• A sophisticated new breed of ransomware attacks is leveraging legitimate database commands to compromise organizations worldwide, bypassing traditional security measures through “malware-less” operations.

    Unlike conventional ransomware that encrypts files using malicious binaries, threat actors are exploiting exposed database services by abusing standard database functionality to steal, wipe, and ransom critical data.

    The attack methodology represents a significant evolution in cybercriminal tactics, with attackers targeting Internet-facing database servers configured with weak passwords or no authentication.

    This malicious activity has been observed across multiple database platforms, including MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Hadoop, CouchDB, and Elasticsearch. Attackers connect remotely to these servers, copy data to external locations, execute destructive commands to wipe databases, and leave ransom notes stored directly within the compromised database structures.

    This approach has proven particularly effective at evading detection because no malicious binary is ever deployed on the target system.

    The damage is accomplished entirely through legitimate database commands, making it difficult for conventional endpoint security solutions to identify the compromise.

    The ransom tactic has evolved from isolated incidents into full-scale automated campaigns, with specialized bots continuously scanning the Internet for misconfigured databases.

    Wiz.io researchers identified that these attacks have grown exponentially since their initial observation in February 2017, when researchers from Rapid7 first documented thousands of open databases being hijacked in bulk operations.

    Today’s threat actors operate sophisticated automated systems capable of compromising newly exposed targets within hours or minutes of them coming online.

    The ease of automation and potential for immediate profits has made malware-less database ransomware a persistent and growing threat to organizations globally.

    Attack Execution and Command Exploitation

    The technical execution of these attacks follows a methodical approach that maximizes both stealth and effectiveness.

    Attackers begin operations with Internet-wide scanning for exposed database ports, specifically targeting port 3306 for MySQL and port 5432 for PostgreSQL servers.

    Ransom note (Source – Wiz.io)

    Once potential targets are identified, they employ fingerprinting techniques to confirm the services are genuine database servers rather than honeypots or other decoy systems.

    Authentication bypass represents a critical phase where attackers test for missing authentication controls, attempt default username and password combinations, and execute brute-force attacks against weak credentials.

    Upon successful authentication, the attack proceeds with data extraction where attackers sample small portions of data to assess value and confirm database access.

    The destructive phase utilizes legitimate SQL commands such as DROP DATABASE for complete database removal or bulk DELETE operations to systematically erase data.

    In relational databases like PostgreSQL, attackers create new tables with names such as RECOVER_YOUR_DATA or README_TO_RECOVER and insert ransom notes as table rows.

    For NoSQL databases like MongoDB, the process involves creating new collections with indicative names and inserting ransom notes as documents.

    A captured MongoDB session demonstrates the attack progression: mongosh "mongodb://target:27017/" followed by database enumeration commands like show dbs to identify valuable targets.

    The ransom note insertion typically contains messages such as “All your data is backed up. You must pay 0.043 BTC to recover it.

    After 48 hours expiration we will leak and expose all your data.” These legitimate database operations make detection challenging, as the commands appear as normal administrative activities to monitoring systems.

    Follow us on Google NewsLinkedIn, and X to Get More Instant UpdatesSet CSN as a Preferred Source in Google.

    The post Hackers Actively Compromising Databases Using Legitimate Commands appeared first on Cyber Security News.

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

  • The U.S. is falling behind in biotechnology development, Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., said Wednesday—adding that he and other lawmakers are working to help the country catch up with China’s push to incorporate technologies like gene editing for human performance on the battlefield.

    As the Trump administration slashes scientific research funding, Young and his colleagues are hoping to impress upon the executive branch the necessity of biotech as not just a national-security priority, but as an economic driver for its voter strongholds. 

    “One general category in which the Chinese, in particular, are out-classing us, is in bio-manufacturing, industrial applications of biotech – new materials, for example – and new life-saving compounds that could be a great utility to warfighters,” Young said at an event hosted by the With Honor Institute.

    An April report by Young’s National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology made 49 recommendations for how the U.S. can invest in and use biotech in defense.

    “Biological sensors could detect pathogens or chemical threats in real time, creating a dynamic and resilient system for battlefield awareness,” the report argued. “Biotechnology also promises new advantages in stealth and mobility. Dynamic biological camouflage, for instance, could shield warfighters from thermal detection, while wearable biosensors could adjust mission parameters based on real-time physiological data.”

    There’s also the possibility of shelf-stable blood products for combat lifesaving, Young said, and “other materials that might actually be incorporated into our weapons systems in various ways.”

    There are concerns in Congress about the administration’s cuts to science funding, including $4 billion from universities, hospitals and other institutions.  

    “I'm deeply, deeply alarmed by what's happening in our basic science and research sectors,” said Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., a co-founder of the BIOTech Caucus. “It's a chilling effect at the business level and at the individual science levels. It just doesn't make any sense, that if we think we need to lead in manufacturing or lead in technology, why would we be blowing up the basic research that drives that?”

    Houlahan and her colleagues on the House and Senate armed services committees have inserted a host of biotechnology measures into the most recent National Defense Authorization Act bill, including a mandate that the Pentagon create an official strategy for its efforts in the field.

    Both Young and Houlahan pointed to the CHIPS and Science Act, a signature piece of Biden administration legislation, as a promising example of bipartisan support for investment in U.S. technology independence.

    “The administration clearly has proven from the CHIPS Act that they can support industrial policy as long as they put their own signature on it,” Young said. “And in this case, they have an opportunity to stand up a program which will disproportionately benefit, from an economic standpoint, farm country USA.”

    Opportunities for this type of manufacturing in states like his own Indiana, Young added, are “enormous.”

    “They campaigned on restoring a golden age of innovation. They campaigned on a golden age of manufacturing. They particularly tried to connect with overlooked, under-appreciated people in rural America, and electorally, they disproportionately benefited from the support and encouragement of what was once disparagingly called flyover country,” Young said. “I will make a political argument, along with the policy argument, that they need to be attentive to this, otherwise another party will take the narrative and become the party of championing rural America and bio manufacturing.”

    While the Trump administration has spent much of its first months in office “clearing” what it believed are the excesses of the federal government, Young added, the next step is to put forth a vision for building.

    ]]>

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

  • National-security-law experts worry that guidance from the military’s top legal minds is being ignored by the Trump administration, which is pushing troops into new legal territory with deployments to U.S. cities and strikes on alleged drug-runners abroad.

    "One of the things I fear might be happening here is that the judge advocates in this instance may be providing proper means and methods advice, but I sense that the administration has gone to the Department of Justice and asked the Office of Legal Counsel to override whatever advice is being given by the judge advocates,” James Baker, a law professor at Syracuse University and former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, said Wednesday during a Center for a New American Security event.

    Baker and James McPherson, a retired rear admiral and former Navy JAG who served as Army undersecretary during Trump's first term, told attendees that the military's lawyers have historically been crucial for making sound decisions during operations. But, in February, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the Air Force, Army and Navy’s top judge advocates general. Hegseth told reporters their dismissals were necessary to clear "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief." 

    Baker and McPherson’s concerns follow a new report that a classified legal opinion from the Department of Justice has justified continued strikes on alleged cartel members. 

    McPherson said that if he was put in the difficult position of the JAG advising the commander on the cartel strikes, he would take note of everything and offer that officer a way out of the situation, too.

    “If I felt that he was being given advice that was not sound and not legal, I would document that myself,” McPherson said, adding he’d also tell that commander he’d draft legal guidance to his superiors “‘that will protect you in the future if some of this comes back to haunt you.’”

    In the early hours of his second term, Trump signed an executive order designating certain cartels as terrorist organizations. On Oct. 2, the administration sent a memo to Congress declaring that the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with the groups.

    Baker poked holes in that logic. He said the labels alone don’t seem to be enough to support the militarized action. 

    “The problem here seems to be reverse engineering,” Baker said. “There's no armed group and ongoing, consistent, violent hostilities. I'm not seeing it.”

    In addition to the cartel strikes, a flurry of legal challenges have been filed in response to President Trump’s deployments of National Guard troops to Chicago, Portland, Oregon, and Memphis. Similar deployments earlier this year to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., are also the subjects of lawsuits. 

    McPherson said the administration’s legal justifications for the LA deployment were divorced from reality.

    "Well, those facts were not supported by the evidence, ladies and gentlemen. Just simply was not,” he said. “And as a result, the facts that the administration articulated were facts that they found on Truth Social, facts they found in podcasts, facts they found not in evidence on the ground."

    Judge advocates general often provide direct guidance to a commander, steering them between the guardrails in place for military operations. An August survey by the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab reported that 4 out of 5 service members surveyed understood the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s mandate to disobey unlawful orders.

    Baker said commanders should have the courage to stand up to illegal orders.

    "If the JAG advised it was unlawful, the commander owns it now,” Baker said. “So, if you think there's something that is unlawful, you need to say so. And that's a point when you put your stars on the table."

    ]]>

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

  • The notorious cybercriminal collective known as Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters has escalated their extortion campaign by launching a dedicated leak site to threaten organizations with the exposure of stolen Salesforce data.

    This supergroup, comprised of established threat actors including ShinyHunters, Scattered Spider, and Lapsus$, represents a sophisticated evolution in ransomware-as-a-service operations that targets one of the world’s most widely used customer relationship management platforms.

    The group’s emergence signifies a dangerous consolidation of cybercriminal expertise, combining the technical capabilities and operational knowledge of multiple established threat actors.

    Their coordinated approach demonstrates how modern cybercriminal organizations are becoming increasingly organized and specialized, focusing on high-value targets that can yield substantial ransom payments.

    The collective’s decision to specifically target Salesforce instances reflects their understanding of the platform’s critical business value and the sensitive customer data it contains.

    Operating through the TOR Onion network, their extortionware portal lists compromised Salesforce customers alongside claims of how much data the group has allegedly exfiltrated during their attacks.

    UpGuard analysts noted that the website threatens affected organizations with public data exposure unless payment demands are met, with an initial deadline set for October 10th, 2025.

    The site’s existence marks a troubling milestone in the commercialization of data theft, transforming stolen information into leverage for systematic extortion operations.

    The attack campaign demonstrates sophisticated technical execution across multiple vectors, beginning with social engineering attacks that exploited human vulnerabilities rather than technical flaws.

    The threat actors employed vishing techniques, impersonating IT support personnel to manipulate authorized users into installing malicious Salesforce integrations, providing the attackers with API-level access to target systems.

    OAuth Token Exploitation and Persistence Mechanisms

    The group’s most sophisticated attack vector involved compromising Salesloft’s GitHub repositories and leveraging valid OAuth integration tokens to maintain persistent access to connected Salesforce environments.

    After gaining initial access to Salesloft’s corporate GitHub account through suspected social engineering, the attackers methodically downloaded repository contents, created unauthorized user accounts within the organization, and established custom workflows to facilitate ongoing access.

    The attack progression followed a calculated approach where the threat actors discovered embedded AWS credentials within the compromised repositories, enabling them to access Salesloft Drift’s cloud infrastructure.

    Within this environment, they successfully identified and exfiltrated OAuth tokens belonging to Salesloft Drift clients, effectively transforming legitimate integration credentials into weapons for widespread data theft.

    This technique demonstrates how attackers can leverage the interconnected nature of modern SaaS platforms to achieve lateral movement across multiple organizations through a single compromised integration provider.

    The persistence mechanism relied heavily on the legitimate OAuth authorization framework, making detection particularly challenging for security teams who might not immediately recognize malicious activity disguised as authorized API calls.

    By utilizing valid integration tokens, the attackers could maintain access even if initial entry points were discovered and remediated, highlighting the critical importance of comprehensive token management and monitoring within enterprise environments.

    Follow us on Google NewsLinkedIn, and X to Get More Instant UpdatesSet CSN as a Preferred Source in Google.

    The post Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters Launched a New Leak Site to Release Data Stolen from Salesforce Instances appeared first on Cyber Security News.

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

  • In recent weeks, cybersecurity analysts have observed a resurgence of the Mustang Panda threat actor deploying a novel DLL side-loading approach to deliver malicious payloads.

    Emerging in June 2025, this campaign leverages politically themed lures targeting Tibetan advocacy groups.

    Victims receive a ZIP archive containing a decoy executable named Voice for the Voiceless Photos.exe alongside a hidden dynamic-link library, libjyy.dll, marked with system and hidden attributes to evade casual inspection.

    When executed, the decoy loads this concealed library via LoadLibraryW, triggering the obscure malware routine beneath the guise of legitimate software.

    Mustang Panda’s attack chain begins with a phishing email carrying the ZIP container. Once opened, Explorer hides the malicious DLL due to its combined “hidden” and “system” flags.

    Hidden DLL in the directory (Source – 0x0d4y.blog)

    The decoy executable then dynamically loads libjyy.dll by resolving the ProcessMain entry point and invoking it.

    At this stage, 0x0d4y Malware Researcher noted that this loader employs dynamic API resolution and string decryption routines to obscure its behavior, making static detection far more challenging.

    After initializing, the malicious DLL decrypts its core payloads, sets up persistence via multiple techniques (registry run keys and scheduled tasks), and finally extracts shellcode for execution.

    The persistence logic first renames both the decoy and the loader to %SystemRoot%\Adobe\licensinghelper.exe and registers a run key named AdobeLicensingHelper under HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run.

    ProcessMain (Source – 0x0d4y.blog)

    It then creates a scheduled task, executed every two minutes, to relaunch the loader with the required Licensing argument.

    Infection Mechanism

    Mustang Panda’s infection mechanism hinges on the DLL side-loading T1574.006 technique, dubbed “ClaimLoader.”

    The loader executable contains minimal import references, instead dynamically decrypting API names at runtime.

    A simple XOR routine with key 0x19 decodes encrypted strings before invoking LoadLibraryW and GetProcAddress.

    For example:-

    mov edx, <encrypted_length>
    mov ecx, <encrypted_string_address>
    ; XOR decryption loop
    decrypt_loop:
      mov al, [ecx]
      xor al, 0x19
      mov [ecx], al
      inc ecx
      dec edx
      jnz decrypt_loop
    ; After decryption, load API dynamically
    push <decrypted_string_address>
    call decryptstrloadapi
    call eax  ; resolved API call

    This code snippet illustrates how the loader avoids static imports and hides its true intentions until execution.

    Once the real payload library is loaded, it uses a secondary custom XOR algorithm—cycling through a four-byte key array [0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04]—to decrypt a Schtasks command string in memory.

    The decoded command schedules the loader to run periodically:-

    schtasks /Create /TN AdobeExperienceManager /SC MINUTE /MO 2 /TR "C:\Windows\Adobe\licensinghelper.exe Licensing" /F

    Following these steps, the loader allocates executable memory via VirtualAlloc, copies shellcode, and abuses the EnumFontsW callback mechanism to execute it.

    The shellcode then performs API hashing to resolve network functions and exfiltrate system data to a command-and-control server.

    Through these layered techniques, Mustang Panda remains especially elusive, blending well-known Windows APIs with dynamic loading and obfuscation to thwart traditional endpoint defenses.

    Follow us on Google NewsLinkedIn, and X to Get More Instant UpdatesSet CSN as a Preferred Source in Google.

    The post Mustang Panda Using New DLL Side-Loading Technique to Deliver Malware appeared first on Cyber Security News.

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

  • By most accounts, President Trump and President Erdogan had a productive meeting in the White House last month. Several major business deals were agreed, including cooperation on civilian nuclear energy. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the future of Syria were also on the agenda.

    Another topic that received considerable attention was U.S.-Turkish defense cooperation. In recent years, Turkey’s domestic defense industry has gone global. Turkish weapons—especially drones—are sought after from Asia to Africa to Europe. While U.S.-Turkish defense cooperation remains healthy, there is plenty of room for growth. But one sticking point still needs to be resolved to take the relationship to the next level: Turkey’s acquisition of the Russian-made S-400 air defense system and its subsequent expulsion from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

    In 2015, Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet that strayed into its airspace from Syria. At the time, the fighting in Syria was threatening to spill into Turkey, and Ankara faced a genuine air-defense problem. The problem was so acute that NATO deployed Patriot missile batteries under Operation Active Fence along Turkey’s southern border to help secure the skies. Around the same time, Turkey asked the United States for permission to buy Patriots of its own. Talks faltered over Ankara’s insistence on licensed production and technology transfer, which Washington was unwilling to grant. This pushed Turkey to look elsewhere—eventually to Russia’s S-400.

    By 2017, Turkey had placed the order for the S-400, and two years later, it had taken delivery of the system. Legitimate concerns were raised in the United States about whether a NATO member operating such an advanced Russian system should simultaneously fly the alliance’s most advanced fifth-generation fighter jet; the main fear was that the radar—and ultimately Moscow—might gather sensitive data about the jet’s networks, performance, and signatures. Later that year, Turkey was formally ejected from the F-35 program.

    Even so, Turkey wisely treaded carefully with its new acquisition. It has conducted only one live test-fire exercise in 2020 and the system has remained inactive in a state of low readiness since. Last year, Turkish Defense Minister Yaşar Güler said that “the threat would have to escalate to a very high level, an air attack, for us to use the S-400.” At a time when Turkey has been making rapid advancements in its own domestically produced air-defense systems, it has decided not to incorporate the S-400 into its “Steel Dome” air-defense-network project.

    The S-400 issue remains the main obstacle to closer U.S.-Turkish defense relations. A few potential solutions have been floated. One idea is to mimic the arrangement for the S-300 system that Greece acquired from Cyprus in 2007. Usually kept in storage on Crete, the S-300 was occasionally exercised but not used for day-to-day air-defense operations.

    Others have suggested that Turkey could sell the system to one of the few other countries that have purchased the S-400 from Russia, or even sell it back to Moscow. Still others have proposed that Turkey donate or sell the system to Ukraine. While Ankara has quietly provided Kyiv with significant military hardware, a highly public and controversial transfer of the S-400 would likely be a step too far. Meanwhile, at least one news outlet recently suggested that talks are underway on a deal that would see Turkey render the S-400 “inoperable” in exchange for a return to the F-35 fold.

    There is yet one more one creative albeit unorthodox option worth exploring: the so-called “Nakhchivan Solution.”

    Nakhchivan is an exclave of Azerbaijan, bordered by Armenia to the north and Iran to the south, and sharing a short five-mile border with Turkey. Turkey and Azerbaijan routinely conduct joint military exercises. Under the Nakhchivan Solution, Turkey would deploy its S-400 system to Nakhchivan for such an exercise—and then simply leave it there in a deactivated or in a mothballed state, with Turkish crews rotating in and out as needed for maintenance.

    Furthermore, this arrangement would remove the system from Turkish territory, satisfying U.S. and NATO concerns, while keeping it close enough in allied Azerbaijan that it could quickly return if ever required. This would not be the sale or transfer of the weapon system to Azerbaijani ownership. So in this scenario, any export restrictions that Russia might have placed on the S-400 would not apply. Turkey would continue to own and maintain the S-400, but do so outside its borders. In parallel, Turkey should then be brought back into the F-35 program and allowed to buy Patriot missiles.

    Considering the lack of creative solutions after more than half a decade, this proposal makes sense for three reasons.

    First, it would be consistent with the deep and expanding level of defense cooperation between Azerbaijan and Turkey. The popular expression Bir millet, iki devlet (“One nation, two states”) underscores the cultural, historical, and linguistic ties binding the two countries. The 1992 Military Training Cooperation Agreement laid the foundation for modern Azerbaijani-Turkish military relations, while the 2010 Agreement on Strategic Partnership and Mutual Assistance further deepened cooperation. The 2021 Shusha Declaration elevated bilateral ties to a higher level, emphasizing the security dimension of the relationship. Furthermore, deploying the S-400 to Nakhchivan would be in the spirit of the 1921 Treaty of Kars, commonly interpreted as offering Turkey a de facto protector status of Nakhchivan.

    Second, the two regional powers most likely to object—Russia and Iran—are either too weak or too distracted to respond effectively. Iran may dislike the presence of such a system on its northern border, but in practice, there is nothing preventing Turkey from deploying the S-400 close to the Iranian frontier on its own territory right now. Anyway, Iran has been left too weak to do anything beyond complain. Meanwhile, Russia’s influence in the South Caucasus is clearly waning, as evidenced by the recent White House-led peace initiative between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Moscow is also unlikely to have the capacity to block such a deployment. Baku’s own relations with Moscow are at a low point, so there will be less concern by Azerbaijan to consider Russia’s anxieties about such a move. As for Azerbaijan, it would be a winner in this scenario. Helping the U.S. break the impasse over the S-400 issue would be viewed favorably not only in the White House but across NATO’s capitals too.  

    Finally, perhaps American policymakers should take a more relaxed view of the lethality and effectiveness of the S-400. Although it has shown to be a capable platform in Ukraine, it has not lived up to the hype. The exact number is impossible to know, but open-source reporting documents multiple Ukrainian strikes that destroyed or disabled several S-400 batteries. Furthermore, Israeli F-35s and the S-400 have already operated in the same battlespace in Syria, where the stealthy F-35 has proved quite effective against the Russian air defense system.

    It has now been six years since Turkey took delivery of the S-400 and was ejected from the F-35 program. The time has come to resolve this issue in a way that satisfies all parties while elevating the U.S.-Turkish bilateral relationship to the next level. If such a solution could be announced in advance of the next NATO summit—set to be held in Turkey next July—it would be a welcome development for the transatlantic community. Now is the time for new and creative ideas.

    ]]>

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

  • Security teams are constantly on the move. Alerts never stop coming in, workloads keep piling up, and the pressure to react fast can wear anyone down. Add long investigations and a maze of tools on top of that, and burnout becomes almost inevitable. 

    Still, it doesn’t have to be this way. With the right approach, combining interactive sandboxing and smart automation, SOCs can take the pressure off, resolve incidents faster, and keep analysts focused on what matters most: catching threats before they spread. 

    Here are three ways to make that happen: 

    1. See and Explore Full Attack Chain in Real Time 

    One big reason analysts burn out is the constant waiting. Traditional tools often take hours to confirm whether an alert is real, forcing teams to chase uncertainty while the clock keeps ticking. By the time a threat is verified, it may already be moving through the network, and the workload has doubled. 

    Interactive sandboxes, such as ANY.RUN change that. Instead of relying on static reports, analysts can watch an attack unfold live inside a secure virtual machine. Suspicious files, URLs, or scripts are detonated instantly, revealing every step of the behavior chain, from initial dropper to payload, without risking production systems. 

    That visibility turns slow, fragmented investigations into fast, confident decisions. Analysts know exactly what they’re dealing with and how to stop it, often within seconds. 

    For instance, this analysis session gave final verdict and full attack chain of LockBit 5.0 attack in just 33 seconds: 

    View real-world attack exposed in 33 secs 

    LockBit attack fully exposed inside ANY.RUN sandbox in 33 seconds 

    According to the recent research carried out by ANY.RUN team, companies using interactive sandboxing had the following real-world results: 

    • 88% of attacks become visible within the 60 seconds of analysis. 
    • Teams report up to a 36% higher detection rate on average. 

    See how your SOC can cut investigation time and handle more threats with less stress.  -> Talk to ANY.RUN Experts 

    2. Find Evasive Threats Before They Drain Your Team’s Time 

    Some attacks are built to stay hidden. They wait for the right user action, a click, a CAPTCHA, a file download, before revealing their true behavior. Traditional tools can’t always simulate these steps, which means analysts often spend hours trying to manually trigger and analyze the attack chain. 

    ANY.RUN’s interactive sandbox changes that. Its Automated Interactivity feature mimics real user behavior inside a secure virtual machine, clicking links, solving CAPTCHAs, opening attachments, and following redirects, to expose even the most evasive threats automatically. 

    That means analysts no longer need to repeat the same manual steps for every case. What once took hours, like uncovering a malicious link hidden in a QR code or a payload buried behind multiple redirects, can now be done in seconds. 

    Here’s an example of Automated Interactivity inside the ANY.RUN sandbox: 

    View analysis session with malicious QR code  

    ANY.RUN sandbox solving CAPTCHA automatically 

    As shown in the session, the sandbox performs user actions on its own, uncovering the malicious link hidden in a QR code, solving the CAPTCHA, and collecting all behavioral indicators for immediate review. Analysts get a full report, complete with IOCs and TTPs, without spending too much time and effort. 

    Well-structured report generated by ANY.RUN sandbox 

    Real-world results: 

    • Up to 58% more hidden threats identified compared to traditional tools. 
    • 30% fewer Tier 1 → Tier 2 escalations, as junior analysts can handle more incidents independently. 

    By automating the tedious parts of analysis, SOCs find evasive threats faster, cut down investigation time, and free analysts to focus on higher-value work. 

    3. Connect Your Tools for a Faster, Smoother Workflow 

    Even the most skilled team can lose momentum when tools don’t work together. Jumping between dashboards, copying IOCs, and updating multiple systems manually eats away at valuable investigation time, and adds to analyst frustration. 

    With ANY.RUN’s connectors, your sandbox, threat intelligence, and automation tools all work in sync. The platform connects with popular SOC systems like QRadar, Cortex XSOAR, OpenCTI, and Microsoft Sentinel, letting analysts access threat data, behavioral insights, and enrichment directly from their main workspace. 

    Instead of switching tabs, the context travels with you. Every alert is enriched with fresh IOCs and real behavioral data, helping teams make faster and more confident response decisions. 

    Real-world results: 

    • Up to 3× faster response times thanks to a connected, zero-delay workflow. 
    • Access to 24× more IOCs per case, powered by data from over 15,000 SOCs worldwide. 

    By keeping every system in sync, SOCs save time, eliminate repetitive work, and maintain a clear, unified picture of what’s happening, all without adding extra complexity. 

    Turn Overload into Faster, Confident Response 

    SOC burnout doesn’t happen overnight. It builds up through endless alerts, manual work, and tools that don’t fit together. But when teams gain real-time visibility, automate repetitive tasks, and work within one connected system, the pressure starts to fade, and efficiency takes its place. 

    Analysts can focus on meaningful investigations instead of chasing noise. Collaboration improves, and incidents get solved faster, often in a fraction of the time it used to take. 

    With interactive sandboxing, automation, and integrations that bring everything together, ANY.RUN helps SOCs cut response time by an average of 21 minutes per case, turning daily overload into fast, confident action. 

    Contact the ANY.RUN Enterprise team to see how your SOC can do the same. 

    The post 3 Steps to Beat Burnout in Your SOC and Solve Cyber Incidents Faster  appeared first on Cyber Security News.

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

  • A sophisticated cyberattack campaign, active since August 2025, where a China-nexus threat actor has been weaponizing a legitimate server operations tool called Nezha to execute commands and deploy malware on compromised web servers.

    This campaign, uncovered by Huntress, represents the first publicly reported instance of Nezha being abused in this manner, highlighting a tactical shift towards leveraging open-source tools to evade detection.

    The attackers employed a creative log poisoning technique to gain initial access before deploying the notorious Ghost RAT, primarily targeting entities in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong.

    The intrusion began with the exploitation of a vulnerable, public-facing phpMyAdmin panel that lacked proper authentication. After gaining access from an AWS-hosted IP in Hong Kong, the attackers immediately set the interface language to simplified Chinese.

    They then used an inventive technique known as log poisoning to plant a web shell. By manipulating MariaDB’s logging functions, the threat actor set the general log file to a PHP file within the webroot.

    They then executed an SQL query containing a one-liner PHP web shell, effectively writing their backdoor into the executable log file.

    PHP Webshell
    PHP Webshell

    This method allowed them to execute arbitrary code on the server using tools like AntSword, which are designed to manage such backdoors.

    Nezha Monitoring Tool to Deploy Webshell

    After establishing control with the web shell, the adversary’s primary objective was to deploy a more persistent and versatile tool. They used the AntSword connection to download and execute live.exe, an installer for a Nezha agent.

    Nezha is a legitimate, open-source tool for server monitoring and task management. However, in this case, it was repurposed as a malicious implant.

    The agent’s configuration file pointed to the attacker’s command-and-control (C2) server, which was running a Nezha dashboard, Huntress said.

    This dashboard, set to the Russian language, revealed the attackers had compromised over 100 victim machines across 53 regions, with a significant concentration in East Asia, aligning with China’s geopolitical interests.

    Victims
    Victims infected

    With the Nezha agent providing stable and stealthy access, the attackers escalated their privileges. They used Nezha’s command execution capabilities to launch an interactive PowerShell session, where they created an exclusion rule in Windows Defender to avoid detection.

    Immediately after, they deployed x.exe, a variant of the infamous Ghost RAT. Analysis of this malware revealed communication protocols and persistence mechanisms consistent with previous campaigns attributed to Chinese advanced persistent threat (APT) groups.

    The incident underscores the necessity of hardening public-facing applications and monitoring for the abuse of legitimate software, as threat actors continue to adapt their playbooks to stay ahead of defenders.

    CategoryTypeIndicatorDescription
    FilePathC:\xamp\htdocs\123.phpWeb shell
    FileSHA256f3570bb6e0f9c695d48f89f043380b43831dd0f6fe79b16eda2a3ffd9fd7ad16Web shell
    FileURLhttps://rism.pages[.]dev/microsoft.exeNezha Agent
    FilePathC:\Windows\Cursors\live.exeNezha Agent
    FileSHA2569f33095a24471bed55ce11803e4ebbed5118bfb5d3861baf1c8214efcd9e7de6Nezha Agent
    FilePathC:\Windows\Cursors\x.exeGhost RAT Payload
    FileSHA2567b2599ed54b72daec0acfd32744c7a9a77b19e6cf4e1651837175e4606dbc958Ghost RAT Payload
    FilePathC:\Windows\system32\SQLlite.exeRenamed rundll32.exe
    FileSHA25682611e60a2c5de23a1b976bb3b9a32c4427cb60a002e4c27cadfa84031d87999Renamed rundll32.exe
    FilePathC:\Windows\system32\32138546.dllMalicious DLL
    FileSHA25635e0b22139fb27d2c9721aedf5770d893423bf029e1f56be92485ff8fce210f3Malicious DLL
    InfrastructureIP Address54.46.50[.]255Initial Access IP
    InfrastructureIP Address45.207.220[.]12Web shell and Backdoor C2/Operator IP
    InfrastructureDomainc.mid[.]alNezha C2 Domain
    InfrastructureIP Address172.245.52[.]169Nezha C2 IP
    InfrastructureDomaingd.bj2[.]xyzBackdoor C2/Operator Domain
    MiscellaneousService NameSQLlitePersistence Service Name
    MiscellaneousMutexgd.bj2[.]xyz:53762:SQLliteInfection Marker

    Cyber Awareness Month Offer: Upskill With 100+ Premium Cybersecurity Courses From EHA's Diamond Membership: Join Today

    The post Chinese Hackers Weaponized Nezha Tool to Execute Commands on Web Server appeared first on Cyber Security News.

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

  • In 2025, securing global supply chains is one of the top priorities for enterprises seeking business continuity, data integrity, and resilience against threats. As cyber risks, fraud, and disruption increase across physical and digital networks, leaders must adopt robust intelligence and end-to-end security solutions. This definitive ranking evaluates the best supply chain intelligence security companies, […]

    The post Top 10 Best Supply Chain Intelligence Security Companies in 2025 appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

  • Generative AI has gone from a novelty to a foundation of organization efficiency in just a few short years. From copilots embedded in office suites to dedicated large language model (LLM) platforms, personnel now rely on these platforms to code, analyze, draft, and decide.

    But for CISOs and security architects, the very speed of adoption has created a dilemma the more powerful the platforms the more porous the organization boundary becomes.

    And here’s the counterintuitive part: the biggest exposure isn’t that personnel are negligent with prompts. It’s that organizations are applying the wrong mental model when assessing offerings trying to retrofit legacy controls for a exposure surface they were never designed to cover. A new report by LayerX Security tries to bridge that gap.

    The Hidden Challenge in Today’s Vendor Landscape

    The AI data security landscape is already crowded. Every vendor, from traditional DLP to next-gen SSE platforms, is rebranding around “AI security.” On paper, this seems to offer transparency In practice, it muddies the waters.

    The truth is that most legacy architectures, designed for file transfers, email, or network gateways, cannot meaningfully analyze or control what happens when a user pastes sensitive code into a chatbot, or uploads a dataset to a personal AI tool.

    Assessing offerings through the lens of yesterday’s risks is what leads many organizations to buy shelfware.

    This is why the buyer’s journey for AI data security needs to be reframed. Instead of asking “Which vendor has the most features?” the real question is: Which vendor understands how AI is actually used at the last mile: inside the browser, across sanctioned and unsanctioned tools?

    The Buyer’s Journey: A Counterintuitive Path

    Most procurement processes start with visibility. But in AI data security, visibility is not the finish line; it’s the starting point. Discovery will show you the proliferation of AI tools across departments, but the real differentiator is how a solution interprets and enforces policies in real time, without throttling productivity.

    The buyer’s journey often follows four stages:

    1. Discovery – Identify which AI tools are in use, sanctioned or shadow. Conventional wisdom says this is enough to scope the problem. In reality, discovery without context leads to overestimation of risk and blunt responses (like outright bans).
    1. Real-Time Monitoring – Understand how these tools are being used, and what data flows through them. The surprising insight? Not all AI usage is risky. Without monitoring, you can’t separate harmless drafting from the inadvertent leak of source code.
    1. Enforcement – This is where many buyers default to binary thinking: allow or block. The counterintuitive truth is that the most effective enforcement lives in the gray area—redaction, just-in-time warnings, conditional approvals. These not only protect data but also educate users in the moment.
    1. Architecture Fit – Perhaps the least glamorous but most critical stage. Buyers often overlook deployment complexity, assuming security teams can bolt new agents or proxies onto existing stacks. In practice, solutions that demand infrastructure change are the ones most likely to stall or get bypassed.

    What Experienced Buyers Should Really Ask

    Security leaders know the standard checklist: compliance coverage, identity integration, reporting dashboards. But in AI data security, some of the most important questions are the least obvious:

    • Does the solution work without relying on endpoint agents or network rerouting?
    • Can it enforce policies in unmanaged or BYOD environments, where much shadow AI lives?
    • Does it offer more than “block” as a control. I.e., can it redact sensitive strings, or warn users contextually?
    • How adaptable is it to new AI tools that haven’t yet been released?

    These questions cut against the grain of traditional vendor evaluation but reflect the operational reality of AI adoption.

    Balancing Security and Productivity: The False Binary

    One of the most persistent myths is that CISOs must choose between enabling AI innovation and protecting sensitive data. Blocking tools like ChatGPT may satisfy a compliance checklist, but it drives employees to personal devices, where no controls exist. In effect, bans create the very shadow AI problem they were meant to solve.

    The more sustainable approach is nuanced enforcement: permitting AI usage in sanctioned contexts while intercepting risky behaviors in real time. In this way, security becomes an enabler of productivity, not its adversary.

    Technical vs. Non-Technical Considerations

    While technical fit is paramount, non-technical factors often decide whether an AI data security solution succeeds or fails:

    • Operational Overhead – Can it be deployed in hours, or does it require weeks of endpoint configuration?
    • User Experience – Are controls transparent and minimally disruptive, or do they generate workarounds?
    • Futureproofing – Does the vendor have a roadmap for adapting to emerging AI tools and compliance regimes, or are you buying a static product in a dynamic field?

    These considerations are less about “checklists” and more about sustainability—ensuring the solution can scale with both organizational adoption and the broader AI landscape.

    The Bottom Line

    CISOs evaluating AI data security solutions face a paradox: the space looks crowded, but true fit-for-purpose options are rare. The buyer’s journey requires more than a feature comparison; it demands rethinking assumptions about visibility, enforcement, and architecture.

    The counterintuitive lesson? The best AI security investments aren’t the ones that promise to block everything. They’re the ones that enable your enterprise to harness AI safely, striking a balance between innovation and control.

    LayerX has published a new Buyer’s Guide to AI Data Security that distills this complex landscape into a clear, step-by-step framework. The guide is designed for both technical and economic buyers, walking them through the full journey: from recognizing the unique risks of generative AI to evaluating solutions across discovery, monitoring, enforcement, and deployment. By breaking down the trade-offs, exposing counterintuitive considerations, and providing a practical evaluation checklist, the guide helps security leaders cut through vendor noise and make informed decisions that balance innovation with control.

    The post Rethinking AI Data Security: A Buyer’s Guide for CISOs appeared first on Cyber Security News.

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶

    ¶¶¶¶¶