Security researchers at JFrog disclosed the vulnerability on Tuesday, assigning it the identifier CVE-2026-90894 and the nickname "ParaShells." JFrog rates the flaw 7.8 out of 10 on the CVSS severity scale. The bug does not allow remote attacks over a network. An attacker needs code already running on the machine as an ordinary local user, but once that condition is met, exploitation does not require administrator rights, a signed Parallels client, or an active virtual machine.
What Parallels Desktop Is and Why This Matters
Parallels Desktop runs Windows and Linux inside virtual machines on a Mac. It installs a background service called prl_disp_service that runs as root, because its work includes setting up host networking and unpacking virtual machine packages. The flaw is on the Mac side of the product, so the machine at risk is the Mac itself rather than the virtual machines on it.
That distinction is important. Many Mac users who run Parallels think of security risks as something that might affect the virtual Windows or Linux environment inside. ParaShells skips the guest entirely and compromises the Mac host directly.
How the Attack Works
The exploit chains together three separate weaknesses, none of which would be enough on its own.
The vulnerability combines three security weaknesses: a world-writable Unix socket, weak local client authentication, and argument injection during appliance extraction. On a default installation, prl_disp_service listens through /var/run/prl_disp_service.socket. JFrog researchers found that the socket could have 0777 permissions, allowing any local process to connect.
The login call that follows, PrlSrv_LoginLocal, checks only the credentials the kernel reports for the connecting process. It needs no Parallels code signature and works for an account that is not an administrator.
The third piece is where things get technically interesting. To install a virtual machine appliance, the service builds its unpack command as one line of text, tar -xf "%1" -C "%2". It then splits that text back into separate arguments using Qt's QProcess::splitCommand. The caller chooses part of that text, because it picks the folder the new virtual machine goes into. A double quote inside the folder name closes the quoting early, so whatever the attacker put after it becomes extra options for tar instead of part of a path.
The option JFrog used was --use-compress-program, which tells macOS tar to hand the archive to another program first. Because tar is running as root here, that program runs as root too. JFrog's test script wrote a passwordless sudo rule and opened a root shell.
In the lab demonstration, the sequence plays out in seconds: connect to the socket, send a crafted appliance install request with a poisoned directory path, and watch the compression program execute as uid 0. JFrog assembled this into a one-liner but has chosen not to publish that script, releasing the technical breakdown without the ready-to-fire weapon.
Yuval Moravchick, JFrog's vulnerability research team lead, explained: "The chain is short: A world-writable Unix socket, a login that trusts peer credentials rather than a Team ID, and an appliance unpack path that builds tar arguments using Qt string splitting. A quote in the parent path injects --use-compress-program=, and macOS tar runs the attacker's script as uid 0."
Who Is Most at Risk
The danger is highest on developer laptops, where a single poisoned Homebrew formula or malicious npm preinstall script can go from local user to full control, and on shared university and corporate machines that have many local accounts.
The threat model here is real and not hypothetical. Software developers routinely run third-party tools through package managers like Homebrew or execute npm scripts from projects they pull from the internet. Every one of those code paths represents a potential entry point for an attacker who knows the machine has Parallels installed. On a shared training lab or university computer lab Mac with a dozen local accounts, a single weak password or compromised student account is all it takes.
"From root, the attacker can replace system software, read other users' data, and persist via launchd," Moravchick noted. That last point about launchd persistence is particularly concerning because an attacker who establishes root access through this chain can survive a reboot by registering their own background processes with macOS's system daemon manager.
JFrog also confirmed no virtual machine needs to be actively running. The vulnerable service, prl_disp_service, starts automatically via a launch daemon at load, runs as root, and exposes the socket regardless of whether any VM is open. Simply having Parallels Desktop installed is enough to create the exposure.
The Patch Is Out, With a Catch
JFrog reported CVE-2026-90894 to Parallels maker Alludo, which fixed it in Parallels Desktop v27.0.0, released at the beginning of September 2026. The fix is real, but getting to it is not straightforward for a meaningful portion of Parallels' user base.
Parallels Desktop 27 needs a Mac with an Apple silicon chip. Its system requirements list Apple silicon only for the processor and macOS Sonoma 14.7 or newer for the operating system. On earlier releases of macOS, including Ventura 13, the installer sets up an older version of the product instead. Parallels removed Intel Mac support in version 27 and says the change follows Apple's plans rather than its own.
For Intel Mac users, the situation is murky. Intel users are told to stay on Parallels Desktop 26. "Parallels Desktop 26 fully supports Intel-based Mac computers today, and that will not change," the company wrote on 25 August, three weeks before this flaw became public, adding that Intel users can keep using version 26 and "expect future security and maintenance updates."
The problem is that according to JFrog, "Hosts that stay on the 26.x line, including 26.4.2, do not have that extract change." JFrog does not say it tested 26.4.1 or 26.4.2, and its writeup says it did not check older builds.
Parallels has not published a statement about CVE-2026-90894, and its list of security fixes, which maps each flaw to the version that repairs it, has not been reviewed since May 2025 and does not include this one. That leaves Intel Mac users running Parallels in a difficult position: a confirmed flaw, a fix that requires hardware they do not have, and no public acknowledgment from the vendor about plans for their platform.
The release notes for Parallels Desktop 26.4.2, which shipped on September 8, describe a single change related to Enterprise edition deployment and say nothing about a security fix for the extract path.
What Organizations Should Do Now
JFrog's immediate guidance comes in three parts: find every Mac in your environment running Parallels Desktop, restrict who can log in to those machines locally, and upgrade to version 27.0.0 or later where possible.
Two commands can confirm exposure without making any changes to the system. Running defaults read "/Applications/Parallels Desktop.app/Contents/Info" CFBundleShortVersionString reports the installed version, and ls -l /var/run/prl_disp_service.socket shows the socket permissions. JFrog says a socket showing srwxrwxrwx on a build at or near 26.4.0 should be treated as exposed until a patched build is confirmed.
Administrators using device management to push updates should check version rules before pushing anything. Parallels warns that a policy which sends out new major versions automatically will try to install version 27 on Intel Macs and fail.
One more complication: none of the published material says whether installing a fixed build removes access an attacker has already taken. JFrog notes that an attacker who reaches root can keep a foothold through launchd, which a product update would not clear. For any machine where compromise is suspected, an update alone is not enough.
Acronis has confirmed that attackers are actively exploiting a high-severity security flaw in its backup plugin for cPanel and WebHost Manager (WHM), urging system administrators to install available patches without delay.
The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2026-87886 and rated high severity, allows local privilege escalation through insecure file permissions. Classified under CWE-276 (incorrect default permissions), the flaw affects Linux-based installations of the Acronis backup plugin and, if exploited successfully, could allow a threat actor to compromise system confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
The flaw received its CVE designation on Tuesday, September 16, after Acronis quietly published a brief initial advisory over the weekend. The company assigned it a CVSS severity score of 7.8.
What the Plugin Does
To understand the risk here, it helps to know what this software actually sits on top of. The Acronis Backup plugin for WHM and cPanel gives hosting providers and web professionals cloud backup capabilities and granular, self-service recovery for end clients, including the ability to back up an entire cPanel server to cloud storage.
Acronis is a cybersecurity and data protection technology company that is popular among web hosting providers and managed service providers, since its platform lets them offer backup and security to their clients under their own branding. Its backup add-ons connect cPanel and Plesk to Acronis' cloud infrastructure, letting administrators back up and recover sites, databases, and mailboxes.
That puts the plugin in a particularly sensitive position on any server it runs on. An attacker who can escalate privileges inside this kind of environment has a direct path to the backup data of every customer account on that server.
The market footprint here is worth noting. According to the 2026 Web Hosting Trends Report by WebPros, cPanel/WHM leads the hosting control panel market with 64% adoption, while Plesk accounts for 31%. Both platforms are affected by this vulnerability, though active exploitation so far appears confined to cPanel and WHM deployments.
How the Attack Works
CVE-2026-87886 stems from insecure file permissions and allows authenticated attackers to achieve local privilege escalation without any user interaction. The vulnerability's CVSS string indicates that it can be exploited in low-complexity attacks, meaning the attack does not require special conditions or circumstances beyond the attacker's control to succeed.
In plain terms: an attacker who already has a low-level foothold on a vulnerable Linux server running this plugin can use this flaw to climb to higher privilege levels, without needing to trick a user or wait for any specific system event. Depending on the access gained, this could allow sensitive data to be accessed or modified and could potentially disrupt the server.
The type of data at risk includes backup data, system files, and customer account data.
Targeted Attacks, Limited Disclosure
Acronis' advisory language around the exploitation is measured but direct. The company stated that "exploitation of this vulnerability has been detected in the wild in limited, targeted attacks against Acronis Backup plugin for cPanel and WHM deployments."
However, the disclosure comes with some important caveats. BleepingComputer reported that Acronis based that assessment on a single report from a potentially affected customer. That is enough to justify urgent patching, but it is not the same as evidence of broad, automated exploitation across hosting providers.
There are currently no signs of active exploitation on Plesk deployments. Still, the extension for Plesk remains vulnerable and should be patched regardless.
Acronis has not published detailed technical information about the flaw, saying it wants to give system administrators time to apply available patches before sharing further details. The company has also identified no specific indicators of compromise and has not disclosed when the activity occurred or what attackers achieved beyond the privilege escalation impact described in the advisory.
What Needs to Be Patched
Acronis pushed out security updates for the affected plugins before the CVE was formally assigned. The versions administrators need to be on are:
Acronis Backup plugin for cPanel and WHM builds earlier than 1.9.3.1021, now fixed in version 1.9.3 HF3, and Acronis Backup extension for Plesk builds earlier than 1.8.11.638, fixed in version 1.8.11.
For shared hosting providers, the guidance is to check every server image and automation path, rather than assuming the version on one control-plane node represents the entire fleet. Once patched, administrators should also focus review on systems where initial access was plausible: servers hosting compromised sites, accounts with recent credential resets, and hosts that allow customers to upload or execute code.
One additional note worth flagging: a cPanel or Plesk server without the Acronis plugin or extension is outside the scope of CVE-2026-87886. This is an Acronis integration issue, not a blanket advisory for every cPanel, WHM, or Plesk installation.
Acronis is a Swiss cybersecurity company headquartered in Schaffhausen and operates a global network of cloud data centers, supporting over 20,000 service providers that protect approximately 750,000 businesses worldwide. That scale makes vulnerabilities in its hosting integrations a high-priority concern for the managed service provider community, where a single compromised server can cascade into customer data across dozens or hundreds of accounts.
The company has not indicated whether it plans to release a more detailed post-mortem on the exploitation activity once patching rates improve, which is a common practice after actively exploited flaws. For now, the immediate priority is getting affected installations onto the fixed builds before whatever foothold attackers have found gets wider use.
Security researchers have found a way to defeat the memory protections that Intel and AMD sell to cloud customers as their last line of defense against an untrusted host. The tool required costs less than a decent pair of headphones.
A team from KU Leuven, ETH Zurich, Durham University, and Google published details Sunday of an attack called DDRop, which exploits a fundamental design flaw in the memory encryption hardware powering confidential computing services at Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. It breaks protections in Intel Trust Domain Extensions (TDX), Intel Scalable SGX, and AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization-Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP), the three technologies that allow cloud customers to run workloads that even the cloud provider cannot read.
The method does not require a software exploit. It requires a small custom-built circuit board, a brief window of physical access to the server, and knowledge of how DDR5 memory commands work. The researchers built their device for $159 in parts.
The Gap Nobody Patched
Confidential computing encrypts a server's working memory at all times. Even a cloud provider's own administrator sees only scrambled data. The problem DDRop exposes is that encryption is not the same thing as freshness. The processor can confirm that data in memory is encrypted. It cannot confirm that data is current. Stale data, so long as it was encrypted legitimately at some point in the past, will still decrypt correctly and raise no alarm.
DDRop turns that gap into an attack. A small interposer board sits between the processor and a DDR5 memory module. When the attacker wants to cancel a specific memory write, the interposer forces a parity error on the command bus. The memory module silently discards the write. The interposer then cuts the wire used to report that error, so the processor is never notified. Old data stays in memory. The system has no way to know the latest update never arrived.
This is the first active interposer attack to run on DDR5 at full bus speed. Earlier DDR5 research required slowing the memory bus down and could only listen passively. Previous active attacks that altered memory contents only worked on older DDR4 hardware, DDR5's redesigned command format blocked them. DDRop routes around that entirely by dropping writes rather than redirecting them.
What the Researchers Pulled Off
On an Intel TDX server, the team demonstrated four outcomes. By dropping writes to page tables during setup, they mapped an attacker's virtual machine onto any physical memory address, then read a victim machine's private memory in full. They also flipped a victim machine into debug mode, copied its memory in plaintext, and restored everything afterward with no trace of tampering.
The most consequential result was attestation forgery. Attestation is the mechanism a hospital or bank uses to verify that the virtual machine handling their data is the one they approved and has not been altered. With DDRop, an attacker's machine can pass that check as though it were a trusted one. A customer could be convinced they are talking to a secure, verified environment when they are not.
On AMD SEV-SNP, results were narrower the researchers copied the contents of one victim memory page into another but the underlying exposure is the same. Neither platform checks whether memory is fresh.
No Patch, No Timeline
Both Intel and AMD acknowledged DDRop through coordinated disclosure before publication and issued security advisories on September 14. Neither offered a mitigation timeline. Both drew the same line: because the attack requires physical access, it falls outside their published threat model for confidential computing. Intel said it will not assign a CVE.
The researchers are direct about why a software fix cannot solve this. The freshness check was deliberately left out. Scalable memory encryption trades freshness for the ability to protect the large amounts of memory that cloud servers require. A lasting fix would need new memory-encryption hardware capable of providing both integrity and freshness at scale. Intel has discussed a future proposal called cache-line versioning, but has not committed to a timeline and researchers say it is unclear whether it would stop DDRop anyway.
Short-term software measures restricting the memory management interfaces DDRop abuses, checking that critical writes completed, scanning for interposers at boot, can raise the bar without removing the root cause.
The researchers have no evidence DDRop has been used outside a lab. But the significance is what it proves is possible. Confidential computing is the technical promise that certain workloads stay private regardless of who owns the physical hardware. DDRop shows that promise has a physical boundary that can be crossed with $159 in components, a few minutes of access, and knowledge that a rogue data center employee, supply chain tamperer, or government compulsion order could all plausibly provide.
The full paper is scheduled for presentation at ACM CCS 2026 in November. Hardware designs, firmware, and proof-of-concept code are already on GitHub.
The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) launched and alert to the financial industry besides a detailed study of over 33,000 cyber fraud cases reported between September 2023 and December 2025. According to the report, around $12.7 billion was stolen in a cryptocurrency investment scam from American victims in the US.
As per Treasury Department official Gene Lange, “The transnational criminal organizations behind these scams exploit both emerging technologies and human vulnerabilities, resulting in devastating financial losses for innocent American victims.”
The report is prepared on the basis of reports given by around 1,300 financial organizations and is linked to a 2023 alert from the Treasury about pig butchering scams. FinCen discovered that the rate of scam operations is rising as the schemes go beyond centers in Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia.
Scammers use distinct profiles, from financial adviser to romantic partner, and force people into sending money, either via cryptocurrency or with traditional bank transfers.
Significant reports were received from cryptocurrency firms, which found around $5.5 billion in suspicious scam activity.
Traditional banks reported around $6.4 billion in possible friends, saying they “often detected schemes when a victim sent funds to an [financial institution] in the digital asset sector to purchase digital assets, or when a customer sent a wire transfer to a scam-affiliated beneficiary, frequently referencing digital asset investments.”
The report finds that few victims sent applications for second mortgages and loans as part of their involvement in a scam.
More financial institutions note thousands of incidents where targets liquidated their investment accounts to try wiring transfers or fund digital assess to scammer-related accounts. According to the report, “[A financial institution] involved in the digital assets sector reported an older adult victim transferred nearly $640,000 from her retirement fund to send to a suspected scammer in connection with an apparent digital asset investment scheme.”
“The victim stated she met an individual over social media who instructed her to invest in an apparently fictitious digital asset-related company.”
Another victim took out around $150,000 from his retirement account, withdrew credit on his home, and withdrew a personal loan to send the money to a scammer who pretended to be his digital romantic partner, and wanted to invest the money in a venture.
The filings noted the use of coins like USD Coin (USDC), Ethereum, and Tether (USDT), but 18 more coins were found in the reports.
When a phishing simulation returns a low click rate, security teams tend to relax. Leadership checks a compliance box. The program gets renewed. But a major new study suggests that sense of relief may be completely misplaced.
Oslo-based cybersecurity firm Pistachio released its Phishing Behaviour Report 2026 this week, built from 2.47 million simulated phishing attacks sent to more than 123,000 employees across 1,200-plus organizations between June 2025 and May 2026. The finding that runs through all of it: the click rate, which most phishing programs live and die by, is the wrong thing to measure.
"A low click rate can create a false sense of security," said Joe Jones, CEO and co-founder of Pistachio. "What matters more is what happens next: does the employee hand over credentials, recognize the attack and stop, or report it so the wider business can act?"
A click alone does nothing. Credentials do.
Clicking a phishing link causes no damage on its own. The actual risk begins when an employee submits a password or other sensitive information into a fake login page after clicking. That is the moment a simulated test becomes a real-world breach scenario, and it is largely what most phishing programs do not track.
On their very first simulated phishing exercise, more employees in the Pistachio study reported the suspicious email than clicked it. That sounds like good news. The problem is that 1.57% handed over their credentials anyway. In a company with 500 employees, that works out to roughly eight people who will submit login details to a convincing enough lure with zero prior exposure. Click rate metrics would not flag any of them.
Tech workers are not the safe bet they are assumed to be
One of the more uncomfortable findings in the report concerns employees who are expected to know better. Tech development workers clicked at least one simulated phishing attempt at a rate of 30.27%. IT workers were not far behind at 28.53%.
The assumption that technical employees carry lower phishing risk because they understand how attacks work does not hold up against the data. Understanding how phishing operates and catching a convincing one under inbox pressure are two different things.
Construction carries the most risk. Financial services carry the least.
The gap between industries was wider than most organization-wide risk scores would suggest. Construction workers showed the highest click rate of any department at 41.31% and the highest credential leak rate at 16.47%. Design workers, by contrast, clicked at just 26.35%.
Financial services employees topped every resilience category in the study, which carries some irony. Financial services accounted for 27.7% of all observed phishing attempts in 2025, making it one of the most targeted sectors on the internet. That sustained pressure, combined with strict regulatory requirements and mandatory security training, appears to have produced genuinely more vigilant employees at the individual level.
Health workers showed the lowest reporting rate of any department at 13.17%, despite a relatively low click rate. Logistics workers combined an above-average click rate with a below-average reporting rate of 17.11%. In both cases, the click rate alone would present a more reassuring picture than the full data supports.
Things get worse before they get better
Organizations running 12-month programs saw click rates and credential submission rates both rise through the first six months before declining. That initial rise reflects harder and more frequent testing rather than employees regressing. At the six-month mark, employees were receiving an average of 3.5 simulations per person, with 50.4% classified as hard difficulty.
From that six-month peak to the 12-month stage, clicks declined by 27% and credential leaks by 41%. The report-to-click ratio increased from 1.3 at three months to 1.8 at 12 months, indicating that suspicious messages were reported nearly twice as often as they were clicked by the end of the program.
Organizations that run a single phishing simulation and judge the program from that result are drawing conclusions from the noisiest and least reliable moment in the entire training cycle.
What to track instead
The report does not argue that click rates should be dropped entirely. It argues they should sit alongside credential submission rates and reporting rates, which together give a far more accurate picture of actual resilience. Making it easy for employees to report suspicious emails, through one-click tools and fast confirmation, converts the workforce into an active detection channel rather than a passive one.
NIST research found that 72% of organizations use phishing simulation click rates to gauge training effectiveness. By that measure, nearly three quarters of corporate security awareness programs are optimizing for an incomplete signal, in a threat environment where AI-driven phishing has pushed click rates among untrained employees to a record high of 54% in 2026.
The click rate was never the whole story. At this point, relying on it alone is a liability.
Modu-ui stores participants’ personal details such as email addresses, names, and startup ideas, and the platform also supports a nationwide startup audition overseen by SMEs and Startups (MSS) of the South Korean Ministry.
Suspicions were already raised a month prior to the reported data breach that applicants’ personal data could be structured and exposed via API responses inside the platform. The government said it had taken prompt action but did not reveal if it had upgraded Modu-ui’s security infrastructure.
In June, the Ministry of SMEs and Startups disclosed that summaries of startup ideas and personal details had been exposed. Later, it started a detailed enquiry along with National Police Agency, National Intelligence Service, and the Cyber Security Center.
In July, the agencies confirmed that the leak of encoding keys via an API was the reason for the startup idea and personal data leak.
The exposed data had already been encoded but the encoded data needs an encoding key decoding.
In this case, the encoding key was leaked along with the API data, causing in the leak of evaluation comments, startup idea summaries and email addresses related to 5000 successful applicants.
According to the Ministry, the encoding key had been included inside the API and a third party retrieved API data via methods like web crawling, causing the exposure of the key.
Private email addresses were not shown on the public-facing interface but officials believed they could be retrieved via AI-based web crawling.
The incidents also demonstrate the dangers of hard-coding encoding keys as fixed values inside databases, application code, similar environments, or databases.
When businesses follow this method, the keys can become vulnerable in addition to the data or systems they are meant to protect. The main reason for this incident can be viewed as security infrastructure failure in incorporating robust encoding key management.
Officials found 39 IP addresses related to the access of the exposed data coming from South Korea. Authorities also said that investigations led to more details such as potential connections to AI solution providers.