Salesforce is preparing for a future in which employees may no longer need to open Salesforce to use it.
At TDX 2026, CEO Marc Benioff described the shift with the line, “Our API is the UI,” as the company introduced Headless 360. The platform makes Salesforce capabilities, including Customer 360, Agentforce and Slack, accessible through APIs, Model Context Protocol (MCP) tools and command-line interfaces (CLI), allowing applications and AI agents to interact with Salesforce without relying on its traditional browser interface. Salesforce says its Headless 360 MCP server can support operations including querying and updating records, managing permissions, working with Apex and interacting with platform events.
The change challenges a model Salesforce spent decades building: software operated primarily by humans through screens and sold largely through user-based licensing.
If an AI agent performs the work, the traditional per-seat model becomes harder to justify. An agent does not need a dashboard or training programme in the same way an employee does. It needs authenticated access to data, tools and workflows.
Salesforce is already experimenting with consumption-based pricing. Its Agentforce model includes Flex Credits, which customers can use for agent actions, alongside conversation-based and user-based pricing. Salesforce lists 100,000 Flex Credits at $500, while certain Agentforce services can also be priced according to successful outcomes.
That transition could also affect the Salesforce consulting ecosystem. Implementation work historically centred on configuring screens, workflows and processes for employees. As agents take over more workflows, organizations may instead spend more on data quality, permissions, API architecture, agent governance and testing.
Salesforce has a reason to disrupt itself before competitors do.
AI-native platforms can be designed around APIs and autonomous agents without inheriting the assumptions of traditional enterprise software. By opening Salesforce to agents, the company is betting that its strongest asset is not the interface but the business data, permissions and workflows underneath it.
That makes governance a central part of the strategy.
Salesforce's Einstein Trust Layer is designed to keep Agentforce grounded in enterprise data while respecting existing access controls. Salesforce describes capabilities including dynamic grounding, secure data retrieval, auditability and zero-data-retention arrangements with external model providers.
But making Salesforce accessible through MCP and external AI systems creates another risk: the company no longer fully controls the interface through which users interact with its platform.
A sales manager could eventually ask an external AI agent to analyse pipeline data, update opportunities, trigger Salesforce workflows and coordinate information across Slack, Salesforce and other enterprise systems. The AI layer becomes the operating interface while Salesforce functions as the underlying system of record.
MCP also introduces new security considerations. Research has identified threats including tool poisoning and prompt injection, where malicious instructions embedded in tools or outputs can influence an agent's behaviour. The U.S. National Security Agency has similarly warned about cascading prompt-injection risks in MCP environments, where one agent's output can become another system's input.
The pricing problem remains unresolved as well. Agent actions vary enormously in complexity. Updating a contact record is not equivalent to autonomously completing a sales renewal, making a simple “pay per action” model difficult to align with business value.
Salesforce's Headless 360 strategy therefore represents more than a move away from browsers. It is a test of what enterprise software is worth when humans are no longer its primary operators.
Interfaces can be replaced. What is harder to replace is trusted business data, permission architecture, proprietary workflows and the infrastructure required to let autonomous systems act safely.
Salesforce is betting that those foundations will remain valuable.
The risk is that by making them accessible to external agents, it could also help those agents become the new interface between enterprises and Salesforce itself.
Joe Hladik, head of Zero Labs, the threat research division of Rubrik Inc., has spent years studying backup data, an area he believes remains relatively overlooked by the cybersecurity industry. This year, his team expanded its research to examine how organizations and employees are using AI assistants, beginning with Microsoft Copilot, which is used by around 20 million people and approximately 90% of Fortune 500 companies.
“No one’s looking at backup data,” Hladik said. “We found it to be a viable place to find actual intelligence to act upon.”
Hladik discussed the research with Krista Case during Black Hat USA in an interview broadcast by theCUBE, SiliconANGLE Media’s livestreaming studio. The conversation focused on Rubrik Zero Labs’ discovery involving Microsoft Copilot and the broader security implications for AI-powered agents.
Rubrik Zero Labs discovered the vulnerability in February and subsequently followed responsible disclosure procedures by notifying Microsoft. According to Hladik, Microsoft addressed the specific vulnerability by the middle of March.
Although the particular flaw has been patched, Hladik said the research demonstrated a broader technique that could potentially be relevant to other AI copilots. The method involved escaping Copilot’s isolated environment and reaching Azure’s backend infrastructure.
Researcher Ori Lahav is presenting the detailed findings at Black Hat USA.
“[That] would allow you to get command and control of probably hundreds, thousands, or much more, depending on the volume of what exists within that tenant of users’ files, SharePoint files, OneDrive, whatever,” Hladik said. “It’s a major, major find.”
The discovery also highlights the potential scale of an AI-related security incident. If an attacker were able to move beyond an AI assistant’s sandbox, access to organizational resources could potentially extend across files and other information stored within an enterprise environment.
The Copilot discovery comes as businesses rapidly deploy AI agents without necessarily having complete visibility into where those systems operate or what they can access.
Research from Rubrik Zero Labs found that only 23% of security leaders have complete visibility into the AI agents operating within their organizations. Rubrik is attempting to address this challenge through new AI agent governance capabilities introduced this week.
Hladik compared AI agents with technologies security teams have encountered before, arguing that their underlying architecture is not entirely unfamiliar.
“Agents are just bots with models,” Hladik said. “They’re a bot that asks a model, and then the model will tell them what to do, and then they act. It’s new, it’s cool, but at the same time, I’ve seen this before.”
The findings underscore a growing challenge for organizations deploying AI: securing not only the models themselves but also thwe environments, permissions, data and connected services that AI agents can interact with. As businesses increasingly integrate AI assistants into everyday workflows, vulnerabilities that allow these systems to escape their intended boundaries could create significant new attack surfaces.
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into an alleged cyberattack that Vitraya Technologies claims resulted in the theft of medical, insurance and other sensitive personal information belonging to nearly 1.5 lakh Indian citizens.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana agreed to examine the petition filed by Vitraya Technologies Pvt Ltd, a health-tech company that operates a technology platform for automating and settling health insurance claims.
The case places the alleged compromise of highly sensitive healthcare information alongside questions about the adequacy of the police investigation and the protection of informational privacy. The company has approached the court under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the alleged breach has implications for the fundamental right to privacy protected under Article 21.
During the hearing, senior advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for Vitraya, told the court that the alleged intrusion affected data across six states and that the company had been approaching authorities since the incident was reported in 2025.
Parameshwar said Vitraya submitted its initial complaint in March 2025 but that an FIR was not registered until August 29, 2025. He also questioned why the case continued to name unknown persons despite the company claiming that it had supplied investigators with technical information concerning the suspected intrusion.
The counsel told the bench that Vitraya had also provided information concerning a server in Singapore to which the company's investigation allegedly traced medical records belonging to almost 1.5 lakh Indians.
The petition seeks transfer of the investigation to the CBI. In the alternative, Vitraya has asked the Supreme Court to order a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Alleged attack began with unauthorised access
According to the petition, Vitraya detected what it described as a coordinated cyberattack in February 2025.
The alleged activity included repeated brute-force login attempts against the company's systems, unauthorised access to its digital infrastructure, bulk downloading of confidential records and the extraction of sensitive customer information.
The data allegedly exposed in the incident includes medical records, health insurance claim information, Aadhaar-linked details and other personally identifiable information.
The combination of medical information with identity and insurance data makes the alleged incident particularly sensitive. Medical records can contain information about an individual's diagnoses, treatment history and health conditions, while Aadhaar-linked information can connect those records to an identifiable individual.
Vitraya's own platform is designed to handle this type of information. The company says its technology automates health insurance claims using artificial intelligence, machine learning, medical natural-language processing and blockchain-based smart contracts. It describes its platform as being used by more than 6,000 hospitals and says it processes approximately 10 million claims worth around $2 billion annually.
The company's technology infrastructure therefore sits within a data-intensive part of the healthcare and insurance ecosystem, where information can move between healthcare providers, insurers and technology platforms during the claims process.
Vitraya alleges attack was linked to rival companies
Following an internal forensic investigation, Vitraya claims that its security team identified suspicious IP addresses, server activity and other digital footprints that it says were associated with Remedinet Technologies Pvt Ltd and IHX Pvt Ltd.
The petition further alleges that these entities were connected to Bessemer Venture Partners and that the alleged activity involved Bessemer, Medi Assist, Perfios Software Solutions Pvt Ltd and other entities described by Vitraya as competitors.
These allegations have not been established by the Supreme Court. The companies named in the petition should not be treated as responsible for the breach unless an investigation establishes their involvement.
Vitraya says its forensic examination produced technical material that it subsequently supplied to investigators. The company claims this included server information, IP addresses, technical logs, details concerning the alleged actors and other documentary evidence.
The company approached Punjab's cybercrime authorities on March 5, 2025, according to the petition.
However, Vitraya alleges that its repeated representations and cooperation during the preliminary inquiry did not result in an FIR for almost six months.
The FIR was ultimately registered on August 29, 2025, at the Punjab State Cyber Crime Police Station in SAS Nagar. According to the petition, the case was registered under Sections 66 and 66B of the Information Technology Act and against unknown persons.
Under the IT Act, Section 66 addresses computer-related offences committed dishonestly or fraudulently, while Section 66B deals with dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen computer resources or communication devices while knowing, or having reason to believe, that they are stolen.
Vitraya has argued that the provisions used in the FIR do not adequately reflect the scale and complexity of the alleged incident. The company has also questioned why the FIR continued to identify the suspects as unknown despite the technical material it says had already been provided to police.
Company questions progress of investigation
The petition alleges that the investigation has not involved sufficient forensic examination or preservation of the digital evidence relevant to the alleged attack.
Vitraya claims that investigators have not undertaken substantial measures such as examining or seizing relevant digital infrastructure, preserving electronic evidence or conducting custodial interrogation of suspected individuals.
The company argues that these alleged shortcomings are particularly important because the incident involves systems and entities operating across multiple jurisdictions.
According to Vitraya, the alleged breach spans six states, involves multiple corporate entities and includes digital infrastructure located outside India. The company has specifically referred to a Singapore-based server where it alleges that the compromised medical information was transferred.
The cross-border element could complicate an investigation because digital evidence may be distributed across different jurisdictions, requiring investigators to establish where systems and data were located, identify the parties controlling those systems and preserve evidence before it can be deleted, altered or moved.
The company therefore argues that the investigation requires an agency with the technical capacity and jurisdictional reach to examine the alleged attack.
Privacy concerns form central part of petition
Vitraya has also framed the alleged breach as a constitutional privacy issue rather than solely a dispute between competing businesses.
The petition relies on the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, in which a nine-judge Constitution Bench recognised privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21. The court held that privacy is intrinsic to the protection of life and personal liberty.
That constitutional framework is relevant to a case involving medical information because the alleged data does not merely concern commercial records. It potentially connects individuals with information about their health, treatment and insurance claims.
The petition consequently argues that the alleged unauthorised disclosure of such information affects citizens' informational privacy and digital autonomy.
India's data protection framework adds another layer
The case also arrives as India moves toward implementing its newer personal-data protection regime.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 establishes a framework governing the processing of digital personal data and creates obligations for organisations handling such information. The Act also provides for a Data Protection Board of India and includes provisions addressing data-fiduciary obligations, individual rights, grievance redressal and penalties.
However, the timing matters. The DPDP framework is being implemented in phases. The government notified the DPDP Rules in November 2025, while several substantive provisions of the Act and Rules are scheduled to take effect 18 months after the notification.
The alleged Vitraya intrusion was identified in February 2025, before those later implementation stages. The investigation therefore cannot simply be described as a test of the fully operational DPDP regime. Instead, the case sits at the intersection of India's existing cybercrime laws, constitutional privacy protections and the country's transition toward a dedicated personal-data protection framework.
Separately, CERT-In's directions under the Information Technology Act identify unauthorised access to IT systems or data, data breaches and data leaks among cybersecurity incidents that covered organisations are required to report.
Supreme Court seeks response on proposed CBI investigation
The Supreme Court's immediate action is limited to issuing notice on the petition. The court has not made a finding that the alleged breach occurred in the manner claimed by Vitraya, nor has it established the involvement of the companies named in the petition.
The petitioner is asking the court to transfer the investigation to the CBI because it considers the existing police investigation inadequate.
Alternatively, Vitraya has proposed a court-monitored SIT involving agencies with relevant cybersecurity expertise, including the CBI and CERT-In.
The company's argument is that the combination of alleged cross-state activity, foreign-hosted infrastructure, sensitive medical information, multiple corporate entities and digital forensic evidence makes the case unsuitable for a routine investigation.
The Supreme Court's notice now places the investigation and the requested transfer before the respondents, including the Union government, the CBI and the Punjab government.
The case could therefore become an important test of how Indian authorities investigate alleged large-scale breaches involving healthcare data, cross-border infrastructure and competing corporate entities, particularly when the affected information includes medical records and government-linked identifiers.
For now, however, the allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial consideration.
Sunbird has relaunched its iMessage app for Android users nearly three years after security issues forced the company to pause the service in 2023.
The app is now available on the Google Play Store and allows Android users to access iMessage conversations, including blue-bubble messages and group chats with iPhone users. Sunbird has also combined iMessage with Google Messages, RCS and SMS/MMS in the same application.
The company says the new version has been rebuilt with changes to how messages, Apple ID credentials and media are handled. Sunbird claims messages are encrypted on the Android device before they leave it, protected while travelling through its infrastructure and encrypted at rest using AES-256. It also says Apple ID passwords are used once to establish an iMessage session and then deleted.
The relaunch comes after researchers identified serious security problems in Sunbird's earlier implementation, including the transmission of Apple ID credentials over an unencrypted HTTP connection and access to messages and media stored through Firebase. Those findings led to the removal of Nothing Chats, an iMessage app developed by Nothing using Sunbird's technology, and Sunbird subsequently paused its own service.
Sunbird returns to the Google Play Store
Sunbird Messaging announced on August 5 that its Android application was open to all users through Google Play following an early-access period. The company said more than 181,000 people had signed up before the public launch.
The application is designed to allow Android users to participate in iMessage conversations without owning an iPhone, Mac or another Apple device. Sunbird says users can appear in blue-bubble conversations on iPhones and participate in iMessage group chats through the Android application.
The new app also acts as a unified messaging platform. Instead of limiting the application to iMessage, Sunbird has brought iMessage, Google Messages through RCS and SMS/MMS into one inbox.
The application now includes a Primary and Secondary inbox. Sunbird says the Primary section is intended for important conversations, while less important messages can be placed in Secondary. Users can control how their conversations are organised.
The company has also said it plans to add WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger support later in 2026.
The service is available with a 14-day free trial, after which Sunbird charges $2.99 per month or $24.99 annually.
What happened to Sunbird in 2023
Sunbird's return follows a security incident that brought its earlier service offline in November 2023.
The issue became widely known after Nothing announced Nothing Chats, an Android application that used Sunbird's technology to provide iMessage functionality on the Nothing Phone (2). Users were required to provide their Apple ID credentials to connect the service to iMessage.
Security researchers then examined the application and identified several problems with how the service handled authentication and user data.
One of the issues involved Apple ID credentials being transmitted to Sunbird's servers over HTTP. Because HTTP does not encrypt the connection, the credentials could potentially be intercepted while being transmitted.
Researchers also found that messages and other user data were being sent to and stored through Firebase without encryption. An investigation by 9to5Google found that researchers could use insecurely transmitted JSON Web Tokens to access Sunbird's Firebase database and view messages and files belonging to users.
The exposed information was not limited to text messages.
Researchers reported that the database contained media files including images, videos, PDFs and audio files. More than 630,000 media files were reportedly stored through Sunbird's Firebase infrastructure at the time. Researchers also found vCards containing information such as names, phone numbers and email addresses.
The problem also involved Sentry, an error-monitoring service. Researchers reported that messages and attachments were being sent to Sentry in plaintext, meaning information intended to be part of private conversations could appear in an error-reporting system.
These findings conflicted with Sunbird and Nothing's earlier statements about encryption. The companies had presented the service as providing end-to-end encryption, but researchers found that data could be accessed through the systems supporting the application.
Nothing removed Nothing Chats from the Google Play Store less than 24 hours after its launch. The company said it was delaying the application while working with Sunbird to address the security problems. Sunbird also paused its own service shortly afterward.
Sunbird says the new architecture handles data differently
For the relaunched application, Sunbird says it has changed how messages and authentication information are processed.
According to the company's security documentation, messages are encrypted on the user's phone before they leave the device. The data is then encrypted while travelling through Sunbird's infrastructure and remains encrypted on the user's device using AES-256. Sunbird also says its connections use certificate pinning.
The company says it does not retain copies of users' conversations on its own servers. Instead, message history remains on the sender's and recipient's devices.
Sunbird says messages passing through its infrastructure are released after delivery. It also says photos and videos sent through the service are automatically deleted from its systems, normally within 48 hours and no later than 72 hours.
The handling of Apple ID credentials has also been changed.
Users still need an Apple ID to connect Sunbird to iMessage. However, Sunbird says the Apple ID password is used only once to establish the session and is then destroyed. The company says it does not retain the password or an authentication token that could later be used to sign into the account.
Sunbird also says each user's iMessage connection operates inside its own private environment. According to the company, that environment is destroyed when the user disconnects or deletes their account.
For messages travelling to an iPhone, Sunbird says Apple's existing iMessage end-to-end encryption protects the final part of the communication. The company says it does not modify or weaken Apple's encryption.
These changes address several of the areas that created problems in the previous version. However, they remain claims made by the company and need to be considered separately from what independent researchers have been able to verify.
Company says independent testing found no critical vulnerabilities
Sunbird CEO Danny Mizrahi has said that an independent security firm tested the rebuilt application and found no critical vulnerabilities. The company is using this assessment as part of its security case for the relaunched service.
The distinction between an independent assessment being conducted and its findings being publicly available is important here.
A publicly available audit would allow security researchers and other experts to examine what was tested, which parts of the application were included, what methodology was used and what limitations applied to the assessment.
For now, Sunbird's public security information provides details about the architecture and the company's data-handling practices, but users should still distinguish between those statements and independent verification of the complete system.
That is particularly relevant because Sunbird's previous service also made strong security claims before researchers found problems with the implementation.
The current application may have been rebuilt to address those problems, but continued independent testing would provide a stronger way to determine whether the new security controls work as intended.
Sunbird adds an AI assistant
Security is not the only area Sunbird is changing with the relaunch.
The company is preparing an AI assistant called Sunbird Intelligence, which is expected to arrive later in 2026. Sunbird says the AI will run directly on the user's phone rather than sending conversations to a remote service for processing.
One planned feature, called "Catch Me Up," is designed to summarise conversations that users have missed. The company also plans features that can draft replies and suggest actions based on conversations.
Sunbird says its AI system will eventually be able to perform tasks such as moving conversations between inbox categories, archiving chats and drafting or sending replies.
The planned AI features introduce another privacy consideration because the assistant would need to process the content of users' conversations to provide summaries and generate replies.
Sunbird's decision to run the AI on the device is therefore relevant to its privacy claims. However, the actual privacy protections will depend on how the system is implemented, what information it can access and whether any conversation data leaves the device when the feature is used.
RCS has also changed the reason for using Sunbird
The messaging market has changed since Sunbird's first attempt to bring iMessage to Android.
Apple introduced support for RCS with iOS 18, giving Android-to-iPhone conversations access to features such as higher-quality media, read receipts and typing indicators when RCS is supported.
This reduces some of the practical differences that previously existed between Android and iPhone messaging.
Sunbird is therefore returning to a market where Android users already have a better cross-platform messaging experience than they did in 2023. The main distinction Sunbird offers is continued access to Apple's iMessage system and the blue-bubble experience.
There are also technical differences. Sunbird's iMessage service does not register a user's Android phone number with iMessage. According to MacRumors, users appear to iPhone contacts through their email address when using Sunbird.
This means the company's proposition has changed from simply providing Android users with features that were missing from SMS-based conversations. It is now combining iMessage access with a broader messaging application that brings several services together.
Sunbird now has to prove its security claims
Sunbird's new application contains several changes compared with the service that was paused in 2023.
The company says messages are encrypted on the device and during transmission, Apple ID passwords are used once and destroyed, media is automatically deleted from its infrastructure, and conversations are not permanently stored on its servers.
These changes address some of the security problems researchers identified in the previous implementation.
However, the history of the service makes independent verification particularly important. In 2023, researchers were able to demonstrate that sensitive information could be accessed through Sunbird's infrastructure despite the company's previous claims about encryption.
Sunbird now has another opportunity to establish whether its redesigned architecture can provide the privacy and security protections it promises.
More than 181,000 people signed up during the early-access period, showing that there is still interest in using iMessage from Android. But with RCS now supported on both major mobile platforms and with the security problems of the previous Sunbird implementation still part of the company's history, the new application's long-term success will depend heavily on whether its security controls withstand continued independent testing.
For Sunbird, bringing back the blue bubble is only one part of the challenge. The larger test is whether users can trust the infrastructure carrying their messages this time.
Cybersecurity firm Proofpoint, which identified the campaign, said attackers are sending emails that impersonate COLDCARD and falsely claim that a security audit is being conducted across its hardware cold-storage wallets.
The campaign follows the reported theft of around 1,367 Bitcoin, estimated to be worth $88.6 million, from 4,585 addresses. The incident is believed to have been linked to a random number generation flaw affecting several COLDCARD models and firmware versions.
The fraudulent emails originate from compliance@coldcardteamnews.com and carry the subject line "Hardware audit now available." Recipients are told that recent security findings have prompted COLDCARD to verify devices across different hardware revisions.
"We are writing to inform you of a coordinated security audit now underway across the COLDCARD device network. Recent findings have prompted us to verify the integrity of hardware across all revisions, and your participation is needed," reads the fake security audit emails.
The messages direct recipients to a supposed "Security Verification & Incident Reporting Tool." The attackers claim that the process is air-gapped, does not require users to provide their recovery seed and must be completed by August 10.
Clicking the "Access the Audit Tool" button takes users to coldcardcompliance.com, a fraudulent website designed to resemble COLDCARD. Visitors are then prompted to click "Start Hardware Audit" to download the alleged diagnostic tool.
The site also features a live "Customer Service" chat function, which is presented as a way for users to receive assistance with their COLDCARD devices.
According to conversations reviewed by Proofpoint, an operator asks victims whether they are using Windows or macOS before providing further instructions. Windows users are told to execute the downloaded file. When one victim reported seeing a black command window and an administrator prompt, the operator claimed the prompt was necessary to begin installation and instructed the user to select "Yes."
Proofpoint suspects that the chat interactions are being conducted by human operators rather than an automated system. This would allow the attackers to address victims' concerns directly and persuade hesitant users to continue with the installation.
Proofpoint said clicking "Start Hardware Audit" downloads a batch file named Coldcard_Diagnostic_Tool.bat from a GitHub account.
An analysis by BleepingComputer found that the 25.7MB batch file contains two Base64-encoded files embedded within it.
When executed, the script initially appears to run a diagnostic check. In reality, it determines whether the victim has administrator privileges. If elevated access is unavailable, it uses PowerShell to restart itself and trigger a User Account Control prompt.
The script subsequently extracts the embedded files into a randomly generated directory inside the Windows temporary folder. The files are saved as setup.msi and docusign.exe before being decoded using Windows certutil.
After installing setup.msi, the script launches docusign.exe, displays an "Installation Complete" message and removes the temporary directory. The executable is a legitimate, digitally signed program associated with a DocuSign printer driver and serves as a distraction from the malicious activity.
The setup.msi package, however, installs ConnectWise ScreenConnect, a remote-management application that can provide attackers with access to the compromised computer.
Proofpoint said the malicious installation connects to activeretirementrelocation[.]com, which serves as the ScreenConnect command-and-control server operated by the attackers.
Once a connection is established, threat actors could potentially control the affected computer remotely, steal sensitive information or cryptocurrency, and deploy additional malicious software. Proofpoint also warned that the compromised access could ultimately be leveraged to deploy ransomware.
Unlike automated privacy tools, these high-end services combine data removal with continuous monitoring and manual audits designed to reduce both online exposure and physical security threats.
Consumer-focused services such as DeleteMe, Incogni and Google’s free PII removal tool can help limit exposure, but their reach remains restricted. Data brokers often use measures to prevent automated deletion requests. “insert something like a captcha to ensure that a bot can’t come in and wipe out their database,” Tom Aldrich, chief operating officer of digital exposure reduction firm 360 Privacy, told Observer.
Aldrich said his company, which works with 32 Fortune 100 companies, recently took on a wealthy client who had previously used an automated service. The firm discovered 62 profiles belonging to the individual across hundreds of data aggregation platforms. “We found 62 different profiles on them across hundreds of data aggregator sources,” said Aldrich, who added that 93 percent of those profiles included non-public information and could be removed.
Security experts increasingly warn that information available online can create risks in the physical world. Threats against senior executives have risen steadily over the past two decades, with attacks in 2025 more than doubling compared with the previous year.
“Physical and digital can no longer be separate,” Brian Hill, field chief information security officer at personal cybersecurity firm BlackCloak, which serves corporate executives and high-net-worth individuals, told Observer.
The connection became particularly evident in the case of Vance Boelter, the Minnesota gunman sentenced in July to two consecutive life sentences plus 40 years for killing Democratic lawmakers in 2025. Boelter reportedly used data aggregator websites to identify his victims.
Growing concerns around executive safety have also pushed security spending higher. The median security expenditure for executives at S&P 500 companies increased 37.8 percent between 2024 and 2025. During the same period, S&P 500 CEOs earned an average annual compensation of $18.9 million.
Meta was among the biggest spenders, allocating more than $25 million toward physical and digital security for CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
For family offices, celebrities and high-net-worth clients, BlackCloak's services can cost between $10,000 and roughly $200,000 annually. Enterprise contracts covering executives, board members and founders can reach as much as $600,000 per year.
The expanding digital footprint of consumers has created an entire economy around personal-data protection. Data brokers collect and sell personal information to third parties, contributing to a North American data-broker market estimated at $40 billion.
Removing such information is often difficult and labor-intensive, increasing demand for specialized providers that can continuously identify and eliminate exposed data.
Only California, Oregon, Texas and Vermont currently require data brokers to identify themselves through state registries. More than 4,000 data brokers are estimated to operate across the U.S., with many outside the reach of comprehensive regulation. California alone has 545 registered data brokers.
Premium privacy firms typically remove information from publicly accessible websites while also monitoring the dark web and strengthening security across users' accounts and devices. Connected household technology, including security cameras, may also be included in these security assessments.
Still, complete digital anonymity is difficult to achieve. “Reducing your digital footprint to zero is virtually impossible,” said Hill. “Our goal is anywhere from 70–90 percent removal of data.”
Certain public records, including newspaper archives and campaign donation records, can also remain difficult or impossible to erase.
While high-end privacy protection is increasingly being adopted by wealthy individuals and corporations, more affordable services can still help ordinary consumers reduce their exposure.
Aura, for example, offers automated data removal alongside other digital safety services for families at $32 per month. “As data breaches continue, data brokers expand, and A.I. makes it easier to exploit personal information, more people are looking for ways to reduce their digital footprint and regain control of their privacy,” Tom Clayton, president and chief operating officer of Aura, told Observer.
Despite the growing number of services available, adoption remains relatively low. Only 6 percent of American adults use data-removal services, while more than half do not know such services exist.
Smaller businesses are increasingly vulnerable as well. “The attackers are…going after the small companies, the local family businesses. They’re now becoming the targets because they’re the easy ones,” Hill said.
Executives and their families continue to face particular risks. According to a 2025 report from BlackCloak and the Ponemon Institute, 51 percent of security leaders said cyberattacks had targeted the personal accounts of executives or their family members.
As personal and professional digital lives become increasingly intertwined, conventional corporate security teams may not fully protect executives' personal information. That gap is helping drive demand for specialized privacy and cybersecurity providers.
Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies could make the problem even more challenging. “With a lot of this technology,” said Hill about A.I. and quantum computing, “you’re going to see a lot more data collection, and it’s going to be easier to go after the people that don’t set up an LLC or trust because they just don’t think they need to.”