Arch Linux—the community-driven, lightweight distribution renowned for its rolling-release model—has confirmed that a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack has been targeting its core infrastructure for over a week. Beginning on August 18, users worldwide have experienced intermittent outages and slowdowns on the Arch Linux main website, the Arch User Repository (AUR), and the official forums. According […]
A comprehensive operational dump from the North Korean Kimsuky APT organization, also known as APT43, Thallium, or Velvet Chollima, appeared on a dark web forum in an uncommon instance of state-sponsored cyber espionage. This leak, comprising virtual machine images, VPS dumps, phishing kits, rootkits, and over 20,000 browser history records, provides an unparalleled glimpse into […]
As cybersecurity threats continue to evolve in complexity and sophistication, organizations face critical decisions about their security infrastructure. Two prominent approaches have emerged as frontrunners in enterprise security: Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and Managed Detection and Response (MDR).
While both solutions aim to protect organizations from advanced threats, they differ significantly in their implementation, management requirements, and operational models.
Understanding these differences is crucial for security leaders in determining the optimal approach for their organization’s unique threat landscape and resource constraints.
EDR vs MDR Architecture Comparison.
Introduction to EDR and MDR
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) represents a technology-focused security solution that provides continuous monitoring and response capabilities for endpoint devices within an organization’s network.
EDR solutions deploy lightweight agents across workstations, servers, and mobile devices to collect telemetry data, detect suspicious activities, and enable rapid incident response.
These platforms leverage advanced analytics, machine learning algorithms, and behavioral analysis to identify threats that traditional antivirus solutions might miss.
Core EDR capabilities include real-time monitoring of endpoint activities, threat hunting functionalities, forensic analysis tools, and automated response mechanisms.
Modern EDR solutions integrate with threat intelligence feeds and utilize techniques such as process tree analysis, network connection monitoring, and file integrity checking to maintain comprehensive visibility across the endpoint ecosystem.
Managed Detection and Response (MDR), conversely, represents a service-oriented approach that combines technology, expertise, and processes to deliver comprehensive security monitoring and incident response.
MDR providers typically offer 24/7/365 monitoring services, staffed by experienced security analysts who actively hunt for threats, investigate alerts, and coordinate response activities on behalf of their clients.
MDR services encompass threat detection across multiple attack vectors, including endpoints, network traffic, cloud environments, and email systems.
The service model typically includes proactive threat hunting, incident response coordination, forensic analysis, and strategic security consulting. MDR providers leverage their own proprietary tools alongside best-of-breed security technologies to deliver comprehensive coverage.
EDR Automated Response.
Key Differences Between EDR and MDR
The fundamental distinction between EDR and MDR lies in their operational models. EDR solutions require organizations to maintain internal security teams capable of managing, monitoring, and responding to security events.
This necessitates significant investment in security personnel, training, and operational processes. Organizations implementing EDR must develop incident response procedures, establish threat hunting capabilities, and maintain 24/7 monitoring coverage.
Technology deployment also differs significantly between approaches. EDR solutions typically focus primarily on endpoint protection, requiring integration with other security tools for comprehensive coverage.
Organizations often need additional solutions for network monitoring, email security, and cloud protection. MDR services, however, provide integrated multi-vector protection, combining endpoint, network, email, and cloud security monitoring under a unified service delivery model.
Aspect
EDR (Endpoint Detection & Response)
MDR (Managed Detection & Response)
Operational Model
Technology platform requiring internal management
Outsourced security service with expert management
Staffing Requirements
Dedicated security analysts and SOC team required
Minimal internal staffing – liaison roles only
Technology Scope
Primarily endpoint-focused protection
Multi-vector: endpoints, network, email, cloud
Deployment Approach
On-premises or cloud-deployed software agents
Service-based with provider-managed infrastructure
Professional threat hunters conduct proactive searches
Cost Structure
License fees + personnel + infrastructure costs
Subscription-based all-inclusive service pricing
Scalability
Limited by internal team capacity and expertise
Elastic scaling based on threat levels and needs
Implementation Time
Weeks to months for full deployment and training
Days to weeks for service activation
Data Control
Complete data control and ownership
Shared data access with security service provider
Customization Level
High – full control over rules and configurations
Moderate – provider-defined service parameters
Threat Intelligence
Limited to subscribed feeds and internal analysis
Rich threat intelligence from multiple client bases
Compliance Support
Organization responsible for compliance alignment
Provider assists with compliance requirements
Skills Development
Builds internal security expertise and capabilities
Limited internal security skill development
Scalability considerations represent another critical difference. EDR solutions scale based on the number of protected endpoints, with organizations bearing responsibility for scaling their security operations accordingly.
MDR services offer elastic scaling, with providers adjusting resources based on threat levels and organizational requirements without requiring client-side infrastructure changes.
Response capabilities vary substantially between approaches. EDR solutions provide automated response capabilities and investigative tools, but require skilled security analysts to interpret findings and coordinate response activities.
MDR services include human-led investigation and response, with experienced analysts conducting threat hunting, incident analysis, and coordinated response activities.
The cost structures also differ significantly. EDR solutions typically involve upfront licensing costs, ongoing maintenance expenses, and substantial personnel investments.
MDR services operate on subscription-based pricing models that include technology, personnel, and operational costs, often providing more predictable budget planning.
Challenges and Limitations of Each Approach
EDR limitations center primarily around resource requirements and operational complexity. Organizations implementing EDR solutions must invest heavily in security talent, which remains scarce and expensive in the current market.
The alert fatigue phenomenon commonly affects EDR deployments, where high volumes of security alerts overwhelm analysis capabilities, leading to delayed response times and missed threats.
Skills gaps represent a persistent challenge for EDR implementations. Effective threat hunting, forensic analysis, and incident response require specialized expertise that many organizations struggle to develop internally.
Additionally, EDR solutions may suffer from limited threat intelligence compared to MDR providers who aggregate threat data across multiple clients and threat landscapes.
Advanced persistent threats (APTs) often employ sophisticated evasion techniques that can bypass automated EDR detection mechanisms. For example, the APT29 (Cozy Bear) group has demonstrated capabilities to evade endpoint detection through living-off-the-land techniques, leveraging legitimate system tools for malicious activities. Without experienced analysts to identify these subtle indicators, organizations may miss critical threats.
MDR challengesinclude vendor dependency and potential loss of internal security capability development. Organizations relying heavily on MDR services may experience reduced internal threat detection expertise over time.
Data privacy concerns also arise when sharing sensitive security telemetry with external providers, particularly for organizations in regulated industries.
Response time limitations can affect MDR effectiveness, especially for threats requiring immediate containment. While MDR providers offer 24/7 monitoring, the communication overhead between external analysts and internal IT teams may introduce delays in critical response scenarios.
Integration complexity represents another MDR challenge, particularly for organizations with complex IT environments or specialized security requirements. MDR providers may struggle to achieve the same level of environmental understanding as internal security teams.
Which Solution Is Right for Your Organization?
EDR solutions prove most suitable for organizations with established security operations centers (SOCs), experienced security personnel, and strong incident response capabilities.
Large enterprises with dedicated cybersecurity teams, compliance requirements demanding internal security control, and complex IT environments often benefit from EDR implementations.
Organizations should consider EDR when they possess sufficient security talent, require granular control over security operations, and have established threat intelligence capabilities.
EDR also proves advantageous for organizations with specific compliance requirements mandating internal security management or those operating in highly regulated industries where data sharing with external providers presents challenges.
MDR services align well with small to medium-sized enterprises lacking comprehensive internal security capabilities, organizations experiencing rapid growth outpacing security team development, and companies seeking to augment existing security operations. The subscription-based MDR model provides predictable costs and immediate access to enterprise-grade security capabilities.
Organizations should evaluate MDR when facing security talent shortages, requiring 24/7 monitoring coverage, or needing to rapidly enhance security posture without significant capital investments.
MDR particularly benefits organizations lacking mature incident response processes or those seeking to leverage external threat intelligence and expertise.
Hybrid approaches increasingly prove effective, combining internal EDR capabilities with selective MDR services for specific use cases such as after-hours monitoring, threat hunting, or incident response coordination.
This model allows organizations to maintain internal security expertise while leveraging external resources for specialized capabilities.
The decision ultimately depends on organizational maturity, resource availability, risk tolerance, and strategic security objectives. Organizations should conduct comprehensive risk assessments, evaluate internal capabilities, and consider long-term security strategy when selecting between EDR and MDR approaches.
Find this Story Interesting! Follow us on LinkedIn and X to Get More Instant Updates.
Threat actors continue to use Scheduled Tasks and other built-in Windows features to create persistence in the ever-changing world of cybersecurity threats, frequently avoiding the need of external tools or complex zero-day exploits. As of 2025, despite advancements in attack techniques such as rootkits and dead-drop command-and-control (C2) mechanisms, traditional methods remain prevalent due to […]
Microsoft has acknowledged that the August 2025 security update—KB5063878—can cause significant performance degradation on both Windows 11, version 24H2, and supported Windows 10 releases. The company’s Windows release health dashboard confirms reports of severe stuttering, lag, and choppy audio/video playback when using Network Device Interface (NDI) streaming in applications such as OBS (Open Broadcaster Software) […]
A critical security flaw in Tableau Server could enable attackers to upload and execute malicious files, potentially leading to complete system compromise.
The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2025-26496 with a CVSS score of 9.6, affects multiple versions of both Tableau Server and Tableau Desktop across Windows and Linux platforms.
Key Takeaways 1. Tableau Server allows malicious file uploads and code execution through type confusion attacks. 2. Five vulnerabilities enable file upload bypass and path traversal attacks. 3. Upgrade all Tableau Server versions
Tableau Server File Upload Vulnerabilities
Salesforce Security identified five distinct vulnerabilities during a proactive security assessment, with fixes included in the July 22, 2025 Maintenance Release.
The most severe vulnerability, CVE-2025-26496, involves Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type (‘Type Confusion’) in the File Upload modules, allowing Local Code Inclusion attacks.
The vulnerability affects Tableau Server versions before 2025.1.4, before 2024.2.13, and before 2023.3.20.
This type confusion flaw occurs when the application incorrectly handles data types during file processing, potentially allowing attackers to bypass security controls and execute arbitrary code on the target system.
Additional critical vulnerabilities include CVE-2025-26497 (CVSS 7.7) and CVE-2025-26498 (CVSS 7.7), both involving Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type affecting the Flow Editor and establish-connection-no-undo modules respectively.
These flaws enable Absolute Path Traversal attacks, allowing attackers to write files to arbitrary locations on the server filesystem.
Path Traversal Vulnerabilities
Two path traversal vulnerabilities, CVE-2025-52450 and CVE-2025-52451, both scoring 8.5 on CVSS, affect the tabdoc API’s create-data-source-from-file-upload modules.
CVE-2025-52450 represents an Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory vulnerability, while CVE-2025-52451 involves Improper Input Validation.
These vulnerabilities allow attackers to perform directory traversal attacks using malicious payloads to access sensitive system files outside the intended upload directory.
The improper input validation enables attackers to bypass path sanitization mechanisms through techniques like double encoding (%252e%252e%252f) or Unicode normalization attacks.
The affected modules process user-supplied file paths without adequate validation, potentially allowing attackers to overwrite critical system files, access configuration data, or plant webshells for persistent access.
In enterprise environments, these vulnerabilities could facilitate lateral movement and privilege escalation attacks.
CVE ID
Vulnerability Type
CVSS 3.1 Score
Severity
CVE-2025-26496
Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type (‘Type Confusion’)
9.6
Critical
CVE-2025-26497
Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type
7.7
High
CVE-2025-26498
Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type
7.7
High
CVE-2025-52450
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (‘Path Traversal’)
8.5
High
CVE-2025-52451
Improper Input Validation
8.5
High
Immediate Patching Required
Organizations running affected Tableau Server versions must immediately upgrade to the latest supported maintenance release.
The vulnerability disclosure follows responsible disclosure practices, with Salesforce providing patches before public disclosure.
System administrators should prioritize patching due to the critical CVSS scores and the potential for remote code execution.
The combination of file upload and path traversal vulnerabilities creates a dangerous attack vector that could lead to complete server compromise, data exfiltration, and deployment of ransomware or other malicious payloads.
Security teams should also review access logs for suspicious file upload activities, implement Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules to detect path traversal attempts, and conduct post-patch security assessments to ensure no compromise occurred prior to remediation.
Find this Story Interesting! Follow us on LinkedIn and X to Get More Instant Updates.
A federal court has handed down a four-year prison term to a former software developer who sabotaged his employer’s global network with a custom “kill switch,” crippling operations and inflicting hundreds of thousands in losses. Davis Lu, 55, a Chinese national legally residing and working in Houston, was sentenced on August 21 by U.S. District […]
As part of the ongoing analysis of the KorPlug malware family, this second installment focuses on the complex second-stage payload, expanding on earlier discoveries of DLL side-loading methods that use legitimate programs to execute code initially. The payload, a malicious DLL with SHA-256 hash b6b239fe0974cf09fe8ee9bc5d0502174836a79c53adccdbb1adeb1f15c6845c, measures 638,976 bytes (624 KB) and is structured as an […]
Threat actors are increasingly abusing native evaluation and execution functions to conceal and execute malicious payloads within innocent-looking packages on PyPI. Security researchers warn that while static analysis libraries such as hexora can detect many obfuscation techniques, attackers continue innovating ways to slip harmful code past simple scanners. Supply chain attacks targeting Python packages have surged, with […]
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has officially released NIST Special Publication 800-232, establishing the Ascon family of algorithms as the new standard for lightweight cryptography designed specifically for resource-constrained devices.
Published in August 2025, this groundbreaking standard addresses critical security gaps in Internet of Things (IoT) devices, embedded systems, and low-power sensors where traditional cryptographic solutions like AES-GCM may prove too resource-intensive.
Key Takeaways 1. NIST SP 800-232 standardizes the Ascon family—using 320-bit states and Ascon-p/p permutations. 2. Ascon-AEAD128 delivers 128-bit security. 3. Ascon-Hash256, XOF128, and CXOF128 use a 64-bit sponge (Ascon-p) to produce 256-bit or variable-length outputs.
Ascon Algorithm Family Multi-Layered Protection
The newly standardized Ascon family comprises four distinct cryptographic primitives, each serving specific security functions.
Ascon-AEAD128 serves as the primary authenticated encryption scheme, offering 128-bit security strength in single-key environments with nonce-based operation.
The standard also includes Ascon-Hash256, a cryptographic hash function producing 256-bit digests with 128-bit security strength.
Two eXtendable Output Functions (XOFs) complete the suite: Ascon-XOF128 and Ascon-CXOF128.
The latter introduces customization string capabilities, enabling domain separation for applications requiring distinct outputs from identical inputs.
All algorithms utilize the same underlying Ascon-p permutations with varying round counts, specifically Ascon-p for initialization/finalization and Ascon-p for data processing phases.
The Ascon standard implements a Substitution-Permutation Network (SPN) structure operating on a 320-bit internal state divided into five 64-bit words.
The permutation function consists of three layers: constant-addition, substitution, and linear diffusion, providing robust cryptographic security while maintaining computational efficiency.
Key technical specifications include a 128-bit rate and 192-bit capacity for Ascon-AEAD128, while hash functions operate with a 64-bit rate and 256-bit capacity.
The standard mandates specific initial values: 0x00001000808c0001 for Ascon-AEAD128, 0x0000080100cc0002 for Ascon-Hash256, and distinct IVs for XOF variants to ensure algorithm separation.
Enhanced Security Features
NIST’s standard incorporates advanced security measures, including nonce-masking implementation options and truncation capabilities for authentication tags.
The specification requires a minimum of 32-bit truncated tags, with careful risk analysis mandated for tags shorter than 64 bits.
Data processing limits are established at 2⁵⁴ bytes per key to maintain security margins. For enhanced protection, the nonce-masking option maintains full 128-bit security regardless of key count.
This comprehensive approach ensures robust protection against forgery attempts while supporting practical deployment constraints in resource-limited environments.
Find this Story Interesting! Follow us on LinkedIn and X to Get More Instant Updates.