Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

About Me

Showing posts with label Cyber Security. Show all posts

Trend Micro Patches Critical Remote Code Execution and Authentication Bypass Flaws in Apex Central and PolicyServer

Trend Micro has rolled out essential security updates to address a series of high-impact vulnerabilities discovered in two of its enterprise security solutions: Apex Central and the Endpoint Encryption (TMEE) PolicyServer. These newly disclosed issues, which include critical remote code execution (RCE) and authentication bypass bugs, could allow attackers to compromise systems without needing login credentials. 

Although there have been no confirmed cases of exploitation so far, Trend Micro strongly recommends immediate patching to mitigate any potential threats. The vulnerabilities are especially concerning for organizations operating in sensitive sectors, where data privacy and regulatory compliance are paramount. 

The Endpoint Encryption PolicyServer is a key management solution used to centrally control full disk and media encryption across Windows-based systems. Following the recent update, four critical issues in this product were fixed. Among them is CVE-2025-49212, a remote code execution bug that stems from insecure deserialization within PolicyValue Table Serialization Binder class. This flaw enables threat actors to run code with SYSTEM-level privileges without any authentication. 

Another serious issue, CVE-2025-49213, was found in the PolicyServerWindowsService class, also involving unsafe deserialization. This vulnerability similarly allows arbitrary code execution without requiring user credentials. An additional bug, CVE-2025-49216, enables attackers to bypass authentication entirely due to faulty logic in the DbAppDomain service. Lastly, CVE-2025-49217 presents another RCE risk, though slightly more complex to exploit, allowing code execution via the ValidateToken method. 

While Trend Micro categorized all four as critical, third-party advisory firm ZDI classified CVE-2025-49217 as high-severity. Besides these, the latest PolicyServer release also fixes multiple other high-severity vulnerabilities, such as SQL injection and privilege escalation flaws. The update applies to version 6.0.0.4013 (Patch 1 Update 6), and all earlier versions are affected. Notably, there are no workarounds available, making the patch essential for risk mitigation. 

Trend Micro also addressed separate issues in Apex Central, the company’s centralized console for managing its security tools. Two pre-authentication RCE vulnerabilities—CVE-2025-49219 and CVE-2025-49220—were identified and patched. Both flaws are caused by insecure deserialization and could allow attackers to execute code remotely as NETWORK SERVICE without authentication. 

These Apex Central vulnerabilities were resolved in Patch B7007 for the 2019 on-premise version. Customers using Apex Central as a Service will receive fixes automatically on the backend. 

Given the severity of these cybersecurity vulnerabilities, organizations using these Trend Micro products should prioritize updating their systems to maintain security and operational integrity.

Cyber Suraksha': Indian Armed forces Launch Cybersecurity Exercise

 

Under the direction of the Headquarters Integrated Defence Staff, the Indian Defence Cyber Agency has initiated a cyber security exercise called "Cyber Suraksha." June 16 marked the start of the exercise, which will last through June 27. A multi-phased program called "Cyber Suraksha" aims to improve cyber resilience nationally.

Over 100 participants from different national-level agencies and defence stakeholders are brought together. In a dynamic, gamified setting, the exercise is intended to mimic actual cyberthreats and assess participants' capacity to react to them. It aims to strengthen security practices and hone participants' analytical and defensive abilities by fusing structured training with real-life issues. 

The exercise included a Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) conclave, which was designed to bridge the gap between technical execution and leadership roles. The conclave will comprise conversations delivered by notable speakers in the cyber security sphere, followed by an immersive Table-Top Exercise targeted at improving senior leadership's strategic readiness. 

'Cyber Suraksha' highlights the Defence Cyber Agency's proactive approach to maintaining cyber vigilance and cultivating a security-first culture across all levels of the national defence infrastructure. The agency also intends to make such exercises a regular occurrence in order to maintain a high level of preparedness and foster coordinated defence in an ever-changing cyber landscape. 

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh stated in March that "cyber, space, and information warfare" are proving to be as effective as traditional military operations, emphasising that the armed forces "must operate jointly and stay future-ready" in light of the evolving multi-domain environment and technological advances. 

The website of Armoured Vehicles Nigam Limited (AVNL), a defence public sector company that manufactures tanks and armoured vehicles, was taken down for a comprehensive audit two days prior to India's May 7 launch of Operation Sindoor against Pakistan. The site was allegedly defaced by a Pakistani hacker group known as "Pakistan Cyber Force," which posted pictures of a tank and a Pakistani flag.

How Generative AI Is Accelerating the Rise of Shadow IT and Cybersecurity Gaps

 

The emergence of generative AI tools in the workplace has reignited concerns about shadow IT—technology solutions adopted by employees without the knowledge or approval of the IT department. While shadow IT has always posed security challenges, the rapid proliferation of AI tools is intensifying the issue, creating new cybersecurity risks for organizations already struggling with visibility and control. 

Employees now have access to a range of AI-powered tools that can streamline daily tasks, from summarizing text to generating code. However, many of these applications operate outside approved systems and can send sensitive corporate data to third-party cloud environments. This introduces serious privacy concerns and increases the risk of data leakage. Unlike legacy software, generative AI solutions can be downloaded and used with minimal friction, making them harder for IT teams to detect and manage. 

The 2025 State of Cybersecurity Report by Ivanti reveals a critical gap between awareness and preparedness. More than half of IT and security leaders acknowledge the threat posed by software and API vulnerabilities. Yet only about one-third feel fully equipped to deal with these risks. The disparity highlights the disconnect between theory and practice, especially as data visibility becomes increasingly fragmented. 

A significant portion of this problem stems from the lack of integrated data systems. Nearly half of organizations admit they do not have enough insight into the software operating on their networks, hindering informed decision-making. When IT and security departments work in isolation—something 55% of organizations still report—it opens the door for unmonitored tools to slip through unnoticed. 

Generative AI has only added to the complexity. Because these tools operate quickly and independently, they can infiltrate enterprise environments before any formal review process occurs. The result is a patchwork of unverified software that can compromise an organization’s overall security posture. 

Rather than attempting to ban shadow IT altogether—a move unlikely to succeed—companies should focus on improving data visibility and fostering collaboration between departments. Unified platforms that connect IT and security functions are essential. With a shared understanding of tools in use, teams can assess risks and apply controls without stifling innovation. 

Creating a culture of transparency is equally important. Employees should feel comfortable voicing their tech needs instead of finding workarounds. Training programs can help users understand the risks of generative AI and encourage safer choices. 

Ultimately, AI is not the root of the problem—lack of oversight is. As the workplace becomes more AI-driven, addressing shadow IT with strategic visibility and collaboration will be critical to building a strong, future-ready defense.

Telegram’s Alleged Ties to Russian Intelligence Raise Global Surveillance Fears

 

A new investigation by Russian media outlet Important Stories, in collaboration with the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), has sparked fresh scrutiny over Telegram’s connections to Russia’s intelligence services. The popular messaging platform, long regarded for its privacy features, may have indirect links to the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), raising significant concerns for users worldwide.

At the center of the probe is a company called Global Network Management (GNM), which plays a critical role in routing Telegram’s messages. Although GNM is officially incorporated in the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda, it operates primarily from Russia. Its owner, Vladimir Vedeneev, is a Russian engineer with long-standing ties to Telegram founder Pavel Durov. Legal filings show that Vedeneev is the only individual authorized to manage certain Telegram servers, including those based in the U.S. 

Vedeneev also runs other firms—such as Globalnet and Electrontelecom—that reportedly supply telecommunications infrastructure to various Russian state entities, including the FSB. These companies have been linked to classified government projects involving surveillance and defense. 

The IP addresses used by Telegram used to be owned by Russian firms with FSB affiliations. These IPs still appear to be registered in Russia, and might be responsible for allowing user activity to be traced back through Russian-controlled networks. Telegram users typically rely on regular cloud chats, which—unlike its secret chats—are not end-to-end encrypted and are stored on Telegram’s servers. Security analysts warn that if Vedeneev’s companies manage routing systems and network infrastructure, they could potentially access user metadata, including IP addresses, device IDs, and location data. 

Though message content may remain encrypted, this metadata could still be exploited for surveillance. Moreover, Telegram transmits unique device identifiers in an unencrypted format, creating additional vulnerability. Experts caution that Russian intelligence could leverage this data to monitor users, particularly dissidents, journalists, or foreign nationals viewed as threats. Telegram has refuted the claims, stating that it has no employees or servers in Russia and that its infrastructure remains fully under the control of its internal teams. 

The company maintains that no third party, including vendors, can access confidential user data or systems. However, Telegram has yet to directly address the investigation’s core claims regarding GNM, Vedeneev, or the related infrastructure providers. The platform also hasn’t explained how it protects users if server operators have potential intelligence ties or why certain data is still sent without encryption. 

The issue is especially relevant in Ukraine, where Telegram has over 10 million users and is a major source of news and official communication. While President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration uses the app for public updates, growing concerns around disinformation and espionage have prompted discussions about its continued use. 

As the investigation raises critical questions about the app’s security, the broader implications for global digital privacy and national security remain in sharp focus.

Ransomware Attacks Continue to Rise in an Alarming Trend

 

The frequency and intensity of cyberthreats seem to be increasing despite businesses' ongoing efforts to thwart malicious actors. Honeywell, a global technology and manufacturing firm that also provides cybersecurity solutions, reported a 46% rise in ransomware extortion attacks between October 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025, as compared to the previous six-month period. 

Win32.Worm.Ramnit, a Trojan that typically targets the banking sector to steal account details, was found in 37% of files blocked by Honeywell's SMX product. That represented a 3,000% rise from the second quarter of 2024, when Honeywell last reported on it. 

In its investigation report, Honeywell stated that "it can likely be assumed it has been repurposed to extract control system credentials" due to the Trojan's saturation presence in the ecosystems of its industrial clients. "Existing adversaries continue to disrupt operations across critical sectors, even in the absence of new ransomware variants specifically designed for industrial control systems." 

1,929 ransomware incidents were made public throughout the reporting period. Eight verticals accounted for the vast majority (71%) of the cases, with the industries most affected being manufacturing, construction, healthcare, and technology. 

Given that ransomware attacks are normally "more opportunistic, typically creating a normal distribution of attacks across different industries," Honeywell noted that this was a really unusual pattern. The report claims that supply chain disruptions, manual failovers, and forced production outages caused by ransomware have been experienced by manufacturing plants, water treatment facilities, and energy providers. 

In response to the elevated threats, during the reporting period, some organisations "doubled down on best practices that would be considered baseline," according to Honeywell. Such procedures include, for example, immutable data backups and regular vulnerability assessments. According to Honeywell, as of October 2024, victimised organisations had paid out more than $1 billion in ransomware. 

Another new cybersecurity report, from the Information Security Media Group, focused on artificial intelligence, which it described as the "defining force" of cybersecurity-related disruption. 

As businesses use AI to automate threat detection and scale response capabilities, "adversaries are using the same technologies to enhance phishing, generate polymorphic malware, and conduct identity fraud with unprecedented precision," according to the ISMG research. ISMG added that the combination of AI and quantum computing "further signals a critical shift requiring crypto-agility and forward planning.”

Data Security Posture Insights: Overcoming Complexity and Threat Landscape

 

In today's competitive landscape, it is becoming more critical for businesses to find ways to adapt their data security, governance, and risk management strategies to the volatile economy by increasing efficiency or lowering costs while maintaining the structure, consistency, and guidance required to manage cyber threats and ensure compliance. 

As organisations increasingly migrate various on-premises applications and data workloads to multicloud environments, the complexity and dispersed nature of cloud environments presents significant challenges in terms of managing vulnerabilities, controlling access, understanding risks, and protecting sensitive data.

What is data security risk? 

Data security refers to the process of preserving digital information from unauthorised access, corruption, or theft throughout its lifecycle. Risks are introduced into databases, file servers, data lakes, cloud repositories, and storage devices via all access channels to and from these systems. 

Most importantly, the data itself, whether in motion or at rest, deserves the same level of protection. When effectively executed, a data-centric approach will secure an organization's assets and data from cyberattacks while also guarding against insider threats and human error, which are still among the major causes of data breaches.

Complexity factor into data security risk 

Many variables contribute to organisational growth while also increasing security complexity. Complexity undermines operational stability and has an equivalent influence on security. Understanding and analysing all the causes of complexity allows organisations to develop focused initiatives and efficiently automate observability and control, fostering a lean and responsive operational team. 

Cloud Security Alliance's Understanding Data Security Risk 2025 Survey Report outlines major topics that organisations are actively addressing:

High growth with AI-driven innovation and security: As AI stimulates innovation, it also broadens the threat landscape. Rapid expansion frequently outpaces the creation of required infrastructures, processes, and procedures, resulting in ad hoc measures that add complexity. Gen-AI also introduces a new level of difficulty as it becomes more prominent in cloud environments, which remain a major target owing to their complexity and scale. 

Processes and automation: We understand that limited staff and inefficient or outdated processes frequently result in manual and redundant efforts. This places a significant load on teams that struggle to stay up, resulting in reactive stopgap or workaround actions. To summarise, manual efforts can be error-prone and time-consuming. At the same time, organisations may encounter unwanted bottlenecks, which can increase complexity and impede risk detection and security enforcement. Automate as much as possible, including data security and risk intelligence, to ensure that risks are managed proactively, reducing the escalation of critical occurrences. 

Technology integration: Although technology provides answers for efficiency and effectiveness, integrating several systems without careful planning can result in disjointed security process silos, ineffective security infrastructure, and mismatched security stack components. Fragmented visibility, control, and access enforcement are the unstated costs of fragmented tools. Even though they are crucial, traditional compliance and security systems frequently lack the integration and scalability required for contemporary and successful risk management. 

Proactive data security posture management 

To improve security posture, organisations are adopting proactive, risk-based solutions that include continuous monitoring, real-time risk assessments, and dynamic actionable workflows. This strategy allows for the detection and mitigation of flaws before they are exploited, resulting in a more strong defence against threats. 

According to the poll results, 36% prioritise assessment results, 34% believe a dedicated dashboard is most useful, and 34% want risk scores to better understand their organization's data risk. 

 onquering complexity necessitates a comprehensive approach that incorporates technology, best practices, and risk awareness. By prioritising data security throughout your cloud journey, you can keep your data safe, your apps running smoothly, and your business thriving in the ever-changing cloud landscape.

Telegram's Security Under Scrutiny Over Alleged Ties to Russian Intelligence Infrastructure

 

Telegram, the widely used messaging platform known for its commitment to privacy and free speech, is facing renewed concerns over its security and potential exposure to Russian surveillance. A new investigation by the exiled investigative outlet IStories has revealed that the infrastructure supporting Telegram is managed by entities with direct and indirect links to Russian intelligence services.

The app’s founder, Russian-born Pavel Durov, has consistently portrayed Telegram as a stronghold for digital freedom, especially in regions ruled by authoritarian regimes. However, IStories reports that the app’s default communication settings may not be as secure as users assume.

Unlike rivals such as WhatsApp or Signal, Telegram does not enable end-to-end encryption by default. Only when users activate the “secret chat” feature are their messages fully protected. Otherwise, Telegram stores decrypted messages on its servers.

“This means that whoever controls the server can access the correspondence,” IStories stated.

According to the investigation, the company Global Network Management (GNM), based in Antigua and Barbuda, maintains the core infrastructure for Telegram and has supplied over 10,000 IP addresses to the platform. GNM is owned by Russian national Vladimir Vedeneev, who confirmed in a U.S. court that his company sets up and oversees Telegram’s infrastructure, with employees based in Russia. Court records also list Vedeneev as Telegram’s chief financial officer.

Further scrutiny revealed that many of GNM’s IP addresses were previously used by Globalnet, a telecommunications firm in St. Petersburg with documented ties to the Kremlin and Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB). Telegram is also reported to have received 5,000 IP addresses from Electrontelecom, another St. Petersburg company identified as a contractor for the FSB. This firm has been involved in deploying secure communications for intelligence purposes.

In 2022, Globalnet reportedly installed user traffic monitoring tools at the behest of Roskomnadzor, Russia’s state communications regulator. At the time, Oleg Matveychev, deputy chair of the Russian Duma’s Information Policy Committee, stated that Telegram had agreed to a “compromise” with the FSB, implementing infrastructure that allows user monitoring in criminal investigations.

Beyond message decryption and storage, Telegram also assigns a unique device identifier—called “auth_key_id”—to each message, cybersecurity expert MichaÅ‚ Woźniak told IStories.

This mechanism, combined with metadata such as IP addresses and timestamps, “could be used to determine a user’s physical location and contacts,” Woźniak explained.
“If someone has access to Telegram traffic and cooperates with Russian intelligence services, this means that the device identifier becomes a really big problem — a tool for global surveillance of messenger users, regardless of where they are and what server they connect to,” he added.

In response to the investigation, Telegram issued a statement on Tuesday rejecting any allegations of unauthorized access.

“All Telegram servers belong to Telegram and are maintained by Telegram employees. Unauthorized access is impossible. Telegram has no employees or servers in Russia. Throughout its history, Telegram has never transmitted personal messages to third parties, and its encryption has never been hacked,” the company’s press service stated.

The findings, however, have raised important questions about how much control Telegram truly has over its infrastructure—and how secure its platform really is for millions of users worldwide.

Understanding the Dynamic threat Landscape of Ransomware Attacks

 

The constant expansion of cyber threats, particularly malware and ransomware, necessitates our undivided attention. Our defence strategy must evolve in tandem with the threats. So far this year, ransomware has targeted Frederick Health Medical Group, Co-op Supermarkets, and Marks & Spencer. 

This meant that critical data got into the wrong hands, supply networks were interrupted, and online transactions were halted. Almost 400,000 PCs were attacked with Lumma Stealer malware, a ClickFix malware version went viral, and a new spyware dubbed 'LOSTKEYS' appeared.

The threat landscape is always evolving, making traditional security methods ineffective. Effective protection methods are not only useful; they are also required to protect against severe data loss, financial damage, and reputational impact that these attacks can cause. Understanding the nature of these enemies is a critical first step towards developing strong defences. 

Ransomware: An ongoing and profitable menace 

Ransomware deserves special attention. It encrypts data and demands payment for its release, frequently spreading through phishing or software weaknesses. More complex ransomware variations take data before encrypting it, combining the threat with blackmail. The effects of ransomware include:

Data loss: May be permanent without backups. 

Financial costs: Includes ransom, restoration, and penalties 

Reputational damage: If publicly exposed, trust is lost. 

Ransomware's profitability makes it particularly tenacious. It does not just impact huge companies; small firms, healthcare systems, and educational institutions are all common targets. Its ease of deployment and high return on investment continue to attract cybercriminals, resulting in more aggressive campaigns.

Ransomware attacks increasingly frequently use "double extortion," in which attackers exfiltrate data before encrypting it. Victims confront two threats: inaccessible data and public exposure. This strategy not only enhances the chance of ransom payment, but also raises the stakes for organisations who are already battling to recover.

Challenges

Malware and ransomware are challenging to detect due to evasive strategies. Attackers are getting more creative, using legitimate administrative tools, zero-day vulnerabilities, and social engineering to get around defences. A multi-layered security approach that includes behavioural detection, endpoint hardening, and regular system updates is necessary to defend against these threats.

In the end, protecting against malware and ransomware involves more than just technology; it also involves mentality. Professionals in cybersecurity need to be knowledgeable, proactive, and flexible. The defenders must adapt to the ever-changing threats.

AI Skills Shortage Deepens as Enterprise Demand Grows Faster Than Talent Supply

 

The shortage of skilled professionals in artificial intelligence is becoming a major concern for enterprises, as organizations race to adopt the technology without a matching increase in qualified talent. The latest Harvey Nash Digital Leadership report, released by Nash Squared in May, highlights a sharp rise in demand for AI skills across industries—faster than any previous tech trend tracked in the last 16 years. 

Based on responses from over 2,000 tech executives, the report found that more than half of IT leaders now cite a lack of AI expertise as a key barrier to progress. This marks a steep climb from just 28% a year ago. In fact, AI has jumped from the sixth most difficult skill to hire for to the number one spot in just over a year. Interest in AI adoption continues to soar, with 90% of surveyed organizations either investing in or piloting AI solutions—up significantly from 59% in 2023. Despite this enthusiasm, a majority of companies have not yet seen measurable returns from their AI projects. Many remain stuck in early testing phases, unable to deploy solutions at scale. 

Numerous challenges continue to slow enterprise AI deployment. Besides the scarcity of skilled professionals, companies face obstacles such as inadequate data infrastructure and tight budgets. Without the necessary expertise, organizations struggle to transition from proof-of-concept to full integration. Bev White, CEO of Nash Squared, emphasized that enterprises are navigating uncharted territory. “There’s no manual for scaling AI,” she explained. “Organizations must combine various strategies—formal education, upskilling of tech and non-tech teams, and hands-on experimentation—to build their AI capabilities.” She also stressed the need for operational models that naturally embed AI into daily workflows. 

The report’s findings show that the surge in AI skill demand has outpaced any other technology shift in recent memory. Sectors like manufacturing, education, pharmaceuticals, logistics, and professional services are all feeling the pressure to hire faster than the talent pool allows. Supporting this trend, job market data shows explosive growth in demand for AI roles. 

According to Indeed, postings for generative AI positions nearly tripled year-over-year as of January 2025. Unless companies prioritize upskilling and talent development, the widening AI skills gap could undermine the long-term success of enterprise AI strategies. For now, the challenge of turning AI interest into practical results remains a steep climb.

Software Supply Chain Cyberattacks Surge 25%: IT, Telecom, and Fintech Firms Most Targeted

 

Software supply chain attacks have been steadily climbing, with recent data pointing to a 25% surge in incidents. This rise underscores the increasing sophistication of threat actors in breaching the complex web of interconnected software, hardware, and service providers that make up today’s IT environments.

According to an analysis of Cyble data, the average number of software supply chain attacks rose from under 13 per month (February–September 2024) to over 16 per month (October 2024–May 2025). The most recent two months saw nearly 25 incidents on average, suggesting a potential doubling of attack volume if current patterns hold. Still, month-to-month fluctuations remain high—with a low of 6 attacks in January 2025 and a peak of 31 in April 2025.

The dataset, compiled from Cyble’s investigations and open-source intelligence (OSINT), is not exhaustive, as many incidents remain undisclosed or undetected.

From January to May 2025, Cyble documented 79 cyberattacks with supply chain implications. Of these, 63% (50 incidents) were aimed at IT, technology, and telecommunications companies—prime targets due to their downstream influence. A single exploited vulnerability in these sectors can have a cascading effect, as seen in the widespread CL0P ransomware breaches.

Supply chain-related incidents touched 22 out of 24 tracked sectors, sparing only the Mining and Real Estate industries. In non-tech verticals, attackers often breached through third-party vendors and industry-specific service providers.

Regionally, the U.S. led with 31 reported incidents, followed by Europe (27) and APAC (26)—with India (9) and Taiwan (4) among the most affected in the Asia-Pacific region. The Middle East and Africa recorded 10 incidents, including four each in the UAE and Israel.

Cyble also detailed 10 major incidents, such as:

  1. Everest Ransomware claiming an attack on a Swiss banking tech firm, with stolen login credentials to banking apps.
  2. Akira ransomware affecting an IT services arm of a global conglomerate, reportedly disrupting projects linked to government bodies.
  3. A DarkForums threat actor advertising 92 GB of data related to a satellite project for Indonesia and ASEAN countries.
  4. Hellcat ransomware breaching a China-based electronics firm, exfiltrating 166 GB including blueprints and financial records.
  5. DragonForce targeting a U.S. biometric tech firm and extracting over 200 GB of data.
  6. VanHelsing ransomware infiltrating a U.S. enterprise security company, compromising potentially sensitive BFSI sector data.
  7. A threat actor on Exploit offering admin-level access to an Indian fintech firm’s cloud systems.
  8. Crypto24 extortion group claiming a 3TB breach of a Singapore-based tech firm.
  9. Killsec hacking group compromising an Australian IT and telecom solutions provider, leaking critical configuration data.
  10. A DarkForums actor offering access to an Australian telecom company’s domain admin portal for $750.

“Protecting against software supply chain attacks is challenging because these partners and suppliers are, by nature, trusted,” Cyble noted.

To mitigate risks, experts recommend:
  • Network microsegmentation
  • Restrictive access controls and regular validation
  • Biometric and multi-factor authentication
  • Encrypted data at rest and in transit
  • Ransomware-resistant, air-gapped backups
  • Honeypots for early breach detection
  • API and cloud configuration hygiene
  • Proactive monitoring via SIEM, Active Directory, and DLP tools
  • Routine audits, scans, and pen testing

The most strategic defense, Cyble suggests, lies within the CI/CD pipeline. Organizations must vet vendors thoroughly, incorporate security mandates in contracts, and make cybersecurity a core purchasing criterion. Leveraging services like Cyble’s third-party risk intelligence can accelerate this process and promote stronger security compliance among suppliers.

As threat actors evolve, organizations must embrace a layered, proactive approach to software supply chain security—treating it not as an IT concern, but as a critical business imperative.

Cloudfare CAPTCHA Page Tricks Users Into Downloading Malware

Cloudfare CAPTCHA Page Tricks Users Into Downloading Malware

An advanced but simple phishing tactic is being distributed, it deploys fake Cloudflare CAPTCHA pages to target users with malware. 

A recent research by SlashNext says the technique, called  ClickFix tricks users into running commands that deploy malware. ClickFix shows a fake version of Cloudflare’s Turnstile CAPTCHA page. It replicates visual layout and technical elements like Ray ID identifier to look authentic. 

Prompt that users generally miss

The phishing site is hosted on a domain that looks like the real one, or an authentic website that has been attacked. When users visit the site, they are tricked into checking a box called “Verify you are human.” 

This step looks normal and doesn’t raise any suspicion but after this, the users are asked to run a series of commands such as “Win + R” then “Ctrl + V” and after that “Enter.” These steps look harmless but they use a PowerShell command. Once executed, it can extract malware such as Lumma, NetSupport Manager, and Stealc. 

According to security expert Daniel  Kelley, “ClickFix is a social engineering attack that tricks users into running malicious commands on their own devices – all under the guise of a routine security check.” ClickFix is dangerous because it uses standard security measures as attack tools.  

Experts call this “verification fatigue,” where a user clicks through various prompts without proper investigation. "In the context of a familiar-looking Cloudflare page, a user often assumes these extra steps are normal, especially if they’re in a hurry to reach some content. The instructions to press Win+R and Ctrl+V may raise an eyebrow for tech-savvy people, but an average user – seeing official logos and not understanding the implications – can be socially engineered into treating it as an advanced CAPTCHA," Slash reported in the blog.

This tactic doesn't depend on exploiting software flaws, it exploits trust and user habits. 

The phishing page is sent as a single HTML file but includes embedded scripts and hidden code to perform clipboard injections.

It uses genuine Windows utilities and doesn't download executables so that it can escape traditional identification tools. General defenses such as endpoint protection or antivirus software usually aim to detect binaries or suspicious downloads. 

In this incident, users were baited into activating the threat themselves. This underscores the need for sophisticated malware protection with zero-hour defense that can detect clipboard injections and malicious CAPTCHA screens in real-time. 

DVLA Scams Target Thousands of UK Drivers with Fake Fines, Car Deals, and Fraudulent Fees

 

A surge in vehicle-related scams across the UK has left thousands of drivers out of pocket, with fraudulent activity disguised as legitimate DVLA communications. In 2023 alone, nearly 20,000 motorists were tricked by fake car tax messages, insurance schemes, and misleading parking fines, according to recent findings. These scams, often presented with a false sense of urgency, have affected drivers of all ages. 

Young drivers between 25 and 34 years old have been found to be prime targets for these scams, particularly for fraudulent vehicle listings and bogus insurance offers. Older motorists, meanwhile, are increasingly falling victim to fake parking fine notices designed to appear official and urgent. 

The scammers’ tactics often involve pressuring the recipient to pay immediately to avoid penalties, leading many to act before verifying the source. John Wilmot, CEO of car leasing comparison platform LeaseLoco, warned that this psychological pressure is what makes these scams so effective. Many people, he explained, rush to settle fines or fees without confirming whether the request is genuine. 

He stressed that official agencies like the DVLA never ask for payments or personal data through text messages or emails. To avoid becoming a victim, Wilmot recommends ignoring any suspicious digital messages and visiting the DVLA’s website only through the official GOV.UK portal. This small precaution could save drivers from significant financial losses and identity theft. 

One notable scam gaining traction involves tampered QR code stickers placed on parking meters, leading users to counterfeit payment websites. Drivers are urged to use only trusted mobile apps like PayByPhone or RingGo for transactions. In most UK cities, councils do not use QR codes for parking payments, further raising suspicion when encountered. 

Online used car scams have also seen a sharp rise. Fraudsters post listings with unrealistically low prices, request payments up front, and then vanish. Victims are lured in by deals that seem too good to be true. Authorities advise never transferring money before viewing a vehicle in person and checking the car’s history via government platforms. 

Scammers have also taken advantage of electronic tolling systems by sending drivers fake notifications for unpaid toll or congestion charges. These messages often include phishing links disguised as urgent payment portals, which can steal both money and sensitive information. 

As digital communication becomes a common part of motoring administration, drivers must stay alert. Verifying the source of any unexpected payment request is essential in avoiding fraud and safeguarding personal data.

Why Exploring the Dark Web Can Lead to Legal Trouble, Malware, and Emotional Harm

 

Venturing into the dark web may seem intriguing to some, but even well-intentioned users are exposed to significant risks. While many people associate the dark web with illegal activity, they may not realize that just browsing these hidden spaces can lead to serious consequences, both legal and emotional. Unlike the regulated surface web, the dark web operates with little to no oversight, which makes stumbling across disturbing or illicit content dangerously easy.

A simple click on an unfamiliar link can redirect users to graphic or illegal material. This content is not always clearly labeled, and visitors may not realize what they’re seeing until it’s too late. In several jurisdictions, merely viewing certain types of content—whether or not you meant to—can have legal repercussions. Users may also experience lasting psychological impact after encountering explicit or violent media. Reports of anxiety, stress, and trauma are not uncommon, even among casual users who were simply exploring out of curiosity.  

Malware, spyware, and keyloggers are often disguised as legitimate downloads or hidden in popular tools. Many websites host dangerous files designed to infect your device as soon as they are opened. Even privacy-focused platforms like Tor can’t fully shield users from malicious code or phishing attempts, especially when browsers are misconfigured or when users interact with suspicious content. 

Technical errors—like enabling JavaScript, resizing your browser window, or leaking DNS requests—can also expose your identity, even if you’re using encrypted tools. Cybersecurity professionals warn that mistakes like these are common and can be exploited by attackers or even government agencies. Law enforcement agencies actively monitor known dark web nodes and can use advanced techniques to track user behavior, collect metadata, and build profiles for surveillance. 

Additionally, scammers thrive in the anonymous environment of the dark web. Fake login portals, spoofed forums, and crypto wallet traps are rampant. And if you’re scammed, there’s little you can do—there are no refund options or customer service teams to help you recover lost funds or data. 

The dark web is often underestimated, constant exposure to unsettling content and the need to stay hyper-aware of threats can wear down a person’s sense of safety and trust. In many cases, the psychological damage can linger far longer than the browsing session itself. 

In short, exploring the dark web without a thorough understanding of the dangers can backfire. It’s a space where curiosity offers no protection, and the consequences—ranging from infections and identity loss to legal charges and emotional distress—can affect even the most cautious users.

FBI Urges Immediate Action as Play Ransomware Attacks Surge

 


The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have released a critical warning about the sharp rise in Play ransomware attacks. The agencies report that this cyber threat has affected hundreds of organizations across the Americas and Europe, including vital service providers and businesses.

The updated alert comes after the FBI identified over 900 confirmed victims in May alone, which is three times more than previously reported. Cybersecurity experts are urging organizations to act quickly to strengthen their defenses and stay informed about how these cybercriminals operate.


How the Play Ransomware Works

Play ransomware attackers use various advanced methods to break into systems. They often start by targeting services that are accessible from outside, like Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). Once they gain access, they move within the network, stealing login details and aiming to control the system entirely.

The FBI notes that the attackers do not immediately demand payment in their ransom notes. Instead, they leave email addresses that victims must contact. These emails usually come from unique addresses linked to German domains. In some cases, the criminals also make threatening phone calls to pressure victims into paying.


Connections to Other Threat Groups

Investigations suggest that the Play ransomware may be connected to several known hacking groups. Some security researchers believe there could be links to Balloonfly, a cybercrime group involved in earlier ransomware attacks. There have also been reports connecting Play to serious security incidents involving Windows systems and Microsoft Exchange servers.

In the past, attackers have taken advantage of security flaws in popular software, including Microsoft’s Windows and Fortinet’s FortiOS. Most of these security gaps have already been fixed through updates, but systems that remain unpatched are still at risk.


Key Steps to Protect Your Organization

The FBI strongly recommends that all organizations take immediate steps to reduce their risk of falling victim to these attacks. Here are the essential safety measures:

1. Create backup copies of important data and store them in secure, separate locations.

2. Use strong, unique passwords that are at least 15 characters long. Do not reuse passwords or rely on password hints.

3. Enable multi-factor authentication to add extra security to all accounts.

4. Limit the use of admin accounts and require special permissions to install new software.

5. Keep all systems and software up to date by applying security patches and updates promptly.

6. Separate networks to limit how far a ransomware attack can spread.

7. Turn off unused system ports and disable clickable links in all incoming emails.

8. Restrict the use of command-line tools that attackers commonly use to spread ransomware.

Staying alert and following these steps can help prevent your organization from becoming the next target. Cybersecurity is an ongoing effort, and keeping up with the latest updates is key to staying protected.

Beware of Pig Butchering Scams That Steal Your Money

Beware of Pig Butchering Scams That Steal Your Money

Pig butchering, a term we usually hear in the meat market, sadly, has also become a lethal form of cybercrime that can cause complete financial losses for the victims. 

Pig Butchering is a “form of investment fraud in the crypto space where scammers build relationships with targets through social engineering and then lure them to invest crypto in fake opportunities or platforms created by the scammer,” according to The Department of Financial Protection & Innovation. 

Pig butchering has squeezed billions of dollars from victims globally. Cambodian-based Huione Group gang stole over $4 billion from August 2021 to January 2025, the New York Post reported.

How to stay safe from pig butchering?

Individuals should watch out for certain things to avoid getting caught in these extortion schemes. Scammers often target seniors and individuals who are not well aware about cybercrime. The National Council on Aging cautions that such scams begin with receiving messages from scammers pretending to be someone else. Never respond or send money to random people who text you online, even if the story sounds compelling. Scammers rely on earning your trust, a sob story is one easy way for them to trick you. 

Another red flag is receiving SMS or social media texts that send you to other platforms like WeChat or Telegram, which have fewer regulations. Scammers also convince users to invest their money, which they claim to return with big profits. In one incident, the scammer even asked the victim to “go to a loan shark” to get the money.

Stopping scammers

Last year, Meta blocked over 2 million accounts that were promoting crypto investment scams such as pig butchering. Businesses have increased efforts to combat this issue, but the problem still very much exists. A major step is raising awareness via public posts broadcasting safety tips among individuals to prevent them from falling prey to such scams. 

Organizations have now started releasing warnings in Instagram DMs and Facebook Messenger warning users about “potentially suspicious interactions or cold outreach from people you don’t know”, which is a good initiative. Banks have started tipping of customers about the dangers of scams when sending money online. 

Securing the SaaS Browser Experience Through Proactive Measures

 


Increasingly, organisations are using cloud-based technologies, which has led to the rise of the importance of security concerns surrounding Software as a Service (SaaS) platforms. It is the concept of SaaS security to ensure that applications and sensitive data that are delivered over the Internet instead of being installed locally are secure. SaaS security encompasses frameworks, tools, and operational protocols that are specifically designed to safeguard data and applications. 

Cloud-based SaaS applications are more accessible than traditional on-premise software and also more susceptible to a unique set of security challenges, since they are built entirely in cloud environments, making them more vulnerable to security threats that are unique to them. 

There are a number of challenges associated with business continuity and data integrity, including unauthorized access to systems, data breaches, account hijacking, misconfigurations, and regulatory compliance issues. 

In order to mitigate these risks, robust security strategies for SaaS platforms must utilize multiple layers of protection. They usually involve a secure authentication mechanism, role-based access controls, real-time threat detection, the encoding of data at rest and in transit, as well as continual vulnerability assessments. In addition to technical measures, SaaS security also depends on clear governance policies as well as a clear understanding of shared responsibilities between clients and service providers. 

The implementation of comprehensive and adaptive security practices allows organizations to effectively mitigate threats and maintain trust in their cloud-based operations by ensuring that they remain safe. It is crucial for organizations to understand how responsibility evolves across a variety of cloud service models in order to secure modern digital environments. 

As an organization with an on-premises setup, it is possible to fully control, manage, and comply with all aspects of its IT infrastructure, ranging from physical hardware and storage to software, applications, data, and compliance with regulatory regulations. As enterprises move to Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) models such as Microsoft Azure or Amazon Web Services (AWS), this responsibility begins to shift. Security, maintenance, and governance fall squarely on the IT team. 

Whenever such configurations are used, the cloud provider provides the foundational infrastructure, namely physical servers, storage, and virtualization, but the organization retains control over the operating systems, virtual machines, networking configurations, and application deployments, which are provided by the organization.

It is important to note that even though some of the organizational workload has been lifted, significant responsibilities remain with the organization in terms of security. There is a significant shift in the way serverless computing and Platform as a Service (PaaS) environments work, where the cloud provider manages the underlying operating systems and runtime platforms, making the shift even more significant. 

Despite the fact that this reduces the overhead of infrastructure maintenance, organizations must still ensure that the code in their application is secure, that the configurations are managed properly, and that their software components are not vulnerable. With Software as a Service (SaaS), the cloud provider delivers a fully managed solution, handling everything from infrastructure and application logic to platform updates. 

There is no need to worry, however, since this does not absolve the customer of responsibility. It is the sole responsibility of the organization to ensure the safety of its data, configure appropriate access controls, and ensure compliance with particular industry regulations. Organizations must take a proactive approach to data governance and cybersecurity in order to be able to deal with the sensitivity and compliance requirements of the data they store or process, since SaaS providers are incapable of determining them inherently. 

One of the most important concepts in cloud security is the shared responsibility model, in which security duties are divided between the providers and their customers, depending on the service model. For organizations to ensure that effective controls are implemented, blind spots are avoided, and security postures are maintained in the cloud, it is crucial they recognize and act on this model. There are many advantages of SaaS applications, including their scalability, accessibility, and ease of deployment, but they also pose a lot of security concerns. 

Most of these concerns are a result of the fact that SaaS platforms are essentially web applications in the first place. It is therefore inevitable that they will still be vulnerable to all types of web-based threats, including those listed in the OWASP Top 10 - a widely acknowledged list of the most critical security threats facing web applications - so long as they remain configured correctly. Security misconfiguration is one of the most pressing vulnerability in SaaS environments today. 

In spite of the fact that many SaaS platforms have built-in security controls, improper setup by administrators can cause serious security issues. Suppose the administrator fails to configure access restrictions, or enables default configurations. In that case, it is possible to inadvertently leave sensitive data and business operations accessible via the public internet, resulting in serious exposure. The threat of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) remains a persistent one and can result in serious financial losses. 

A malicious actor can inject harmful scripts into a web page that will then be executed by the browser of unsuspecting users in such an attack. There are many modern frameworks that have been designed to protect against XSS, but not all of them have been built or maintained with these safeguards in place, which makes them attractive targets for exploitation. 

Insider threats are also a significant concern, as well. The security of SaaS platforms can be compromised by employees or trusted partners who have elevated access, either negligently or maliciously. It is important to note that many organizations do not enforce the principle of least privilege, so users are given far more access than they need. This allows rogue insiders to manipulate or extract sensitive data, access critical features, or even disable security settings, all with the intention of compromising the security of the software. 

SaaS ecosystems are facing a growing concern over API vulnerabilities. APIs are often critical to the interaction between SaaS applications and other systems in order to extend functionality. It is very important to note that API security – such as weak authentication, inadequate rate limiting, or unrestricted access – can leave the door open for unauthorized data extraction, denial of service attacks, and other tactics. Given that APIs are becoming more and more prevalent across cloud services, this attack surface is getting bigger and bigger each day. 

As another high-stakes issue, the vulnerability of personally identifiable information (PII) and sensitive customer data is also a big concern. SaaS platforms often store critical information that ranges from names and addresses to financial and health-related information that can be extremely valuable to the organization. As a result of a single breach, a company may not only suffer reputational damage, but also suffer legal and regulatory repercussions. 

In the age when remote working is increasingly popular in SaaS environments, account hijacking is becoming an increasingly common occurrence. An attacker can compromise user accounts through phishing, credential stuffing, social engineering, and vulnerabilities on unsecure personal devices—in combination with attacks on unsecured personal devices. 

Once inside the system, they have the opportunity to escalate privileges, gain access to sensitive assets, or move laterally within integrated systems. In addition, organizations must also address regulatory compliance requirements as a crucial element of their strategy. The industry in which an entity operates dictates how it must conform to a variety of standards, including GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS, and SOX. 

In order to ensure compliance, organizations must implement robust data protection mechanisms, conduct regular security audits, continuously monitor user activities, and maintain detailed logs and audit trails within their SaaS environments in order to ensure compliance. Thus, safeguarding SaaS applications requires a multilayer approach that goes beyond just relying on the vendor’s security capabilities. 

It is crucial that organizations remain vigilant, proactive, and well informed about the specific vulnerabilities inherent in SaaS platforms so that a secure cloud-first strategy can be created and maintained. Finally, it is important to note that securing Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) environments involves more than merely a set of technical tools; it requires a comprehensive, evolving, and business-adherent security strategy. 

With the increasing dependence on SaaS solutions, which are becoming increasingly vital for critical operations, the security landscape becomes more complex and dynamic, resulting from distributed workforces, vast data volumes, and interconnected third-party ecosystems, as well as a continuous shift in regulations. Regardless of whether it is an oversight regarding access control, configuration, user behavior, or integration, an organization can suffer a significant financial, operational, and reputational risk from a single oversight. 

Organizations need to adopt a proactive and layered security approach in order to keep their systems secure. A continuous risk assessment, a strong identity management and access governance process, consistent enforcement of data protection controls, robust monitoring, and timely incident response procedures are all necessary to meet these objectives. Furthermore, it is also necessary to cultivate a cybersecurity culture among employees, which ensures that human behavior does not undermine technical safeguards. 

Further strengthening the overall security posture is the integration of compliance management and third-party risk oversight into core security processes. SaaS environments are resilient because they are not solely based on the cloud infrastructure or vendor offerings, but they are also shaped by the maturity of an organization's security policies, operational procedures, and governance frameworks in order to ensure their resilience. 

A world where digital agility is paramount is one in which companies that prioritize SaaS security as a strategic priority, and not just as an IT issue, will be in a better position to secure their data, maintain customer trust, and thrive in a world where cloud computing is the norm. Today's enterprises are increasingly reliant on browser-based SaaS tools as part of their digital infrastructure, so it is imperative to approach safeguarding this ecosystem as a continuous business function rather than as a one-time solution. 

It is imperative that organizations move beyond reactive security postures and adopt a forward-thinking mindset to align SaaS risk management with the long-term objectives of operational resilience and digital transformation, instead of taking a reactive approach to security. As part of this, SaaS security considerations should be integrated into procurement policies, legal frameworks, vendor risk assessments, and even user training programs. 

It is also necessary to institutionalize collaboration among the security, IT, legal, compliance, and business units to ensure that at all stages of the adoption of SaaS, security impacts are considered in decision-making. As API dependency, third-party integration, and remote access points are becoming more important in the SaaS environment, businesses should invest in visibility, automation, and threat intelligence capabilities that are tailored to the SaaS environment in order to further mitigate their attack surfaces. 

This manner of securing SaaS applications will not only reduce the chances of breaches and regulatory penalties, but it will also enable them to become strategic differentiators before their customers and stakeholders, conveying trustworthiness, operational maturity, and long-term value to them.

The Strategic Imperatives of Agentic AI Security


 

In terms of cybersecurity, agentic artificial intelligence is emerging as a transformative force that is fundamentally transforming the way digital threats are perceived and handled. It is important to note that, unlike conventional artificial intelligence systems that typically operate within predefined parameters, agentic AI systems can make autonomous decisions by interacting dynamically with digital tools, complex environments, other AI agents, and even sensitive data sets. 

There is a new paradigm emerging in which AI is not only supporting decision-making but also initiating and executing actions independently in pursuit of achieving its objective in this shift. As the evolution of cybersecurity brings with it significant opportunities for innovation, such as automated threat detection, intelligent incident response, and adaptive defence strategies, it also poses some of the most challenging challenges. 

As much as agentic AI is powerful for defenders, the same capabilities can be exploited by adversaries as well. If autonomous agents are compromised or misaligned with their targets, they can act at scale in a very fast and unpredictable manner, making traditional defence mechanisms inadequate. As organisations increasingly implement agentic AI into their operations, enterprises must adopt a dual-security posture. 

They need to take advantage of the strengths of agentic AI to enhance their security frameworks, but also prepare for the threats posed by it. There is a need to strategically rethink cybersecurity principles as they relate to robust oversight, alignment protocols, and adaptive resilience mechanisms to ensure that the autonomy of AI agents is paired with the sophistication of controls that go with it. Providing security for agentic systems has become more than just a technical requirement in this new era of AI-driven autonomy. 

It is a strategic imperative as well. In the development lifecycle of Agentic AI, several interdependent phases are required to ensure that the system is not only intelligent and autonomous but also aligned with organisational goals and operational needs. Using this structured progression, agents can be made more effective, reliable, and ethically sound across a wide variety of use cases. 

The first critical phase in any software development process is called Problem Definition and Requirement Analysis. This lays the foundation for all subsequent efforts in software development. In this phase, organisations need to be able to articulate a clear and strategic understanding of the problem space that the artificial intelligence agent will be used to solve. 

As well as setting clear business objectives, defining the specific tasks that the agent is required to perform, and assessing operational constraints like infrastructure availability, regulatory obligations, and ethical obligations, it is imperative for organisations to define clear business objectives. As a result of a thorough requirements analysis, the system design is streamlined, scope creep is minimised, and costly revisions can be avoided during the later stages of the deployment. 

Additionally, this phase helps stakeholders align the AI agent's technical capabilities with real-world needs, enabling it to deliver measurable results. It is arguably one of the most crucial components of the lifecycle to begin with the Data Collection and Preparation phase, which is arguably the most vital. A system's intelligence is directly affected by the quality and comprehensiveness of the data it is trained on, regardless of which type of agentic AI it is. 

It has utilised a variety of internal and trusted external sources to collect relevant datasets for this stage. These datasets are meticulously cleaned, indexed, and transformed in order to ensure that they are consistent and usable. As a further measure of model robustness, advanced preprocessing techniques are employed, such as augmentation, normalisation, and class balancing to reduce bias, es and mitigate model failures. 

In order for an AI agent to function effectively across a variety of circumstances and edge cases, a high-quality, representative dataset needs to be created as soon as possible. These three phases together make up the backbone of the development of an agentic AI system, ensuring that it is based on real business needs and is backed up by data that is dependable, ethical, and actionable. Organisations that invest in thorough upfront analysis and meticulous data preparation have a significantly greater chance of deploying agentic AI solutions that are scalable, secure, and aligned with long-term strategic goals, when compared to those organisations that spend less. 

It is important to note that the risks that a systemic AI system poses are more than technical failures; they are deeply systemic in nature. Agentic AI is not a passive system that executes rules; it is an active system that makes decisions, takes action and adapts as it learns from its mistakes. Although dynamic autonomy is powerful, it also introduces a degree of complexity and unpredictability, which makes failures harder to detect until significant damage has been sustained.

The agentic AI systems differ from traditional software systems in the sense that they operate independently and can evolve their behaviour over time as they become more and more complex. OWASP's Top Ten for LLM Applications (2025) highlights how agents can be manipulated into misusing tools or storing deceptive information that can be detrimental to the users' security. If not rigorously monitored, this very feature can turn out to be a source of danger.

It is possible that corrupted data penetrates a person's memory in such situations, so that future decisions will be influenced by falsehoods. In time, these errors may compound, leading to cascading hallucinations in which the system repeatedly generates credible but inaccurate outputs, reinforcing and validating each other, making it increasingly challenging for the deception to be detected. 

Furthermore, agentic systems are also susceptible to more traditional forms of exploitation, such as privilege escalation, in which an agent may impersonate a user or gain access to restricted functions without permission. As far as the extreme scenarios go, agents may even override their constraints by intentionally or unintentionally pursuing goals that do not align with the user's or organisation's goals. Taking advantage of deceptive behaviours is a challenging task, not only ethically but also operationally. Additionally, resource exhaustion is another pressing concern. 

Agents can be overloaded by excessive queues of tasks, which can exhaust memory, computing bandwidth, or third-party API quotas, whether through accident or malicious attacks. When these problems occur, not only do they degrade performance, but they also can result in critical system failures, particularly when they arise in a real-time environment. Moreover, the situation is even worse when agents are deployed on lightweight frameworks, such as lightweight or experimental multi-agent control platforms (MCPs), which may not have the essential features like logging, user authentication, or third-party validation mechanisms, as the situation can be even worse. 

When security teams are faced with such a situation, tracking decision paths or identifying the root cause of failures becomes increasingly difficult or impossible, leaving them blind to their own internal behaviour as well as external threats. A systemic vulnerability in agentic artificial intelligence must be considered a core design consideration rather than a peripheral concern, as it continues to integrate into high-stakes environments. 

It is essential, not only for safety to be ensured, but also to build the long-term trust needed to enable enterprise adoption, that agents act in a transparent, traceable, and ethical manner. Several core functions give agentic AI systems the agency that enables them to make autonomous decisions, behave adaptively, and pursue long-term goals. These functions are the foundation of their agency. The essence of agentic intelligence is the autonomy of agents, which means that they operate without being constantly overseen by humans. 

They perceive their environment with data streams or sensors, evaluate contextual factors, and execute actions that are in keeping with the predefined objectives of these systems. There are a number of examples in which autonomous warehouse robots adjust their path in real time without requiring human input, demonstrating both situational awareness and self-regulation. The agentic AI system differs from reactive AI systems, which are designed to respond to isolated prompts, since they are designed to pursue complex, sometimes long-term goals without the need for human intervention. 

As a result of explicit or non-explicit instructions or reward systems, these agents can break down high-level tasks, such as organising a travel itinerary, into actionable subgoals that are dynamically adjusted according to the new information available. In order for the agent to formulate step-by-step strategies, planner-executor architectures and techniques such as chain-of-thought prompting or ReAct are used by the agent to formulate strategies. 

In order to optimise outcomes, these plans may use graph-based search algorithms or simulate multiple future scenarios to achieve optimal results. Moreover, reasoning further enhances a user's ability to assess alternatives, weigh tradeoffs, and apply logical inferences to them. Large language models are also used as reasoning engines, allowing tasks to be broken down and multiple-step problem-solving to be supported. The final feature of memory is the ability to provide continuity. 

Using previous interactions, results, and context-often through vector databases-agents can refine their behavior over time by learning from their previous experiences and avoiding unnecessary or unnecessary actions. An agentic AI system must be secured more thoroughly than incremental changes to existing security protocols. Rather, it requires a complete rethink of its operational and governance models. A system capable of autonomous decision-making and adaptive behaviour must be treated as an enterprise entity of its own to be considered in a competitive market. 

There is a need for rigorous scrutiny, continuous validation, and enforceable safeguards in place throughout the lifecycle of any influential digital actor, including AI agents. In order to achieve a robust security posture, it is essential to control non-human identities. As part of this process, strong authentication mechanisms must be implemented, along with behavioural profiling and anomaly detection, to identify and neutralise attempts to impersonate or spoof before damage occurs. 

As a concept, identity cannot stay static in dynamic systems, since it must change according to the behaviour and role of the agent in the environment. The importance of securing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems at the source cannot be overstated. As part of this strategy, organisations need to enforce rigorous access policies over knowledge repositories, examine embedding spaces for adversarial interference, and continually evaluate the effectiveness of similarity matching methods to avoid data leaks or model manipulations that are not intended. 

The use of automated red teaming is essential to identifying emerging threats, not just before deployment, but constantly in order to mitigate them. It involves adversarial testing and stress simulations that are designed to expose behavioural anomalies, misalignments with the intended goals, and configuration weaknesses in real-time. Further, it is imperative that comprehensive governance frameworks be established in order to ensure the success of generative and agentic AI. 

As a part of this process, the agent behaviour must be codified in enforceable policies, runtime oversight must be enabled, and detailed, tamper-evident logs must be maintained for auditing and tracking lifecycles. The shift towards agentic AI is more than just a technological evolution. The shift represents a profound change in the way decisions are made, delegated, and monitored in the future. A rapid adoption of these systems often exceeds the ability of traditional security infrastructures to adapt in a way that is not fully understood by them.

Without meaningful oversight, clearly defined responsibilities, and strict controls, AI agents could inadvertently or maliciously exacerbate risk, rather than delivering what they promise. In response to these trends, organisations need to ensure that agents operate within well-defined boundaries, under continuous observation, and aligned with organisational intent, as well as being held to the same standards as human decision-makers. 

There are enormous benefits associated with agentic AI, but there are also huge risks associated with it. Moreover, these systems should not just be intelligent; they should also be trustworthy, transparent, and their rules should be as precise and robust as those they help enforce to be truly transformative.