It is a cloud based edtech company famous for its Canvas LMS which is used by education institutes to handle academic work like grading, communications, and assignments.
Recently, Instructure revealed that it was hacked; emails, users' names and private conversations were leaked.
The ShinyHunters extortion gang claimed responsibility for the attack and says it stole 280 million records for students, teachers, and staff.
The threat actors have now published a list of 8,809 school districts, universities, and educational platforms whose Canvas instances were allegedly impacted by the attack, sharing record counts per institution with BleepingComputers.
According to Bleeping Computers, “the record counts for each educational institution range from tens of thousands to several million per institution.”
The hacker claims that the data was stolen through Canvas. Instructure has not replied to Bleeping Computers’ emails, but a few universities have started releasing statements regarding the matter. “BleepingComputer is not naming specific organizations listed by the threat actor, as we have not independently verified whether they were impacted by the breach,” it said.
Bleeping Computers added that the “threat actor claims the data was stolen using Canvas data export features, including DAP queries, provisioning reports, and user APIs, and that they harvested hundreds of gigabytes of user records, messages, and enrollment data.”
The University of Colorado Boulder warned that, “CU is aware of a data breach involving Instructure, the parent company of Canvas, our learning management system. This reported data breach is a nationwide event affecting multiple institutions.”
Whereas Rutgers said it was not “notified of any direct impact to our campus. Canvas remains available and operational to Rutgers faculty, staff, and students.”
Tilburg University warned that “investigation is currently underway to determine what exactly happened and which systems were affected. It has not yet been confirmed whether data of Tilburg University students and staff has been impacted. Further questions have been submitted to the supplier to obtain more clarity”
As cyber attacks continue to grow in frequency and complexity, organizations are facing increasing pressure to rethink who should be responsible for protecting their systems, operations, and sensitive data. Security experts say cybersecurity is no longer simply an IT issue. Instead, it has become a business-wide responsibility that requires involvement from leadership teams, employees, and external security partners alike.
The discussion comes at a time when cyber threats are affecting organizations at an alarming scale. According to the UK Government’s Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2025/2026, 43% of businesses and 28% of charities reported experiencing cybersecurity breaches or attacks during the past year. The numbers were considerably higher among medium-sized businesses, where 65% faced incidents, and large enterprises, where the figure rose to 69%. High-income charities were also heavily targeted, with 34% reporting attacks.
Phishing continued to dominate as the most common threat. The survey found that 93% of affected businesses and 95% of impacted charities encountered phishing-related attacks. These scams often involve deceptive emails, fake websites, fraudulent login portals, or impersonation attempts designed to steal credentials and sensitive information. Other cyber threats, including malware infections and digital impersonation schemes, also remain a persistent concern for organizations.
The financial damage linked to cybercrime is equally significant. Research associated with cybersecurity company ESET estimated that cyber attacks cost UK businesses nearly £64 billion annually, highlighting the growing economic impact of digital threats.
With risks continuing to escalate, many organizations are reassessing who should oversee cybersecurity strategy and decision-making. Experts say there is no universal model, as responsibility often depends on a company’s size, structure, industry requirements, and risk exposure.
In smaller businesses, cybersecurity duties are frequently managed by IT managers or internal technology teams. However, industry specialists warn that relying solely on technical departments may create gaps between security planning and broader business objectives. As organizations expand, many experts believe cybersecurity leadership should move closer to executive management.
Durgan Cooper, director at CETSAT, emphasized that cybersecurity accountability should ultimately rest with senior leadership or board-level executives. According to Cooper, effective protection requires coordination between technical teams, company leadership, and third-party partners while ensuring that security priorities align with organizational goals.
Within larger enterprises, cybersecurity responsibilities are commonly led by Chief Information Security Officers, often working alongside Chief Information Officers and other senior executives. Spencer Summons, founder of Opliciti, stated that organizations need cybersecurity leaders capable of understanding evolving threats, communicating risks clearly to boards, and integrating security into long-term business planning. He also noted that sectors such as healthcare and finance face additional regulatory pressure that makes executive oversight even more important.
Cybersecurity professionals increasingly stress that protecting organizations cannot remain the responsibility of a single department. Matthew Riley, European Head of Information Security at Sharp Europe, recommended that businesses establish clear governance frameworks defining who is responsible for different security tasks. Many companies now rely on systems such as RACI matrices, which identify who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed during cybersecurity operations and incident response.
Experts caution that assigning cybersecurity entirely to IT departments may leave important business risks overlooked. At the same time, distributing responsibility too broadly can weaken accountability and slow decision-making during critical incidents. Instead, many specialists advocate a shared-responsibility culture where cybersecurity awareness is integrated across the entire organization.
The growing intensity of cyber attacks has also increased pressure on cybersecurity professionals themselves. Security teams are now managing ransomware campaigns, phishing attacks, supply chain compromises, and AI-assisted threats at an unprecedented pace, often with limited staffing and resources. Experts say spreading cybersecurity awareness and responsibilities throughout the organization can help reduce burnout while improving overall resilience.
Thom Langford, EMEA Chief Technology Officer at Rapid7, argued that cybersecurity must become part of every business function rather than remaining isolated within security teams. According to Langford, organizations are more resilient when employees across all levels actively participate in protecting systems and identifying suspicious activity.
Industry leaders also believe executive involvement plays a decisive role in cybersecurity effectiveness. Specialists from Qualys noted that Chief Information Security Officers should ideally report directly to CEOs or boards rather than operating solely under IT leadership. This structure helps organizations approach cybersecurity as a broader business risk issue instead of treating it purely as a technical challenge.
Alongside internal leadership, many businesses are increasingly turning to external cybersecurity providers for additional expertise and support. Outsourcing security operations can help companies address skill shortages and resource limitations, but experts warn that organizations must still maintain strategic oversight. Businesses are advised to conduct thorough vendor assessments, establish strong service-level agreements, and continuously monitor external providers to reduce operational risks.
Security specialists say outsourcing works most effectively when external consultants collaborate closely with internal teams instead of replacing them entirely. Maintaining internal visibility and control remains critical for ensuring cybersecurity strategies stay aligned with company objectives.
As cyber threats continue growing, experts increasingly agree that cybersecurity ownership cannot rest with one person alone. Effective security strategies require executive accountability, technical expertise, employee participation, and continuous collaboration across departments and external partners. Organizations that treat cybersecurity as a company-wide responsibility rather than a siloed IT function are likely to be better prepared for the growing challenges of the modern digital threat environment.
To be safe, users should avoid feeding personal data to the AI, as it can be misused, and there are thousands of cases now. Users at the receiver end can not do much except using multifactor authentication, and creating a strong password and using two-factor authentication. But users can be happy now that a new feature is available to individual ChatGPT users.
The new feature is called Advanced Account Security, it aims to provide better security to your account and protect your data. The option is aimed for security-minded users like journalists, politicians, activists, and researchers.
With better security, Advanced Account Security provides four setting standards. The first one requires using a passkey or physical security key to log in. The second one requires better tactics to recover an account besides SMS or email authorization. In the third setting, our active session with an AI chatbot is limited to restrict its exposure. The fourth setting protects your chats from AI misuse.
1. Use passkeys to avoid unauthorized access. Advanced Account Security asks for signing in with a passkey. Users can set up either one or both, but will also have to create two authentication methods.
2. Two-factor authentication for securing your account will help in recovering lost data. However, SMS and Email authentication are vulnerable to attacks. Advanced Account Security disables these two methods, so users are sometimes helpless.
3. Try to shorten your login sessions. Longer sessions are more exposed to malware or cyberattacks.
4. Turn off AI training. ChatGPT uses your conversations for AI training and learns to be human. But this capability is a risk to user privacy.
Advanced Account Security protects users in Codex if they use it to make and fine tune their code. Currently, this feature is only available to paid and free ChatGPT users with their personal accounts. However, OpenAI has said it is planning to expand it to the enterprise public.
Advanced Account Security also protects you in Codex if you use it to develop and fine-tune your own code. For now, the feature is available to free and paid ChatGPT users with their own accounts. But OpenAI said it expects to expand it to the enterprise crowd.
A new investigation by the digital rights research group Citizen Lab has revealed how weaknesses inside global telecom infrastructure were allegedly exploited to secretly monitor mobile phone users in more than ten countries over the past three years.
The findings, reviewed by Haaretz, highlight how parts of the global mobile network system, originally developed decades before smartphones existed, continue to expose users to modern surveillance risks despite the arrival of 4G and 5G technologies.
According to the report, researchers uncovered two separate surveillance operations that appear to be linked to commercial spyware and cyber intelligence vendors selling tracking capabilities to government clients worldwide. One of the operations reportedly used telecom infrastructure connected to Israeli providers 019Mobile and Partner Communications, although both companies denied involvement.
Researchers say the operations relied on weaknesses in SS7, an older telecom signaling protocol used globally to route phone calls, text messages, and roaming traffic between mobile operators. SS7 was designed during a period when telecom networks trusted one another by default, long before today’s cybersecurity threats emerged. Security experts have warned for years that attackers can abuse the protocol to monitor phone activity, intercept communications, or identify a user’s location.
The report states that some surveillance firms were able to impersonate legitimate mobile carriers and gain access to these legacy telecom systems in order to track users internationally. A second operation was reportedly linked to Fink Telecom Services, a Swiss company previously named in a 2023 investigation by Haaretz and Lighthouse Reports involving telecom surveillance services supplied to cyber intelligence vendors, including Rayzone.
Last week, British regulators reportedly moved to ban similar telecom signaling abuse practices, describing them as a major source of malicious activity affecting mobile networks. However, the new findings suggest that even newer systems built for 4G and 5G communications are vulnerable to similar exploitation.
One example highlighted in the report is Diameter, a signaling protocol widely used in 4G roaming and many 5G environments to manage subscriber connectivity and authentication. Although Diameter was introduced with stronger security protections than SS7, researchers found that attackers are still capable of abusing the system to conduct tracking operations.
In the first campaign identified by Citizen Lab, researchers documented more than 500 location-tracking attempts between November 2022 and 2025 across countries including Thailand, Bangladesh, Norway, Malaysia, South Africa, and several African nations. The investigation reportedly began after researchers observed a Middle Eastern businessman being repeatedly tracked over a four-hour period through international telecom queries.
Citizen Lab found that telecom identifiers associated with 019Mobile were used to send location-tracking requests through infrastructure connected to Partner Communications, which supports 019Mobile’s services. Another network route reportedly passed through Exelera Telecom, a communications and cloud services provider that also manages international fiber-optic infrastructure. Exelera did not publicly respond to requests for comment.
019Mobile’s head of security denied involvement and stated that the company operates as a virtual provider using another carrier’s infrastructure rather than maintaining its own roaming agreements. Researchers noted that attackers may have forged the company’s telecom identity to access the network.
Although Citizen Lab did not publicly identify the companies behind the operations, the report referenced several possible actors, including Cognyte. Internal files reviewed by Haaretz reportedly showed that Cognyte’s former parent company, Verint Systems, sold an SS7-based tracking product called SkyLock to a government customer in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
According to the report, SkyLock could reportedly locate mobile devices globally by exploiting telecom roaming systems. The documents also pointed to commercial relationships with telecom operators in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Congo, several of which overlap with countries mentioned in the surveillance campaign.
Researchers also uncovered a more advanced surveillance method known as SIMjacking. The technique exploits vulnerabilities inside SIM cards by sending hidden binary text messages containing secret instructions. Once received, the SIM card can silently transmit the device’s location back to the attacker without displaying any visible warning or notification to the user.
Citizen Lab identified more than 15,700 suspected SIMjacking-related tracking attempts since late 2022. Researchers noted that when Haaretz and Lighthouse Reports first exposed Fink Telecom Services in 2023, the company had not yet been linked to the SIMjacking technique.
Cybersecurity experts warn that these attacks are especially concerning because they target weaknesses within telecom infrastructure itself rather than requiring malware installation or phishing attacks on individual devices. Researchers also cautioned that many telecom providers continue operating old and new signaling systems together, creating additional opportunities for attackers to bypass modern protections.
Fink Telecom Services, Exelera Telecom, Verint, and Cognyte did not publicly respond to the allegations referenced in the report. Partner Communications stated that it had no connection to the incident and rejected attempts to associate the company with the activity described by researchers.