The FBI, alongside cybersecurity authorities in Germany and the United Kingdom, issued a joint advisory this week warning that a ransomware group called SafePay has compromised at least 600 organizations across the United States and Europe since it surfaced in late 2024, placing it among the most active extortion operations active right now.
The advisory, which draws on FBI and German law enforcement investigations, marks a significant escalation in attention for a group that operated in relative obscurity before racking up victims at a pace that rivals far better-known criminal networks. The most recent incident cited in the advisory occurred in August.
A Group Built on Borrowed Code
SafePay is not a ransomware-as-a-service operation, meaning it does not rent out its tools to outside affiliates the way groups like RansomHub do. Instead, it runs as a centralized crew, which security researchers say likely keeps operations tighter and reduces the risk of internal leaks.
Its malware, however, did not emerge from nothing. Analysts at Bitdefender and others found that SafePay's ransomware binary closely mirrors a late-2022 version of LockBit's code, with additional elements borrowed from ALPHV and INC Ransom. The group surfaced around the same period that law enforcement actions gutted LockBit in early 2024, and some researchers suspect its members include former Conti or LockBit operators who reconstituted under a new name. A telling technical detail: the ransomware includes a kill switch that deactivates itself on systems with Russian or Cyrillic as the default language, a pattern commonly associated with Eastern European criminal groups trying to avoid prosecution at home.
Getting In and Moving Fast
SafePay gets into networks through a combination of methods. The advisory lists password guessing, phishing, and exploitation of known vulnerabilities, including flaws in Cisco VPN products and Veeam backup software, as primary entry points. The group also buys stolen credentials from initial access brokers on dark web markets and uses automated scripts to scan the internet for exposed systems.
Once inside, the group moves quickly. Attacks have been documented going from initial access to full ransomware deployment in under 24 hours. Operators create new accounts or hijack existing ones, use Windows' own built-in tools to map the network, and disable security software using living-off-the-land techniques that avoid dropping obvious malware. Data is archived with WinRAR or 7-Zip and transferred out via FileZilla or RClone before encryption begins. In some cases, attackers change user passwords to lock out IT staff and slow down the response.
The group has also adopted a social engineering playbook that goes well beyond a simple phishing link. In several documented attacks, SafePay flooded employees with thousands of spam messages to overwhelm their inboxes, then followed up by impersonating IT support over Microsoft Teams or through direct phone calls. Vishing specialists, sometimes hired as a third-party service, would then convince employees to hand over remote access through Microsoft Quick Assist or approve multi-factor authentication prompts.
A Pattern of High-Profile Hits
Three incidents stand out in terms of impact. Government technology contractor Conduent confirmed an attack that disrupted Medicaid payments, child support disbursements, food assistance programs, and roadway tolls in multiple U.S. states. Conduent recently agreed to an $80 million class action settlement over the breach. British transport technology firm Microlise was hit in October 2024, disrupting DHL delivery operations and security systems installed in UK Ministry of Justice prisoner transport vans. In July 2025, researchers linked SafePay to an attack on Ingram Micro, one of the world's largest IT distributors, with analysts estimating the disruption cost the company at least $136 million in daily sales while order fulfillment was offline.
Germany as a Primary Target
Among the countries SafePay has focused on, Germany stands out. During the first quarter of 2025, Check Point Research found that 24 percent of all publicly reported ransomware victims in Germany were attributed to SafePay, the highest concentration of any single ransomware group in any single country during that period. The advisory confirms that dozens of German companies appear on SafePay's dark web leak site alongside government organizations across Latin America and the United States.
Ransom Demands Framed as a Business Transaction
SafePay's ransom notes describe the payment demand as "a subset of company revenue," typically falling between one and three percent of the victim's annual revenue. The group uses cryptocurrency for payments and, according to the advisory, sometimes employs third parties to make phone calls to pressure victims into paying. In cases where paying could expose a victim to regulatory penalties, the group has reportedly offered reduced demands.
The joint advisory stops short of attributing SafePay to any specific country or naming individual suspects.
Attackers replaced the binary releases of OVHcloud's open-source CLI tool on GitHub with malicious builds designed to harvest secrets from developer machines, the company confirmed this week. The incident, which affected versions v0.11.0 through v0.15.0, went live on October 19 and was only caught after a customer raised an alarm about a suspicious release.
The malicious files were live for roughly 94 minutes. A customer's CI pipeline, which had a pinned SHA-256 checksum for the v0.15.0 Linux binary, failed when the hash no longer matched, and the customer opened issue #300 on the public GitHub repository. OVHcloud pulled the replaced assets at 14:21 UTC and shipped a clean replacement, v0.16.0, three hours later.
A Compromised Account, Months in the Making
The attack traced back to a single GitHub account: `HassenBF`, belonging to a legitimate OVHcloud contributor who had write access to the release repository. According to the security research group OpenSourceMalware, the account was compromised roughly seven months before the attack, with evidence pointing to early March 2026.
On March 5 and 6, four personal repositories on the account were force-pushed within a scripted window. Three of those rewrites embedded a `preinstall.js` loader file containing a payload hidden inside invisible Unicode variation-selector characters. A fourth repository inlined the same decoder into a React source file. The push cadence for the first three repositories was 42 seconds, which OpenSourceMalware interpreted as automated rather than manual activity.
After that, the account went quiet on the CLI project. It continued contributing to `ovh/ovhcloud-docs` through May to September 2026, with several pull requests merged normally. That cover of normalcy made the account hard to flag.
How the Malicious Binaries Were Built
The attacker did not touch OVHcloud's CI/CD pipeline. Instead, they built the infected packages locally and uploaded them directly using the GitHub Releases API, replacing the macOS (Intel and ARM), Linux (x86_64 and ARM64), and Windows x86-64 binaries across five versions. The i386, Windows ARM64, and WASM builds were left alone, which OpenSourceMalware read as deliberate targeting of developer and operations workstations.
Critically, the attacker also replaced the `checksums.txt` file last, so the new hashes matched the malicious binaries. Anyone who verified the checksum would still get a false sense of security.
OVHcloud CEO Octave Klaba confirmed that GitHub's release immutability setting had been turned off on the repository, which is what allowed an account with write access to silently overwrite already-published releases without triggering any CI checks. Since the incident, OVHcloud has re-enabled that setting. The v0.16.0 release is now marked immutable, meaning its files cannot be replaced.
A forensic check of the malicious binary using `go version -m` revealed it was built from a git checkout with uncommitted changes (`vcs.modified=true`), a dead giveaway that it came from a local workstation build rather than the official GoReleaser pipeline.
The Payload: A Solana Dead Drop and GlassWorm Fingerprints
OpenSourceMalware dug into the `preinstall.js` file loaded into the compromised account's repositories back in March. The loader uses a two-stage design. The first stage AES-256-CBC decrypts a hex blob, and the resulting second-stage script checks whether the victim machine appears to be based in Russia by testing language and timezone settings; if it is, the script exits after 10 seconds.
Otherwise, it contacts public Solana RPC endpoints, queries transactions from a specific wallet address, and reads a JSON memo embedded in the blockchain. That memo carries a base64-encoded URL pointing to the next-stage payload. This "dead drop" technique lets the attacker swap out the payload URL anytime without touching any code repository.
The Solana wallet in question, `BjVeAjPrSKFiingBn4vZvghsGj9KCE8AJVtbc9S8o8SC`, appears in public indicator lists for GlassWorm, a threat actor that has been running campaigns since late 2025 targeting VS Code, OpenVSX, GitHub, and npm. OpenSourceMalware attributes this attack to GlassWorm with moderate confidence.
Who Is Affected and What to Do
Any developer or CI pipeline that downloaded or ran the CLI through `install.sh`, the Homebrew cask, or a direct GitHub release between 12:47 and 14:21 UTC on October 19 may have been exposed. Klaba said the malware's goal was to collect secrets sitting on disk, and while he described the binary as low quality, he warned it was still capable of doing real damage.
Affected users should update to v0.16.0 or roll back to v0.10.0 immediately, but updating the tool alone is not enough. Any machine that ran a compromised version should be treated as having all its readable secrets exposed. That means rotating OVHcloud API keys, cloud credentials, SSH keys, Kubernetes configs, package registry tokens, and anything stored in `.env` files, from a separate, clean machine. Users on macOS should also check for an `~/init.json` file in the home directory, which the second-stage script writes as a throttle marker.
OVHcloud has said a full post-mortem is coming. Key questions remain open: how the developer account credentials were first stolen, whether the same actor maintained access for the entire seven months, and exactly what the final payload did before OVHcloud deleted the files.
A security researcher has demonstrated working exploits against a class of Wi-Fi gateways running Broadcom chips, showing that an attacker within radio range can gain root-level code execution on the device without knowing the Wi-Fi password or completing any kind of pairing process. As of this writing, no patch has been deployed to affected routers, and no CVE identifier has been assigned.
Quentin Kaiser published his findings on October 16, 2026, after a disclosure process that effectively went nowhere. The vulnerability sits inside Broadcom's own implementation of Wi-Fi Protected Setup, the handshake protocol designed to simplify connecting new devices to a network. Kaiser found that the code mishandles the reassembly of fragmented WPS messages. By sending carefully crafted fragments, an attacker can corrupt the device's memory and redirect execution, all through the air, from a position outside the building.
Two Working Exploits, Two Different Outcomes
Kaiser demonstrated the attack against two Belgian ISP-supplied gateways. On an Orange Belgium device, an Askey TCG3000, the exploit read the Wi-Fi pre-shared key directly from stored settings and transmitted it back to the attacker, effectively handing over the network password. On a Proximus gateway, the Sagemcom BBOX3V+, the exploit did something more severe: it opened a reverse shell transported entirely over Wi-Fi frames, without requiring the attacker to have an external server or any prior foothold on the network.
Both attacks required no credentials and no interaction from anyone inside the network. Distance helps the attacker, not the defender.
The Code Is Old, and So Is Broadcom's Awareness
The vulnerable code traces back to at least 2010. Broadcom issued a partial fix in 2018 and simultaneously told downstream customers to migrate to the hostapd Wi-Fi software package instead of relying on Broadcom's own WPS implementation. That guidance went unheeded across a large portion of the device ecosystem, and the underlying flaw was never fully resolved.
Kaiser says Broadcom was informed about the issue again through his disclosure process and declined to assign a CVE or comment publicly. CERT/CC, which typically coordinates vulnerability disclosures between researchers and vendors, closed his case the day it was opened, citing the fact that Broadcom holds its own CVE numbering authority.
The result is a vulnerability without an identifier, without a patch, and without any official acknowledgment from the company whose code is responsible.
Which Hardware Is Affected
Kaiser sorted the affected chips into two groups. Older eCos-based chips, the BCM3380, BCM3383, and BCM33834, cannot receive a practical fix given their architecture. He described these as a "forever day," meaning a vulnerability that will remain open for the functional life of the hardware. Newer Linux-based chips, including the BCM3390, BCM65xx, and BCM68xx series, are technically fixable if device makers choose to replace the WPS software stack.
Among confirmed deployments in Belgium, Proximus, Orange Belgium, and VOO gateways are affected. Kaiser was unable to test Telenet devices but considers them potentially in scope. His broader analysis, which involved automated firmware scanning, identified vulnerable code across Cisco small-business access points, Huawei gear, and ARRIS routers, among others. He estimates the total number of affected devices runs into the millions globally, though some entries in his published list are flagged as "likely vulnerable" rather than confirmed.
Detection Tools, but No Mitigation
For organizations trying to assess their exposure, Kaiser published YARA detection rules and a scanning script on GitHub at github.com/qkaiser/broadcom-wps. Both are intended as triage tools to identify firmware containing the vulnerable code. He notes that patched devices may still trigger the YARA rules, so a positive result requires additional verification rather than automatic remediation.
For devices that fall into the "forever day" category, the practical answer is replacement.
Why Proximity Attacks Are Getting More Attention
The threat model here matters beyond the technical details. Kaiser noted that this vulnerability is particularly useful to attackers who can position themselves in physical range of a target rather than approaching through the internet. That scenario is no longer theoretical.
In November 2024, Volexity documented how a Russian state-sponsored group, tracked as GruesomeLarch and linked to APT28, compromised organizations near a high-value target in Washington, D.C., and then used dual-homed systems inside those neighboring buildings to connect to the actual target's corporate Wi-Fi. The attacker never needed to be in the same room or even the same building. They just needed a wireless network with weak enough controls to reach from the street.
A flaw that lets anyone within radio range become root on the router, without a password, without a handshake, fits neatly into that playbook. The attack surface is wherever the signal reaches.
An intruder broke into a legacy system at OpenCode late on October 16, gaining access to third-party AI provider API keys that users had stored inside OpenCode Console, the company's optional hosted service. The open-source coding platform disclosed the incident on October 17 and said 1.4% of its Console users were affected, all of whom had linked at least one external AI provider to their account.
OpenCode connected the breach to what it described as "a large-scale distillation attack," a method where someone collects outputs from frontier AI models to train a separate, competing model. Rather than building costly infrastructure or licensing training data, attackers use someone else's API access to query high-end models at scale, then feed those responses into their own system. The stolen asset in this case was not personal data but model access, specifically the ability to run queries against Claude, GPT-4, and Gemini on someone else's tab.
What Got Taken and What Did Not
OpenCode co-founder Dax Raad drew a line between accounts that stored keys in Console and those that used the local CLI or desktop app. Keys saved locally sit inside a SQLite database on the user's own machine and, as Raad noted, "never come to us." Those were not touched. Only keys that users explicitly uploaded to Console, which OpenCode stores server-side to route requests through its gateway, were within reach of the compromised system.
OpenCode has not specified what the legacy system was, how long the attacker had access, or how many users 1.4% translates to in real numbers. As of October 18, Raad said the company's systems had been under sustained pressure, with attackers attempting to get in "non stop" for 48 hours.
Users Report Charges Running Into Hundreds of Dollars
Reports on X and Reddit painted a more concrete picture of the damage. One user, Colin Parsons, said his accounts had been charged $281 on OpenAI and $168 on Anthropic. Another, Preston Zeller, reported a bill of $1,700. A Reddit thread gathered additional accounts, including roughly $400 in Anthropic usage and around 200 euros in Google Cloud charges that prompted Google to suspend the associated project.
OpenCode has not confirmed these figures as part of its own findings, and it has not addressed whether affected users will be reimbursed. The three providers, Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google, are working with OpenCode on remediation, according to the company, but none has publicly stated a policy for charges tied to stolen keys.
The mechanics of the situation make quick action important. An API key works for whoever holds it. Removing the key from inside OpenCode Console does nothing if the attacker already copied it. Console's built-in spend limits also cannot cap usage that happens outside OpenCode's own gateway, which means a copied key used directly against a provider's API bypasses those guardrails entirely.
The Distillation Attack Context
The technique OpenCode referenced is not new, and its scale in recent months has drawn attention from the companies whose models are being targeted. In February 2026, Anthropic flagged industrial-scale distillation activity, naming specific actors it said had extracted outputs from its models to train cheaper alternatives. Separately, U.S. officials noted that Chinese AI companies had pulled billions of tokens from frontier models through similar methods, a practice that lets firms skip large portions of the compute and research costs normally required to reach competitive performance levels.
What makes the OpenCode breach notable in this context is the method. Rather than scraping public interfaces or using their own accounts in violation of terms of service, the attackers here appear to have acquired legitimate credentials through a third-party breach, letting them operate under real user accounts with established billing relationships. That separation from direct account creation makes automated detection harder.
What Affected Users Should Do Now
OpenCode has advised affected users to rotate their keys immediately, but the precise steps matter. Rotating a key inside OpenCode Console alone is not sufficient. Users need to revoke the key from inside each provider's dashboard, where the credential is actually authenticated, then generate a new one and update every application or script that referenced the old key. Reviewing billing history going back to at least October 16 is also advisable, as any charges from queries the user did not make would show up in the provider's usage logs, not only inside OpenCode.
Security researchers have used the incident to argue against concentrating multiple provider keys inside a single third-party tool. Storing separate keys for separate platforms limits what any single breach can reach, and using keys with restricted permissions or lower spending thresholds reduces the potential damage if one is taken.
OpenCode says the investigation is ongoing.
While the demand for artificial intelligence security specialists continued to grow, cybersecurity job postings decreased to a four-year low in 2026 in the United States. CyberSN's Cybersecurity Jobs Report indicates that between January and September 2026, employers posted 235,786 cybersecurity jobs, a 26.4% decline from the same period in 2025 when 320,210 jobs were posted. 4
Using JobSpikr job listings, CyberSN categorizes the listings into 45 cybersecurity functional roles across ten groups based on the skills and responsibilities required rather than the job title assigned. While overall job openings declined, some AI-related positions experienced significant growth. In 2015, AI Security Engineer positions grew by 268.3% year over year, while listings for Cyber Data Scientists increased by 203.5%.
These figures indicate that the demand for professionals with expertise in artificial intelligence, data analysis, and cybersecurity is growing. Additionally, AI-related skills are becoming increasingly commonplace in a wide range of cybersecurity positions.
The use of AI was mentioned in approximately 15% of cybersecurity job postings during the first nine months of 2026, roughly matching the 15.1% that was mentioned in the previous year. However, this share reached 20% in September, which indicates that AI is increasingly common in job postings.
AI Skills Gain Ground Across Cybersecurity Roles
According to the report, AI was most commonly mentioned in research positions, with 32.7% of listings in that category mentioning AI mentions, an increase of 11.7% over the previous year. A 23.3% increase over last year was observed in offense-related jobs, an increase of 4.8 points. AI was mentioned in 19.8% of GRC listings, while planning-related positions accounted for 18.9%.
While several established cybersecurity positions experienced substantial decreases during the period, postings for Cyber Insider Threat Analysts decreased by 55.6% to 1,088, while Cyber Risk Analysts accounted for a 51.5% decline to 4,031 positions. Postings for penetration testers decreased 45.9% to 3,063 while postings for threat hunters decreased by 40%, reaching 1,013 positions. There was a 38.9% decline in CISO-related positions, including Chief Security Officer and Information Security Officer roles.
The figure, however, was close to the 2,808 level of 2024, suggesting that the sharper comparison may partly reflect unusually high demand for CISOs in 2025. As of the second quarter of 2026, CISO-related jobs also increased by 19.5%. It remains possible to work remotely in many categories, particularly Sales, where 32.8% of listings offer remote work, followed closely by GRC at 31.2%.
The report does not determine the reasons for the changing figures, since it measures advertisements rather than completed hires. It should be noted, however, that the contrast between decline in vacancies overall and rapid growth in AI-focused positions indicates that employers are seeking a significant shift in the skills that cybersecurity professionals possess.
Remote Work Remains Available Across Several Security Functions
A number of cybersecurity job categories continued to feature remote opportunities, with Sales registering 32.8% of remote listings, Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) posting 31.2%. 24.7% of remote postings were related to offensive roles, while 22.9% were related to product security. Educating, researching, and defending also contributed notable shares, respectively, containing 22.8%, 21.9%, and 21.3%.
Although remote work remains available across different cybersecurity functions, its availability varies from role to role. According to the report, these proportions do not appear to reflect changes in employer policies or changes in the types of positions being advertised.
Report Highlights Limits of Job Market Data
A CyberSN analysis measures not only posted positions, but also confirmed hires and the number of individuals entering or leaving the profession. It does not also explain why postings have declined or why AI-focused positions are in high demand. In this respect, the figures provide an overview of employer requirements during the reporting period rather than providing an exhaustive analysis of the factors influencing cybersecurity employment in general.
While the report indicates uncertainty regarding senior leadership opportunities, the number of CISO-related postings in 2026 was close to what it was in 2024, and listings increased from the second to the third quarters. Thus, the year-over-year decline must be considered in conjunction with the unusually high level recorded the prior year as well.
Cybersecurity professionals should monitor changes in skills requirements as the contrasting figures highlight the importance of monitoring these changes. As AI-related expertise appears in increasing numbers of job listings, several established roles have been reduced substantially. However, the available data does not indicate that AI demand is directly correlated with other job losses. It will be important to determine whether growth in AI security roles continues in the next quarter, as well as whether senior cybersecurity positions remain stable.
According to the report, there are fewer cybersecurity vacancies overall but a strong demand for specialized AI and data skills in the coming quarters. As evidenced by the latest figures, the cybersecurity job market is changing, with AI-related skills taking on increased significance even as overall job openings decline. Future hiring data will be able to provide insight into whether this trend continues and how demand for traditional security jobs is anticipated.
A compromised credential tied to a ConnectWise cloud backup application has allowed threat actors to access more than 170 Microsoft 365 environments managed by the company's partners and customers, with security researchers and Microsoft all tracking what they describe as an active supply chain attack.
The affected application, ConnectWise Cloud Backup, was formerly known as SkyKick before ConnectWise acquired it. The tool is designed for managed service providers (MSPs) and handles backup duties across Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace environments, covering mailboxes, OneDrive, SharePoint, Teams chats, and directory data for every tenant where it is installed. That built-in breadth of access is precisely what made the compromise so damaging.
Security firm Huntress confirmed unauthorized sign-ins across 173 partner and customer tenants. Researchers traced the suspicious activity to a single IP address, 144.172.64.128, which obtained tokens on October 15, 2026, between 6:13 and 8:34 UTC. The movement across tenants was methodical: the actor worked through environments in sorted GUID order, hitting each one a few seconds apart, a pattern consistent with an automated script running through a pre-built target list. Before that, the same IP address was used to password-spray four law firm tenants on October 13 and 14, though no successful user sign-ins were logged during that activity.
The attack went further than reconnaissance. In at least one partner tenant, a separate ConnectWise application called Cloud Management for Teams elevated itself to the Global Administrator role. From there, the actor added client secrets to an MSP management app and to Huntress's own app, using a Python-urllib/3.12 user agent. That kind of credential insertion is a classic backdoor move, designed to maintain persistent access even after the initial intrusion is addressed.
Huntress also noted that some of the access, particularly directory reads through Microsoft Graph, does not generate an audit trail, which complicates the task of establishing the full scope of what was seen or copied.
Security company Todyl, which also investigated the activity, pointed out that the inherited consent model made the damage difficult to contain quickly. Because the Cloud Backup application had been granted permission by tenant administrators, it could read and write to mail via Exchange Web Services, access OneDrive and SharePoint files, and reach Teams chats, including restoration capabilities. Revoking user sessions had no effect on the attack, since the access did not depend on user sign-ins. Disabling the application entirely stops new tokens from being issued, but tokens already in circulation remain valid for up to 90 minutes.
Microsoft confirmed it is tracking the campaign as an active supply chain attack, identifying it by the Cloud Backup application's OAuth App ID (506e08f9-6e9a-4da4-942b-a099a03644ae). The company said the actor likely abused Directory.ReadWrite.All permissions granted by customers, and observed follow-on activity including Graph API reconnaissance and attempts to add credentials to service principals as a persistence mechanism.
ConnectWise responded by shutting off Cloud Backup application access entirely and stated it found no evidence that partner backup data stored within the platform was copied or exfiltrated.
For organizations trying to determine whether they were affected, the key step is checking service principal sign-in logs in the Entra Admin Center, filtered by the Cloud Backup App ID. The default User sign-ins tab will not show this activity. Administrators should flag any sign-ins originating from IP addresses outside expected Microsoft or Azure ranges, since the application's normal outbound traffic uses Azure private IPv6. A full audit of any credentials added to applications since October 13 is also recommended, along with a review of Entra audit logs for any ConnectWise or SkyKick apps that added themselves to directory roles.
The ConnectWise incident surfaced alongside a separate supply chain campaign reported by Google Mandiant, Google Threat Intelligence Group, and ManageEngine Threat Analysis Lab. That operation, attributed to a previously undocumented threat cluster called UNC7017, repeatedly tampered with update servers belonging to backup software maker AOMEI. Between April and July 2026, attackers redirected downloads to malicious ZIP packages during short five-to-ten-minute windows. The payloads included a downloader called CROSSROAD and a modular backdoor named SHINYROAD, deployed through DLL sideloading. The campaign hit organizations in IT services, telecommunications, and higher education across roughly 11 countries, including the United States, Brazil, India, and Spain.
Together, the two incidents reinforce a pattern security researchers have flagged for years: backup tools and management platforms carry privileged access across dozens or hundreds of environments simultaneously, making them attractive targets for attackers looking to move laterally at scale without touching endpoint defenses.