architecture and ransomware attacks, Flashpoint bridges the gap between theoretical and active exposure. Request a demo today to see how our Ransomware Risk model provides the definitive signal needed to stay ahead of extortion groups.

Ransomware Risk FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

What is the Ransomware Risk score? 

The Ransomware Risk score is a rating in Flashpoint Vulnerability Intelligence that shows how closely a vulnerability resembles those known to be used in ransomware attacks. Each vulnerability is rated Low, Medium, High, or Critical, so security teams can see which ones to patch first to reduce their ransomware exposure.

How is Ransomware Risk different from CVSS and EPSS?

CVSS measures how severe a vulnerability could be, and EPSS estimates how likely it is to be exploited in general. Ransomware Risk adds a ransomware-specific signal that works alongside both, showing how closely a vulnerability matches those ransomware groups have used. In Flashpoint Ignite, all three scores appear together.

What does Flashpoint’s ransomware patent cover?

U.S. Patent No. 12,705,360, granted August 11, 2026, covers Flashpoint’s method for rating how likely a vulnerability is to be used in a ransomware event. Each vulnerability is profiled on more than 60 factors, compared with vulnerabilities used in past ransomware attacks, and rated by similarity. The patent formalizes the model behind the Ransomware Risk score, live since 2022.

How often are Ransomware Risk scores updated?

Ransomware Risk scores update in near real time, so new vulnerabilities are rated as soon as they’re disclosed. The model also keeps adjusting as new vulnerabilities join the body it compares against, so ratings reflect the ransomware landscape as it stands today.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Process Parameter Poisoning: Inside a Novel EDR Evasion Technique

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

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

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

What is Process Parameter Poisoning?

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

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

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

How Does Process Parameter Poisoning Work?

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

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

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

†

Validating Process Parameter Poisoning in Rust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Associated MITRE ATT&CK

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

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

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

Stay Ahead of Process Parameter Poisoning Using Flashpoint

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

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

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

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian Gray, VP of Intelligence, Flashpoint

Weaponizing the Defender’s Own Tooling

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

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

The Global Infostealer Threat and Identity-First Attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ransomware Evolution: From Encryption to Cloud Extortion

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

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

Protect Your Organization Using Flashpoint

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

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

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

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

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

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

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

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

What is Hacktivism?

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

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

Modern Tactics: Gamifying Cyber Warfare

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

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

The Propaganda Engine: Media Amplification and Validation

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

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

Beyond Propaganda: Aligning Cyber Disruption with Military Objectives

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

The Far Reach of Modern Hacktivism

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

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

The Continuous Campaign Against Ukraine

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

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

Spilling Over: Impact Across EU and NATO Allies

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

Defend Against the New Wave of Hacktivism Using Flashpoint

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

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

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Insider Threat Report: Dark Web Recruitment & Access Trends

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

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

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

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

The Insider Threat Landscape: July 2026

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

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

Where Insider Threat Activity is Concentrated

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

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

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

Insider Threats: Recruiting vs. Advertising

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

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

Protect Against Insider Threats Using Flashpoint

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the Flashpoint Insider Threat Report?

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

How does Flashpoint collect insider threat data?

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

What is the difference between insider recruitment and insider advertising?

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

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

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

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

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

Flashpoint’s Global Threat Intelligence Report: 2026 Midyear Edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josh Lefkowitz, Flashpoint Co-Founder & CEO

The Four Driving Themes Shaping the 2026 Threat Landscape

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Threats

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

Information-Stealing Malware Threats

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

Vulnerability Intelligence and Patching Management

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

Ransomware Operations, Multi-Extortion Cartels, and Financial Risk

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

Proactive Security in 2026 and Beyond

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

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

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

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

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

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

What the Data Says About Cyber-Physical Security Convergence

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

Industry research confirms this shift from every angle:

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

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

Why Physical Security is a Natural Extension

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

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

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

The Strategic Advantage: Breaking Down Operational Silos

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

Extending CTI to Physical Security with Flashpoint

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

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

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

Navigating the Future of Converged Intelligence

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

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

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

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

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

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

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

The Problem: Too Much Noise, Not Enough Context

Most security teams are dealing with three compounding problems:

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

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

Shadow IT Is a Growing Blind Spot

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

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

What is Flashpoint EASM?

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

Flashpoint EASM is built on three capabilities that work together:

Continuous Asset Discovery

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

Vulnerability Mapping

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

Customizable Alerting

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

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

How Flashpoint EASM Works

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

Here’s how it works:

Step 1: Submit Seed Keywords

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

Step 2: Triage Discovered Assets

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

Every discovered asset lands in one of three statuses:

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

Step 3: Review the Vulnerable Assets Overview

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

From there, security teams can drill into:

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

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

Step 4: Set Up Alerting

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

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

Why Flashpoint EASM Matters

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

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

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

What makes Flashpoint EASM different from other EASM solutions?

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

What makes Flashpoint’s vulnerability intelligence unique?

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

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

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

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

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

Flashpoint’s Method for Threat-Informed Vulnerability Prioritization

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

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

Download to gain:

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

Prioritize Vulnerabilities More Effectively and Faster Using Flashpoint

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is threat-informed vulnerability prioritization?

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

Why is vulnerability prioritization important?

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

How is AI changing vulnerability management?

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

Why isn’t CVSS enough for vulnerability prioritization?

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

How does Flashpoint help organizations prioritize vulnerabilities?

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

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

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

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

What is Rehub?

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

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

Who Are Known Members of Rehub?

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

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

Other active RaaS include:

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

What Does Rehub Infrastructure Look Like?

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

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

What are the Various Rehub Forum Sections?

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

Sandbox

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

Technical

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

Programming (Development)

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

Library

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

Supermarket

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

Arbitration

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

Administration

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

Monitor Illicit Marketplaces Using Flashpoint

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

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

See Flashpoint in Action