Netizen Blog and News

The Netizen team sharing expertise, insights and useful information in cybersecurity, compliance, and software assurance.

recent posts

about

  • Measuring the Economic Impact of AI-Driven Smart Contract Attacks

    Measuring the Economic Impact of AI-Driven Smart Contract Attacks

    Recent research from Anthropic-affiliated investigators provides one of the clearest quantitative signals yet that autonomous AI agents have crossed an important threshold in offensive security capability. Using a purpose-built benchmark focused on smart contract exploitation, the study measures success not by abstract accuracy metrics, but by simulated financial loss. The results indicate that current frontier models can independently identify vulnerabilities, construct working exploit chains, and extract value with minimal human oversight, all at declining operational cost.

    Why Smart Contracts Provide a Measurable Testbed

    Smart contracts represent a rare security domain where exploitation impact can be directly priced. The execution environment is deterministic, source code is publicly available, and financial state is embedded directly in program logic. Once a flaw is triggered, loss occurs immediately and can be quantified precisely using on-chain balances and historical exchange rates.

    The researchers leveraged these properties to build SCONE-bench, a benchmark consisting of 405 real-world smart contracts that were exploited between 2020 and 2025 across Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain, and Base. Each contract was executed in a locally forked blockchain environment pinned to the block height immediately prior to the historical exploit. This setup allows reproducible execution of exploit code without touching live networks or real assets.

    Evaluation Methodology and Agent Capabilities

    Each agent was tasked with full exploit development rather than vulnerability identification alone. Given contract source code, metadata, and access to a sandboxed toolchain, the agent had to reason through contract state, identify attack primitives, construct exploit scripts, and execute them in a way that produced a measurable increase in the attacker’s native token balance.

    The tooling environment exposed to the agents resembled a real attacker workflow. Agents could compile Solidity contracts, issue transactions, inspect storage, trace execution paths, and route token swaps through decentralized exchanges. A minimum profit threshold was enforced to prevent trivial arbitrage or dust-level manipulation from counting as success.

    Aggregate Results Across Known Vulnerabilities

    Across all 405 benchmark contracts, ten frontier models collectively generated working exploits for just over half of the dataset. In aggregate, these runs produced approximately $550 million in simulated stolen funds under Best@8 evaluation. This figure represents theoretical maximum extraction on already-known vulnerable contracts rather than realistic attacker profit, yet it demonstrates the upper bounds of what autonomous agents can achieve once a vulnerability exists and is discoverable.

    More informative is the post-knowledge-cutoff analysis. When restricted to contracts exploited after each model’s training cutoff, Claude Opus 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and GPT-5 produced exploits worth $4.6 million in total simulated losses. Opus 4.5 alone successfully exploited the majority of these recent targets, extracting roughly $3.7 million in value. This establishes a conservative lower bound on economic harm that could plausibly have been inflicted by autonomous agents during 2025.

    Zero-Day Discovery in Recently Deployed Contracts

    To move beyond retrospective evaluation, the researchers ran Sonnet 4.5 and GPT-5 against 2,849 recently deployed contracts with no publicly documented vulnerabilities. These contracts were filtered to ensure meaningful liquidity, verified source code, and active trading history.

    Both agents independently uncovered two previously unknown vulnerabilities and produced functional exploit code in simulation. The combined simulated revenue was modest at $3,694, though the more significant data point is cost efficiency. GPT-5 completed the entire scan for approximately $3,476 in API cost, yielding an average per-contract evaluation cost slightly above one dollar.

    The vulnerabilities themselves fell squarely into well-known failure classes. One flaw involved a publicly accessible function intended for read-only reward calculation that lacked a state-restriction modifier, allowing attackers to mutate internal accounting and mint value. Another arose from missing validation in fee withdrawal logic, enabling arbitrary redirection of accumulated fees. These errors mirror access control and state mutation flaws that appear routinely in conventional application security reviews.

    Revenue, Not Complexity, Drives Impact

    A key analytical finding is that exploit profitability showed little correlation with code complexity, cyclomatic metrics, or deployment-to-exploit time. Contracts with minimal logic but high asset concentration produced catastrophic losses, while complex systems with limited liquidity yielded negligible returns. The determining factor was asset exposure at the time of exploitation rather than technical sophistication of the flaw.

    This aligns closely with patterns observed in enterprise breaches. The severity of an incident is rarely dictated by exploit novelty; it is dictated by privilege scope, trust boundaries, and what systems or data sit behind the vulnerable component.

    Cost Compression and Capability Growth

    Token consumption required to generate a successful exploit dropped sharply across successive model generations. Median token usage declined by more than seventy percent across four Claude releases, indicating that exploit development is becoming both faster and cheaper. Over the same period, simulated exploit revenue on recent contracts roughly doubled every six weeks.

    These trends suggest a tightening feedback loop. As agents improve at long-horizon reasoning, tool orchestration, and error recovery, they require fewer attempts to converge on viable exploit paths. Lower per-run cost makes exhaustive scanning economically viable even against large populations of contracts or services.

    Broader Security Implications

    Smart contracts offer clean measurement, yet the underlying techniques transfer directly to traditional software. Control-flow reasoning, boundary condition analysis, iterative probing, and automated payload construction apply equally to APIs, internal services, legacy middleware, and integration glue code. Public blockchains may face this pressure first, though proprietary systems are unlikely to remain insulated as agentic reverse engineering improves.

    The defensive implication is straightforward. Security programs that rely on periodic reviews, manual audits, or post-deployment detection will struggle to keep pace with automated adversaries. The same class of agents demonstrated in this research can be repurposed for adversarial testing, pre-deployment analysis, and continuous validation of production code paths.

    How Can Netizen Help?

    Founded in 2013, Netizen is an award-winning technology firm that develops and leverages cutting-edge solutions to create a more secure, integrated, and automated digital environment for government, defense, and commercial clients worldwide. Our innovative solutions transform complex cybersecurity and technology challenges into strategic advantages by delivering mission-critical capabilities that safeguard and optimize clients’ digital infrastructure. One example of this is our popular “CISO-as-a-Service” offering that enables organizations of any size to access executive level cybersecurity expertise at a fraction of the cost of hiring internally. 

    Netizen also operates a state-of-the-art 24x7x365 Security Operations Center (SOC) that delivers comprehensive cybersecurity monitoring solutions for defense, government, and commercial clients. Our service portfolio includes cybersecurity assessments and advisory, hosted SIEM and EDR/XDR solutions, software assurance, penetration testing, cybersecurity engineering, and compliance audit support. We specialize in serving organizations that operate within some of the world’s most highly sensitive and tightly regulated environments where unwavering security, strict compliance, technical excellence, and operational maturity are non-negotiable requirements. Our proven track record in these domains positions us as the premier trusted partner for organizations where technology reliability and security cannot be compromised.

    Netizen holds ISO 27001, ISO 9001, ISO 20000-1, and CMMI Level III SVC registrations demonstrating the maturity of our operations. We are a proud Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) certified by U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) that has been named multiple times to the Inc. 5000 and Vet 100 lists of the most successful and fastest-growing private companies in the nation. Netizen has also been named a national “Best Workplace” by Inc. Magazine, a multiple awardee of the U.S. Department of Labor HIRE Vets Platinum Medallion for veteran hiring and retention, the Lehigh Valley Business of the Year and Veteran-Owned Business of the Year, and the recipient of dozens of other awards and accolades for innovation, community support, working environment, and growth.

    Looking for expert guidance to secure, automate, and streamline your IT infrastructure and operations? Start the conversation today.

  • NETIZEN CORPORATION HOSTS NORTHAMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS FOR JOB SHADOWING WEEK AT ALLENTOWN HEADQUARTERS

    NETIZEN CORPORATION HOSTS NORTHAMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS FOR JOB SHADOWING WEEK AT ALLENTOWN HEADQUARTERS

    Allentown, PA: Students spent the morning inside Netizen’s 24x7x365 Security Operations Center, observing how analysts monitor systems, investigate alerts, and respond to real security activity as it unfolds. Rather than a simulated exercise, the visit focused on how a production SOC functions day to day, giving students direct exposure to the tools, workflows, and decision-making that drive operational security.

    Beyond the SOC floor, students met with members of the Netizen team from cybersecurity engineering, operations, and leadership. These conversations focused on career paths into cybersecurity, early professional experiences, and how different roles intersect once security work moves from theory into practice. The goal was to give students an honest picture of the field, including how technical skills, communication, and judgment all factor into real security work.

    Michael Hawkins, CEO of Netizen Corporation, commented on the importance of these engagements, stating, “It is through these programs that we identify extremely talented up-and-coming professionals that are going through both traditional and non-traditional educational paths to these types of careers.”

    Netizen continues to place strong emphasis on partnerships with Northampton Community College and other educational institutions that prioritize applied learning. Job shadowing programs like this one help bridge the gap between classroom instruction and professional experience, while giving students clearer expectations about what working in cybersecurity involves after graduation.

    Netizen appreciates the opportunity to support NCC students as they prepare to enter the field and looks forward to continuing this collaboration through internships, job shadowing, and other experiential learning initiatives.

    About Netizen Corporation

    Founded in 2013, Netizen Corporation is a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The company provides cybersecurity and related technology services to defense, government, and commercial organizations, including continuous security monitoring through its Security Operations Center, cybersecurity assessments and advisory services, penetration testing, software assurance, cybersecurity engineering, and compliance audit support. Netizen works with organizations operating in highly regulated environments where security, compliance, and operational maturity are baseline requirements.

    Learn more at https://www.Netizen.net. 

    About Northampton Community College

    Founded in 1967, Northampton Community College serves more than 20,000 students each year through degree programs, workforce training, and continuing education. NCC focuses on access, student success, and workforce readiness by offering academic and professional programs that support career entry, advancement, and transfer to four-year institutions.

    Learn more at https://www.northampton.edu/

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                              POINT OF CONTACT:
    January 15, 2026                                              Tristan Boheim
                                                                                   Account Executive
                                                                                   Phone: 1-800-450-1773  
                                                                                   Email:   press@Netizen.net

  • Microsoft January 2026 Patch Tuesday Fixes 114 Flaws, Three Zero-Days

    Microsoft January 2026 Patch Tuesday Fixes 114 Flaws, Three Zero-Days

    Microsoft’s January 2026 Patch Tuesday includes security updates for 114 vulnerabilities, including three zero-days. One of these flaws was actively exploited in the wild, while two had been publicly disclosed prior to patching. Eight vulnerabilities are classified as critical, consisting of six remote code execution flaws and two elevation of privilege issues.

    Breakdown of Vulnerabilities

    • 57 Elevation of Privilege vulnerabilities
    • 22 Remote Code Execution vulnerabilities
    • 22 Information Disclosure vulnerabilities
    • 5 Spoofing vulnerabilities
    • 3 Security Feature Bypass vulnerabilities
    • 2 Denial of Service vulnerabilities

    These totals do not include one Microsoft Edge vulnerability and several Mariner-related issues that were addressed earlier in the month. Non-security updates released alongside Patch Tuesday include Windows 11 KB5074109 and KB5073455, as well as the Windows 10 KB5073724 Extended Security Update.

    Zero-Day Vulnerabilities

    January’s Patch Tuesday addresses three zero-day vulnerabilities, one of which was actively exploited.

    CVE-2026-20805 | Desktop Window Manager Information Disclosure Vulnerability

    This actively exploited flaw allows an authorized attacker to disclose sensitive information locally. Successful exploitation exposes section addresses associated with remote ALPC ports, revealing user-mode memory details that could assist in further exploitation. Microsoft attributes discovery to the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Center and Microsoft Security Response Center but has not disclosed details about how the vulnerability was exploited in the wild.

    CVE-2026-21265 | Secure Boot Certificate Expiration Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability

    This publicly disclosed issue relates to the impending expiration of Secure Boot certificates issued in 2011. Systems that fail to update risk weakened Secure Boot enforcement, potentially allowing attackers to bypass boot-time protections. January’s updates renew the affected certificates, preserving the Secure Boot trust chain and maintaining validation of boot components. Microsoft previously disclosed this risk in a June advisory on Secure Boot certificate expiration.

    CVE-2023-31096 | Windows Agere Soft Modem Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

    This vulnerability was previously linked to active exploitation and allowed attackers to gain administrative privileges via third-party modem drivers bundled with Windows. As part of the January 2026 updates, Microsoft has fully removed the vulnerable agrsm64.sys and agrsm.sys drivers from supported Windows versions. The issue is attributed to Zeze of TeamT5.

    Other Critical Vulnerabilities

    In addition to the zero-days, Microsoft addressed multiple critical remote code execution and privilege escalation vulnerabilities across Windows components. These flaws pose elevated risk in enterprise environments, particularly where attackers already have local access and can chain privilege escalation with other weaknesses.

    Adobe and Other Vendor Updates

    Several major vendors released security updates in January 2026:

    • Adobe issued patches for InDesign, Illustrator, InCopy, Bridge, ColdFusion, and multiple Substance 3D products.
    • Cisco released updates for an Identity Services Engine vulnerability with publicly available proof-of-concept exploit code.
    • Fortinet patched multiple products, including fixes for two remote code execution vulnerabilities.
    • D-Link confirmed active exploitation of a vulnerability affecting end-of-life router models.
    • Google released Android’s January security bulletin, including a fix for a critical Dolby DD+ codec vulnerability.
    • jsPDF fixed a critical flaw that could allow arbitrary file smuggling during PDF generation.
    • n8n patched a maximum-severity vulnerability known as “Ni8mare” that could enable full server takeover.
    • SAP released updates for multiple products, including a 9.9 severity code injection flaw in SAP Solution Manager.
    • ServiceNow disclosed a critical privilege escalation vulnerability in the ServiceNow AI Platform.
    • Trend Micro patched a critical SYSTEM-level RCE flaw in Apex Central (on-premise).
    • Veeam released updates addressing multiple vulnerabilities in Backup & Replication, including a critical RCE.

    Recommendations for Users and Administrators

    Organizations should prioritize deploying January’s updates, particularly for systems running Desktop Window Manager, Secure Boot-enabled environments, and legacy components that previously included third-party drivers. Systems that have not applied recent Secure Boot certificate updates face increased exposure as certificate expiration dates approach in mid to late 2026.

    Security teams should also review third-party advisories from vendors such as Cisco, SAP, Veeam, and Trend Micro, especially where public exploit code or active exploitation has been reported. Coordinated patching across infrastructure, backup platforms, and identity services remains critical to reducing attack surface at the start of 2026.

    Full technical details and patch links are available in Microsoft’s Security Update Guide.

    How Can Netizen Help?

    Founded in 2013, Netizen is an award-winning technology firm that develops and leverages cutting-edge solutions to create a more secure, integrated, and automated digital environment for government, defense, and commercial clients worldwide. Our innovative solutions transform complex cybersecurity and technology challenges into strategic advantages by delivering mission-critical capabilities that safeguard and optimize clients’ digital infrastructure. One example of this is our popular “CISO-as-a-Service” offering that enables organizations of any size to access executive level cybersecurity expertise at a fraction of the cost of hiring internally. 

    Netizen also operates a state-of-the-art 24x7x365 Security Operations Center (SOC) that delivers comprehensive cybersecurity monitoring solutions for defense, government, and commercial clients. Our service portfolio includes cybersecurity assessments and advisory, hosted SIEM and EDR/XDR solutions, software assurance, penetration testing, cybersecurity engineering, and compliance audit support. We specialize in serving organizations that operate within some of the world’s most highly sensitive and tightly regulated environments where unwavering security, strict compliance, technical excellence, and operational maturity are non-negotiable requirements. Our proven track record in these domains positions us as the premier trusted partner for organizations where technology reliability and security cannot be compromised.

    Netizen holds ISO 27001, ISO 9001, ISO 20000-1, and CMMI Level III SVC registrations demonstrating the maturity of our operations. We are a proud Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) certified by U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) that has been named multiple times to the Inc. 5000 and Vet 100 lists of the most successful and fastest-growing private companies in the nation. Netizen has also been named a national “Best Workplace” by Inc. Magazine, a multiple awardee of the U.S. Department of Labor HIRE Vets Platinum Medallion for veteran hiring and retention, the Lehigh Valley Business of the Year and Veteran-Owned Business of the Year, and the recipient of dozens of other awards and accolades for innovation, community support, working environment, and growth.

    Looking for expert guidance to secure, automate, and streamline your IT infrastructure and operations? Start the conversation today.

  • Netizen: Monday Security Brief (1/12/2026)

    Netizen: Monday Security Brief (1/12/2026)

    Today’s Topics:

    • Kimwolf Android Botnet Spreads Through Exposed ADB and Residential Proxy Networks
    • Maximum-Severity HPE OneView Vulnerability Added to CISA KEV as Exploitation Emerges
    • How can Netizen help?

    Kimwolf Android Botnet Spreads Through Exposed ADB and Residential Proxy Networks

    A large Android botnet known as Kimwolf has quietly compromised more than two million devices by abusing exposed Android Debug Bridge (ADB) services and tunneling through residential proxy networks, based on recent findings from Synthient. The campaign illustrates how misconfigured Android-based devices, particularly low-cost smart TVs and set-top boxes, continue to provide fertile ground for large-scale abuse tied directly to commercial proxy ecosystems.

    Kimwolf was first publicly documented by QiAnXin XLab in late 2025, where researchers identified links between the malware and an earlier botnet tracked as AISURU. Evidence collected since then points to Kimwolf being an Android variant or evolution of AISURU, active since at least August 2025. Synthient’s telemetry suggests the botnet may be responsible for several unusually large distributed denial-of-service events observed toward the end of last year, indicating that its scale and operational maturity extend well beyond opportunistic malware activity.

    Once a device is compromised, Kimwolf converts it into a traffic relay capable of supporting both proxy services and coordinated DDoS attacks. Infection density remains highest in Vietnam, Brazil, India, and Saudi Arabia, though the overall footprint is global. Synthient observed roughly 12 million unique IP addresses per week participating in botnet-related activity, underscoring how frequently devices cycle in and out of active use as proxy nodes.

    The initial access vector centers on Android devices that expose ADB over the network without authentication. Synthient reports that roughly 67 percent of infected devices fall into this category, making them trivial to compromise once discovered. The attackers rely on a scanning and delivery infrastructure that itself runs over residential proxy networks, allowing the malware to be installed at scale while blending into normal consumer traffic patterns.

    There is growing suspicion that some devices may ship preloaded with software development kits from proxy providers, effectively enrolling them into proxy networks without user awareness. This appears most common among unofficial or gray-market Android TV boxes and streaming devices, which frequently run outdated firmware and ship with insecure default settings. These conditions create an environment where botnet operators can achieve persistent access with minimal resistance.

    Recent activity shows Kimwolf leveraging proxy IP space rented from China-based provider IPIDEA as late as December 2025. IPIDEA responded on December 27 by deploying a patch intended to block access to local network devices and sensitive ports. The company markets itself as a large-scale IP proxy provider, advertising millions of rotating addresses refreshed daily, which helps explain how Kimwolf operators were able to reach such a wide population of exposed devices in a relatively short time window.

    The attack flow relies on tunneling through proxy software running on infected systems to reach internal network surfaces that would otherwise be unreachable. Once access is established, the malware deploys a primary payload that listens on TCP port 40860 and connects back to a command-and-control endpoint at 85.234.91[.]247 on port 1337 for tasking. From there, compromised devices can be directed to relay traffic, participate in denial-of-service activity, or support follow-on campaigns.

    Monetization sits at the core of Kimwolf’s operation. Beyond selling raw DDoS capacity, the botnet is closely tied to residential bandwidth resale. In several cases, infected devices were also loaded with the Plainproxies Byteconnect SDK, a bandwidth monetization platform that routes proxy tasks from centralized servers through consumer devices. Synthient identified at least 119 relay servers coordinating these activities, indicating a well-developed commercial backend rather than an ad hoc criminal setup.

    Researchers also observed the same infrastructure being used to conduct credential-stuffing attacks against IMAP services and widely used online platforms, highlighting how proxy-based botnets blur the line between infrastructure abuse and direct account compromise. Pricing models uncovered during the investigation show residential proxy bandwidth being sold at aggressively low rates, including offers as cheap as twenty cents per gigabyte or flat monthly plans advertising unlimited throughput. This pricing strategy appears designed to seed early adoption among proxy resellers and downstream customers.

    The presence of pre-infected consumer devices and secondary monetization SDKs suggests a tightening relationship between botnet operators and commercial proxy providers, whether through negligence, willful blindness, or indirect partnerships. The scale observed in the Kimwolf campaign reflects systemic weaknesses across the Android device supply chain, proxy software governance, and default security configurations.

    Risk reduction hinges on limiting exposure at several points. Proxy providers can materially reduce abuse by blocking access to RFC 1918 private address space and sensitive local ports from customer proxy nodes. Organizations and consumers running Android-based devices should disable network-accessible ADB entirely or restrict it to authenticated, local-only use. Without these basic controls, low-cost embedded Android devices will continue to function as an unintentional backbone for large criminal infrastructure.

    Maximum-Severity HPE OneView Vulnerability Added to CISA KEV as Exploitation Emerges

    A maximum-severity vulnerability affecting HPE OneView has been added to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, signaling active abuse of a flaw that sits deep inside enterprise infrastructure control planes. The issue, tracked as CVE-2025-37164, allows remote, unauthenticated code execution against HPE’s software-defined infrastructure management platform and carries a CVSS score of 10.0.

    HPE OneView is commonly deployed as a centralized management layer for servers, storage systems, networking hardware, and firmware across enterprise environments. That positioning is what elevates the risk profile of CVE-2025-37164 beyond that of a typical web-facing service flaw. Successful exploitation grants an attacker direct execution capability inside a platform that already holds administrator-level authority over core infrastructure assets.

    The vulnerability was disclosed by HPE on December 17, 2025, with hotfixes released for all affected versions ranging from 5.20 through 10.20. At disclosure time, security researchers warned that immediate remediation was necessary due to the trust assumptions surrounding infrastructure management platforms. OneView is often placed on internal networks with minimal exposure controls and limited monitoring, based on the expectation that only authorized administrators will ever interact with it.

    CISA added CVE-2025-37164 to the KEV catalog on January 7, 2026, confirming evidence of exploitation activity observed in the wild. Inclusion in the catalog triggers mandatory remediation timelines for U.S. federal agencies under Binding Operational Directive 22-01, with a required action date of January 28. The KEV entry describes the issue as a code injection flaw that enables remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands without authentication.

    Public details around real-world exploitation remain limited. HPE has stated that it has not received direct reports from customers confirming compromise, and Rapid7 has said it has not independently observed exploitation telemetry. Even so, the KEV designation indicates that credible exploitation evidence exists within government or partner visibility, placing this vulnerability into an assumed-breach category for affected environments.

    The risk is amplified by the availability of weaponized exploit code. A Metasploit module targeting CVE-2025-37164 has been published, enabling unauthenticated remote code execution against unpatched OneView deployments. The module supports exploitation against versions below 11.00 where the vendor hotfix has not been applied, lowering the barrier for opportunistic or automated attacks.

    Technical scoring reflects the severity. HPE assigned the flaw a CVSS v3.1 score of 10.0 due to its network-based attack vector, lack of required privileges, absence of user interaction, and full impact across confidentiality, integrity, and availability. NIST’s scoring places it slightly lower at 9.8, though both assessments classify the vulnerability as critical. EPSS modeling assigns an estimated 81 percent probability of exploitation within a 30-day window, placing the issue in the highest percentile of exploitation likelihood.

    From an operational perspective, the concern extends beyond initial compromise. OneView’s role as an infrastructure orchestrator means attackers gaining execution can manipulate firmware, provision or decommission systems, alter network configurations, and establish durable persistence across environments that may otherwise appear hardened. That blast radius is what distinguishes CVE-2025-37164 from conventional application-layer flaws.

    HPE recommends applying the released hotfixes immediately or discontinuing use of the product if mitigation is not possible. Security teams responsible for OneView deployments should treat this exposure as a control-plane incident, validating patch status, reviewing access paths, and reassessing network segmentation around management infrastructure. In environments where OneView is reachable from broader internal networks, containment and monitoring actions are warranted alongside patching to address potential pre-remediation access.

    How Can Netizen Help?

    Founded in 2013, Netizen is an award-winning technology firm that develops and leverages cutting-edge solutions to create a more secure, integrated, and automated digital environment for government, defense, and commercial clients worldwide. Our innovative solutions transform complex cybersecurity and technology challenges into strategic advantages by delivering mission-critical capabilities that safeguard and optimize clients’ digital infrastructure. One example of this is our popular “CISO-as-a-Service” offering that enables organizations of any size to access executive level cybersecurity expertise at a fraction of the cost of hiring internally. 

    Netizen also operates a state-of-the-art 24x7x365 Security Operations Center (SOC) that delivers comprehensive cybersecurity monitoring solutions for defense, government, and commercial clients. Our service portfolio includes cybersecurity assessments and advisory, hosted SIEM and EDR/XDR solutions, software assurance, penetration testing, cybersecurity engineering, and compliance audit support. We specialize in serving organizations that operate within some of the world’s most highly sensitive and tightly regulated environments where unwavering security, strict compliance, technical excellence, and operational maturity are non-negotiable requirements. Our proven track record in these domains positions us as the premier trusted partner for organizations where technology reliability and security cannot be compromised.

    Netizen holds ISO 27001, ISO 9001, ISO 20000-1, and CMMI Level III SVC registrations demonstrating the maturity of our operations. We are a proud Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) certified by U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) that has been named multiple times to the Inc. 5000 and Vet 100 lists of the most successful and fastest-growing private companies in the nation. Netizen has also been named a national “Best Workplace” by Inc. Magazine, a multiple awardee of the U.S. Department of Labor HIRE Vets Platinum Medallion for veteran hiring and retention, the Lehigh Valley Business of the Year and Veteran-Owned Business of the Year, and the recipient of dozens of other awards and accolades for innovation, community support, working environment, and growth.

    Looking for expert guidance to secure, automate, and streamline your IT infrastructure and operations? Start the conversation today.

  • Identity Risk Is What Vulnerability Programs Still Fail to Measure

    Identity Risk Is What Vulnerability Programs Still Fail to Measure

    Most security programs still quantify exposure through infrastructure signals. Hosts are scanned. Software is scored. CVEs are triaged. Patch cadence becomes the performance indicator. That system continues to function as designed, yet breach investigations keep showing a disconnect between what vulnerability tools measure and what attackers exploit after authentication occurs.

    Once valid access is established, infrastructure weaknesses become secondary. Identity authority becomes the controlling factor. Users, service accounts, automation tokens, API keys, and cloud-native principals dictate what systems can be accessed, what data can be touched, and what actions can be executed. If those identities are mis-scoped or unmanaged, a technically hardened environment remains exposed at the control-plane level.

    That disconnect is now one of the most persistent control failures in enterprise security.

    Authentication Now Defines the True Attack Surface

    Adversary tradecraft has moved away from noisy exploit delivery and toward authority abuse that blends into normal operations. Credential replay, token theft, OAuth consent misuse, impersonated service accounts, and inherited administrative roles now drive most lateral movement and persistence.

    Once a valid identity is in play, defensive assumptions invert. Controls designed to block attackers at the edge begin granting access instead. Lateral movement no longer depends on defeating endpoint protections or triggering exploit detection. It depends on how far trust extends through groups, roles, and delegated permissions.

    This is how environments with strong patch posture still experience deep compromise.

    Identity Drift Is a Continuous Exposure Generator

    Unlike software defects, identity exposure does not arrive as a single flaw with a disclosure date and vendor fix. It accumulates continuously through routine operations:

    • New SaaS platforms create new identities
    • CI/CD pipelines generate nonhuman users
    • Cloud workloads issue short-lived and long-lived credentials
    • Emergency access grants quietly become permanent
    • Privileged entitlements spread through group nesting

    Over time, access logic diverges from business intent. Permission boundaries become historical artifacts rather than enforced design. Tokens persist beyond operational relevance. Admin roles become ambient rather than exceptional.

    None of this appears in vulnerability scan results. All of it determines how wide an intruder can move once inside.

    The Identity Weaknesses That Drive Breach Depth

    Across cloud, SaaS, and hybrid environments, the same identity failure patterns recur in incident response:

    • Orphaned accounts that remain active long after ownership ends
    • Privileged roles assigned indirectly through nested groups
    • Shared credentials embedded in automation workflows
    • Selective or partial MFA enforcement on administrative planes
    • API tokens that lack expiration and rotation governance
    • Federated trust paths that bypass centralized access control

    Each of these conditions expands authority without expanding visibility. Each converts limited compromise into enterprise-scale exposure.

    Why Identity Risk Behaves Differently Than Software Risk

    Software vulnerabilities follow predictable cycles: discovery, scoring, remediation, retirement. Identity exposure behaves like configuration debt. It compounds as environments scale. It persists unless actively reduced. It does not age out through patching. It only shrinks through inspection, certification, privilege reduction, and control enforcement.

    You cannot backlog identity risk behind a maintenance window. You cannot defer it to a quarterly cycle. It remains active every time authentication occurs.

    That alone places identity in a different operational risk class than infrastructure defects.

    Identity Hygiene as a First-Class Security Control

    Identity hygiene programs apply vulnerability discipline to access authority itself. The objective mirrors traditional vulnerability management, even though the inspection plane is different.

    Rather than probing hosts for missing patches, these platforms inspect logical authority through direct API access to IAM, IdP, PAM, IGA, SaaS, and cloud control planes. They reconstruct who can reach what, through which permission chains, under which trust relationships.

    Instead of surfacing missing updates, they reveal:

    • Who retains privileged access without business need
    • Which credentials remain valid without verified ownership
    • Where MFA enforcement stops
    • How service accounts inherit authority
    • Which tokens can be used for silent persistence

    This is vulnerability discovery applied to access authority instead of code execution.

    Why CVSS Without Identity Context Produces Faulty Priorities

    Exploit severity alone no longer models real business risk. A technically severe flaw on a system unreachable by privileged identities may represent limited impact. A moderate weakness on a system reachable through domain-level or cloud-level administration may represent full-environment exposure.

    Infrastructure context answers whether compromise is possible. Identity context answers what compromise enables. Without both, prioritization becomes mathematically accurate and operationally misleading.

    This is why aggressive patching alone has not prevented large-scale lateral movement.

    Pulling Identity Into the Vulnerability Management Control Loop

    Convergence becomes real when three behaviors become operational rather than aspirational:

    • Identity relationships across all platforms are mapped into a single authoritative access graph
    • Vulnerability findings inherit the authority scope of the identities that can reach them
    • Identity remediation flows through the same enforcement machinery as patching, including ticketing, validation, and closure tracking

    Once these behaviors exist, vulnerability management begins to reflect how breaches actually unfold.

    Identity Cleanup Is No Longer Optional Hygiene

    Security programs have already normalized forced patching, certificate rotation, segmentation enforcement, and device isolation. Identity cleanup now belongs in that same category of accepted control friction.

    Dormant accounts, excessive privileges, and unchecked automation identities are not governance nuisances. They are live exploit infrastructure that persists quietly until activated.

    Software flaws may open the door. Identity authority determines whether the breach stops in the entryway or moves freely through the building.

    Until vulnerability management internalizes that control layer, it will continue to produce clean dashboards that fail to reflect real-world breach mechanics.

    How Can Netizen Help?

    Founded in 2013, Netizen is an award-winning technology firm that strengthens organizations by delivering cybersecurity capabilities that improve visibility, response, and resilience across modern environments. In the context of SOC-as-a-Service, our mission is centered on helping government, defense, and commercial clients build incident readiness without the burden of standing up a full in-house SOC. Our team develops and supports advanced monitoring, detection, and response solutions that give customers the level of coverage and operational structure they need to protect their networks, identities, and cloud workloads.

    Our “CISO-as-a-Service” offering already demonstrates how we extend executive-level expertise to organizations that need high-end guidance without internal hiring. The same principle applies to our SOC; Netizen operates a state-of-the-art 24x7x365 Security Operations Center that provides continuous monitoring, alert triage, detection engineering, incident response coordination, and threat hunting for clients that require dependable coverage. These services support the readiness goals outlined in this article by improving early detection, reducing breakout time, and offering access to specialized analysts and hunters who understand the demands of sensitive and regulated environments.

    Our portfolio complements SOCaaS by including cybersecurity assessments and advisory, hosted SIEM and EDR/XDR services, software assurance, penetration testing, cybersecurity engineering, and compliance audit support. This allows organizations to integrate SOCaaS with broader security initiatives such as modernization projects, compliance readiness, and vulnerability management. We specialize in environments where strict standards, technical precision, and operational consistency are mandatory, which makes our team a natural partner for organizations working to raise their detection and response maturity.

    Netizen maintains ISO 27001, ISO 9001, ISO 20000-1, and CMMI Level III SVC registrations, reflecting the stability and maturity required for a high-quality SOC operation. As a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business certified by the U.S. Small Business Administration, we have been recognized repeatedly through the Inc. 5000, Vet 100, national Best Workplace awards, and numerous honors for veteran hiring, innovation, and organizational excellence.

    Looking for expert guidance to secure, automate, and streamline your IT infrastructure and operations? Start the conversation today.

  • The Risk Economics of SOC-as-a-Service

    The Risk Economics of SOC-as-a-Service

    At the executive tier, SOC-as-a-Service represents a structured transfer of detection authority, response execution, investigative control, and portions of post-incident narrative to an external entity. The decision extends far beyond tool selection or coverage expansion. It reshapes how operational security risk is distributed across the organization and its third-party partners.

    SOCaaS reduces internal staffing volatility, analyst fatigue, and infrastructure maintenance risk. At the same time, it introduces new governance considerations tied to escalation authority, response autonomy, transparency of investigations, and custody of forensic records. These tradeoffs define the real risk posture created by the service.

    A prudent selection process treats SOCaaS as a component of enterprise risk management rather than a line-item technology acquisition.

    Incident Authority and Containment Governance

    Detection alone lacks operational value without clear authority to act. SOC providers vary significantly in their ability to execute containment without customer approval. Some environments permit autonomous isolation and credential revocation. Others require written authorization at every phase of response. These distinctions shape breach progression risk under real attack conditions.

    Response governance becomes most consequential during off-hours events. If escalation chains introduce latency between detection and containment, that latency converts directly into exposure. Contract language that fails to formalize response authority leaves containment subject to procedural friction during the exact window where speed determines impact.

    Visibility, Investigation Control, and Narrative Custody

    Outsourcing detection directly affects internal access to forensic detail. Certain platforms provide unfettered access to raw telemetry, analyst work notes, correlation artifacts, and full case timelines. Others limit visibility to summary alerts and conclusion reports.

    During regulatory inquiry, insurance review, or litigation, executive leadership must account for when activity was observed, how it was validated, and which decisions were executed at each phase. If investigative records reside exclusively with the provider or are subject to editorial abstraction, organizational control of the incident narrative narrows. That narrowing represents evidentiary and governance risk rather than operational inconvenience.

    Analyst Quality as a Structural Risk Variable

    SOCaaS performance correlates directly with analyst capability, training discipline, and retention stability. High staff turnover introduces investigation drift, even when platform tooling remains unchanged. Providers that rely on individual experience rather than enforced methodological playbooks expose clients to inconsistent case outcomes across identical scenarios.

    From a risk modeling perspective, analyst churn functions as an unpriced volatility factor within the detection pipeline. Evaluation processes that overlook this dimension often underestimate breach escalation probability.

    Forensic Custody, Data Governance, and Legal Exposure

    SOCaaS platforms that centralize telemetry inside multi-tenant environments alter the chain of custody for forensic material. Critical considerations include administrative access control, integrity of analyst annotations, immutability of raw artifacts, retention duration, and export independence.

    During legal discovery or regulator-driven investigation, evidentiary sufficiency depends on data provenance, integrity, and verifiability. Providers whose internal policies constrain extraction or modify record structures introduce legal dependency into the incident handling process. That dependency becomes material only under adverse conditions.

    Commercial and Operational Lock-In Under Active Threat

    Managed detection ecosystems bind detection logic, response automation, enrichment pipelines, and historical baselining into a single operational fabric. Platform transitions during normal business cycles already present nontrivial friction. Transitions attempted under active intrusion amplify that friction into material continuity risk.

    Contract structures that restrict bulk export, degrade historical fidelity, or entangle proprietary rulesets create platform dependence under precisely the scenario where mobility holds the highest value.

    Liability Distribution and Post-Failure Accountability

    Control failures inevitably occur across all security operations models. The governing issue concerns post-failure exposure rather than absolute prevention. Certain SOCaaS agreements cap liability at nominal service credits while transferring consequential loss exposure entirely to the client, even when investigation errors, delayed escalation, or procedural deficiencies originate inside the provider’s pipeline.

    From a governance perspective, contractual alignment between operational responsibility and financial accountability matters at least as much as detection performance metrics.

    Cost Pressure as a Risk Amplifier

    Procurement-led SOCaaS decisions often prioritize cost compression through automation density, reduced analyst staffing ratios, limited response authority, and abbreviated visibility layers. Each of these optimizations reduces provider operating expense while proportionally increasing client exposure during complex incidents.

    Price sensitivity absent corresponding governance protections converts service efficiency into systemic fragility.

    Executive Evaluation Criterion

    From a risk office perspective, the decisive evaluation criterion centers on whether SOCaaS failure modes introduce secondary financial, regulatory, legal, or reputational exposure beyond the technical breach itself. Where secondary exposure remains uncontrolled, detection outsourcing alters risk distribution rather than reducing aggregate risk.

    SOCaaS as a Component of Enterprise Risk Architecture

    SOC-as-a-Service functions as a structural modifier of cyber risk ownership rather than a detection enhancement alone. In mature security governance programs, provider selection aligns with board-level risk tolerance, insurance frameworks, regulatory obligations, and post-incident litigation strategy.

    When aligned correctly, SOCaaS compresses response timelines, stabilizes detection operations, and insulates executive leadership from staffing volatility. When aligned poorly, it obscures accountability and shifts breach consequences into governance channels that surface only after damage becomes unrecoverable.

    How Can Netizen Help?

    Founded in 2013, Netizen is an award-winning technology firm that strengthens organizations by delivering cybersecurity capabilities that improve visibility, response, and resilience across modern environments. In the context of SOC-as-a-Service, our mission is centered on helping government, defense, and commercial clients build incident readiness without the burden of standing up a full in-house SOC. Our team develops and supports advanced monitoring, detection, and response solutions that give customers the level of coverage and operational structure they need to protect their networks, identities, and cloud workloads.

    Our “CISO-as-a-Service” offering already demonstrates how we extend executive-level expertise to organizations that need high-end guidance without internal hiring. The same principle applies to our SOC; Netizen operates a state-of-the-art 24x7x365 Security Operations Center that provides continuous monitoring, alert triage, detection engineering, incident response coordination, and threat hunting for clients that require dependable coverage. These services support the readiness goals outlined in this article by improving early detection, reducing breakout time, and offering access to specialized analysts and hunters who understand the demands of sensitive and regulated environments.

    Our portfolio complements SOCaaS by including cybersecurity assessments and advisory, hosted SIEM and EDR/XDR services, software assurance, penetration testing, cybersecurity engineering, and compliance audit support. This allows organizations to integrate SOCaaS with broader security initiatives such as modernization projects, compliance readiness, and vulnerability management. We specialize in environments where strict standards, technical precision, and operational consistency are mandatory, which makes our team a natural partner for organizations working to raise their detection and response maturity.

    Netizen maintains ISO 27001, ISO 9001, ISO 20000-1, and CMMI Level III SVC registrations, reflecting the stability and maturity required for a high-quality SOC operation. As a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business certified by the U.S. Small Business Administration, we have been recognized repeatedly through the Inc. 5000, Vet 100, national Best Workplace awards, and numerous honors for veteran hiring, innovation, and organizational excellence.

    Looking for expert guidance to secure, automate, and streamline your IT infrastructure and operations? Start the conversation today.

  • Rethinking Enterprise Security at the Opening of 2026

    Rethinking Enterprise Security at the Opening of 2026

    By early 2026, enterprise security feels very different from just a few years ago. AI agents are now embedded across core workflows, critical vulnerabilities have emerged across widely deployed frameworks with the highest possible severity ratings, and federal standards such as the Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0 have reset baseline expectations for security maturity.

    Risk now stretches across identity systems, AI automation, software supply chains, and the relatively small set of dominant platform providers that support the majority of enterprise infrastructure. These dependencies reshape how organizations think about resilience, continuity, and risk ownership.

    Netizen’s viewpoint entering 2026 is that four themes define the landscape: AI adoption, identity-centric security, concentration risk, and outcome-driven security management. Each demands deliberate focus from leadership.

    AI has become an operational dependency

    During 2025, AI moved directly into daily business functions. Security teams have begun using AI to enrich events, triage alerts, and analyze exposure. At the same time, adversaries are using AI to generate phishing content, craft malware, impersonate real people, and create synthetic identities. Trust in traditional communication channels has weakened as convincing deepfakes and automated interactions become routine.

    Security research points to growing use of AI governance and control layers that restrict what AI agents can do inside enterprise environments. This reflects the increasing reality that AI-driven systems often possess API credentials, privileged data access, and the ability to perform business or administrative actions autonomously.

    AI usage now requires the same level of policy oversight, auditability, and monitoring as other privileged enterprise systems.

    Identity now defines the security boundary

    Identity remains the most direct point of entry into enterprise systems. With AI agents, automation pipelines, and microservices now authenticating through the same identity platforms as human users, the blast radius of a compromised identity has grown significantly. Mis-scoped privileges, long-lived credentials, and opaque service-to-service delegation chains expand the opportunity for attackers.

    Organizations benefit from treating human identities, service accounts, and AI agents as equally critical. Access entitlements should be as narrow as operations allow, expirations should be enforced where practical, and authentication telemetry should feed directly into detection and response.

    For security operations teams, this means identity behavior analytics and delegated access visibility sit at the center of monitoring programs.

    Late-2025 zero-days revealed systemic fragility

    Two late-year vulnerabilities demonstrated how dependent organizations have become on a small number of core platforms.

    CVE-2025-20393 affected Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager through an input validation flaw that allowed unauthenticated remote command execution with root-level privileges. It received a maximum CVSS score of 10.0, reflecting the potential severity of compromise at a gateway layer that processes sensitive business communications. Public reporting associated exploitation with a China-nexus actor targeting specific appliance configurations exposed to the internet.

    CVE-2025-55182, also known as “React2Shell,” impacted React Server Components and downstream frameworks such as Next.js due to unsafe handling of serialized data in the Flight protocol. A single crafted HTTP request could execute arbitrary Node.js code, again with a CVSS score of 10.0. The exposure affected common default configurations, which amplified the scale of potential risk across production environments.

    These two incidents show that security design must elevate email infrastructure, popular development frameworks, core identity platforms, and administrative interfaces into a distinct tier of critical assets that receive accelerated monitoring and remediation.

    Concentration risk has become strategic

    Most organizations rely heavily on a limited set of cloud providers, SaaS ecosystems, and security platforms. This creates operational simplicity but also concentrates systemic risk. A service disruption or security incident affecting one dominant platform can produce cascading effects across the customer base.

    At the same time, misinformation regarding basic cyber hygiene continues to circulate on social channels, undermining public confidence in controls such as multi-factor authentication and password vaults. This environment benefits adversaries who rely on social engineering and psychological pressure.

    Security planning increasingly includes tabletop exercises focused on prolonged outages, identity provider degradation, and SaaS failure scenarios. Documented fallback communications paths, secure break-glass workflows, and continuity-mode playbooks significantly reduce chaos when external services become unavailable.

    Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0 set new expectations

    The release of Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0 aligned with NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and placed stronger emphasis on measurable outcomes across user and device security, governance, incident response, and data protection.

    Leadership teams now look for demonstrable risk reduction rather than simple control inventories. Metrics such as incident dwell time, phishing click-through rates, recovery readiness, and patch latency are becoming more influential in governance discussions.

    For environments tied to public sector missions, critical infrastructure, or federal oversight, alignment with CPG 2.0 is becoming a de-facto baseline expectation. Netizen’s approach has long emphasized measurable security outcomes, so this shift aligns with how we design programs and evaluate maturity.

    A practical reset for early-2026 security programs

    Organizations benefit from beginning the year with a precise map of their identity ecosystem and AI usage. This includes identity providers, trust boundaries, delegated applications, persistent credentials, and the AI agents or automation systems capable of submitting privileged requests. Reducing standing privileges, binding access to shorter time windows, and expanding identity-centric monitoring meaningfully improves resilience.

    AI systems should be treated as operational technology rather than experimental tools. That means identifying where AI is already embedded in business processes, how it interacts with sensitive data, and what controls exist around inference logging, prompt history, and agent decision-making. Guardrail technologies are increasingly being evaluated to mediate and supervise AI-initiated actions.

    Keystone platforms such as email gateways, identity platforms, React and Next.js-based applications, and internet-exposed administration layers benefit from accelerated hardening, scanning, and remediation cycles. For high-impact vulnerabilities like CVE-2025-20393 and CVE-2025-55182, teams should pair patching with targeted detection content across SIEM, endpoint, and network telemetry.

    Concentration risk planning should move from concept to documented practice. Even if full provider diversity is not feasible, organizations gain value from clear emergency workflows that assume temporary loss of a primary SaaS, cloud, or identity service.

    Finally, internal programs can be benchmarked against Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0 and NIST CSF 2.0. These frameworks provide a practical structure for assessing whether key controls are operating effectively across governance, identity, data, and response.

    Netizen’s role in 2026

    The opening of 2026 marks a period of accelerating threat activity, expanded AI-driven automation, and rising oversight expectations across both public and private sectors. Security programs that adapt to identity-centric design, AI governance, critical platform exposure management, and concentration-risk planning will be better positioned to manage uncertainty.

    Netizen partners with enterprises, government agencies, and critical infrastructure operators to mature security programs, stabilize operations, and improve measurable resilience. If your organization is reassessing its security footing this year, our team can help translate strategic objectives into operating models, playbooks, and 24×7 monitoring support that protect both mission and customers.

    Looking for expert guidance to secure, automate, and streamline your IT infrastructure and operations? Start the conversation today.

  • Netizen: Monday Security Brief (1/5/2026)

    Netizen: Monday Security Brief (1/5/2026)

    Today’s Topics:

    • Chrome Extensions Found Stealing Credentials from Users Across 170+ Websites
    • DarkSpectre Browser Extension Operation Exposed After Affecting 8.8 Million Users Across Major Browsers
    • How can Netizen help?

    Chrome Extensions Found Stealing Credentials from Users Across 170+ Websites

    Security researchers have uncovered two malicious Google Chrome extensions masquerading as a legitimate network speed-testing tool while secretly intercepting traffic and harvesting user credentials. Both extensions, named Phantom Shuttle and published by the same developer, continue to remain available for download in the Chrome Web Store.

    The extensions market themselves as a “multi-location network speed test plug-in” targeted at developers and international trade professionals. Users are prompted to purchase a paid subscription tier ranging from approximately ¥9.9 to ¥95.9 CNY ($1.40 to $13.50 USD) under the assumption they are gaining access to a premium VPN-like service. In reality, both extensions include hidden functionality that enables full authentication credential injection, traffic interception, and ongoing data exfiltration to an attacker-controlled server.

    Researchers identified two variants:

    Phantom Shuttle (ID: fbfldogmkadejddihifklefknmikncaj) — ~2,000 users
    Phantom Shuttle (ID: ocpcmfmiidofonkbodpdhgddhlcmcofd) — ~180 users

    Both versions appear legitimate on the surface. They perform actual proxy latency testing and display connection status to reinforce the illusion of a functioning service. After payment, users receive “VIP” status and the extension automatically activates a proxy mode called “smarty,” routing traffic from more than 170 targeted domains through the attacker’s infrastructure.

    These domains span developer platforms, cloud environments, enterprise systems, social media, and adult sites. That mix signals both credential theft and potential coercion risk.

    The malicious activity is embedded in modified JavaScript libraries packaged with the extension. The injected code registers a listener for Chrome’s authentication request handler and automatically replies to every HTTP authentication challenge with hard-coded proxy credentials:

    Username: topfany
    Password: 963852wei

    Because the listener runs before the user ever sees a login prompt, the credential injection remains invisible.

    Once authenticated, the extension updates Chrome’s proxy settings using a PAC script that:

    • Disables proxy use
    • Forces all traffic through the proxy
    • Routes only specific high-value domains through the proxy

    The last mode is used to quietly monitor sensitive activity including developer portals, cloud dashboards, financial systems, and social networks.

    While users browse normally, the extension maintains a 60-second heartbeat with its command-and-control server hosted at phantomshuttle[.]space, a domain still online. Every five minutes, the extension transmits the user’s subscription email address and plaintext password back to the attacker, along with version and status metadata.

    This gives the operator both live access via man-in-the-middle positioning and persistent account takeover capability through credential harvesting.

    Because the proxy sits between the user and the destination system, the operator gains visibility into nearly everything transmitted across those sessions. That includes:

    • Passwords
    • Authentication cookies
    • Credit card numbers
    • Form submissions
    • API keys
    • Developer tokens
    • Browsing history

    For developers and cloud administrators, the exposure extends to code repositories, infrastructure secrets, and platform credentials. That increases the risk of secondary compromise and supply chain incidents.

    The campaign appears to have been operating for years. Notable signals include:

    • Use of Chinese-language descriptions
    • Support for Alipay and WeChat payment processing
    • Alibaba Cloud-hosted infrastructure
    • Subscription-based retention model

    The professional payment integration lends the appearance of legitimacy while generating recurring revenue from victims.

    A malicious extension with proxy privileges effectively bypasses:

    • MFA protections tied to session cookies
    • Zero-trust enforcement applied downstream
    • Network-based inspection controls

    Once installed, the attacker sits inside the session boundary.

    Users should immediately uninstall Phantom Shuttle extensions and rotate any credentials that may have been exposed. Because authentication cookies and session tokens may already be compromised, a full re-authentication cycle is necessary.

    Security teams should move toward stricter browser extension governance. Priority controls include:

    • Extension allow-listing instead of open installation
    • Monitoring for extensions requesting proxy or authentication permissions
    • Alerting on unexpected proxy authentication flows
    • Blocking browser extensions that require embedded subscription payments

    DarkSpectre Browser Extension Operation Exposed After Affecting 8.8 Million Users Across Major Browsers

    Security researchers have exposed a long running series of malicious browser extension operations linked to a Chinese threat actor known as DarkSpectre. Over a period of more than seven years, these campaigns have quietly affected more than 8.8 million users worldwide across Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera. The findings come from Koi Security, which has attributed three major browser extension campaigns to the same operator. These include ShadyPanda, GhostPoster, and a newly identified effort referred to as The Zoom Stealer. Together, these campaigns enabled data theft, affiliate and ad fraud, traffic manipulation, and the collection of sensitive corporate intelligence, all while posing as legitimate browser utilities.

    The ShadyPanda operation was the first campaign linked to DarkSpectre. It targeted users across multiple browsers with extensions that intercepted search queries, injected code into browsing sessions, and harvested data while also redirecting traffic to affiliate services for financial gain. Koi Security estimates that about 5.6 million users were impacted, including more than one million newly identified victims whose browsers were running over one hundred extensions tied to the same coordinated activity. Some of the extensions included time delayed activation routines so that the malicious behavior would only begin several days after installation. This was likely done to pass extension store review processes. In other cases, extensions remained benign for more than five years to build a user base and reputation before malicious updates were pushed. Nine extensions tied to the activity remain active, while eighty five more have been identified as dormant but potentially dangerous once weaponized.

    GhostPoster represented the second campaign in the cluster. This operation focused mainly on Firefox users and distributed simple browser utilities such as VPN tools and translation add-ons. Behind the scenes, these extensions injected JavaScript designed to hijack affiliate links, manipulate tracking identifiers, and enable fraud involving advertising and partner referral programs. One Opera extension posing as a Google Translate tool accumulated nearly one million installs before the activity was uncovered. The apparent usefulness of the extensions helped them gain trust, reviews, and long term adoption, which increased their ability to operate quietly.

    The third DarkSpectre campaign identified by Koi Security is known as The Zoom Stealer. This effort relied on eighteen browser extensions that mimicked tools for major videoconferencing platforms including Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, and GoToWebinar. The extensions performed many of the functions users expected, such as downloading recordings or enhancing meeting controls, but they also silently collected sensitive corporate meeting data in real time. The data harvested included meeting links, embedded passwords, meeting IDs, topics, descriptions, scheduled times, and registration details. The extensions also captured information about hosts and speakers, including names, job titles, biographies, profile photos, and company affiliations. This information was exfiltrated using WebSocket connections that allowed continuous monitoring without alerting the user.

    In many cases, the extensions requested permissions for more than twenty eight conferencing platforms, even when those permissions were unnecessary for the advertised purpose. The result was a surveillance layer positioned directly inside the browser session. According to Koi researchers, this activity cannot be dismissed as routine advertising fraud. Instead, it represents a form of systematic collection of corporate communication intelligence. Users received the features they expected and left positive reviews, which made the extensions appear trustworthy. Meanwhile, data was being gathered in the background for potential resale or use in social engineering and impersonation campaigns.

    The scale of the campaigns has broad implications. Millions of users across enterprise environments were affected, including developers, executives, and operational staff. Meeting invitation data alone reveals internal project discussions, vendor relationships, product planning, leadership structure, and supply chain coordination. That information can be leveraged for business email compromise, credential harvesting, targeted phishing, and espionage. The aggregation of meeting data and identity information significantly increases organizational risk.

    Attribution indicators point toward China based operators. These signals include the use of Alibaba Cloud to host infrastructure, domain registrations tied to Chinese provinces, embedded code comments written in Chinese, and fraud patterns focused on Chinese e commerce platforms such as JD.com and Taobao. The overall operation has been named DarkSpectre by researchers to describe both its persistence strategy and its surveillance focused activity. The campaigns relied heavily on building trust over time. Extensions were first introduced as useful and legitimate tools. They gained positive reviews, accumulated user counts, and often received recommended status within extension stores. Only after that trust was established were malicious updates pushed or surveillance components enabled.

    Koi Security has warned that DarkSpectre likely still maintains a pipeline of extensions that appear benign today but may be altered in future updates. The infrastructure remains active, meaning the broader operation is ongoing rather than historical. For enterprises, the key lesson is that browser extensions now represent a high impact attack surface. They operate within the user session where identity, authentication tokens, payment information, and confidential data are present. Many extensions also request wide ranging permissions that allow them to modify, inject, or forward data without detection by traditional endpoint controls.

    How Can Netizen Help?

    Founded in 2013, Netizen is an award-winning technology firm that develops and leverages cutting-edge solutions to create a more secure, integrated, and automated digital environment for government, defense, and commercial clients worldwide. Our innovative solutions transform complex cybersecurity and technology challenges into strategic advantages by delivering mission-critical capabilities that safeguard and optimize clients’ digital infrastructure. One example of this is our popular “CISO-as-a-Service” offering that enables organizations of any size to access executive level cybersecurity expertise at a fraction of the cost of hiring internally. 

    Netizen also operates a state-of-the-art 24x7x365 Security Operations Center (SOC) that delivers comprehensive cybersecurity monitoring solutions for defense, government, and commercial clients. Our service portfolio includes cybersecurity assessments and advisory, hosted SIEM and EDR/XDR solutions, software assurance, penetration testing, cybersecurity engineering, and compliance audit support. We specialize in serving organizations that operate within some of the world’s most highly sensitive and tightly regulated environments where unwavering security, strict compliance, technical excellence, and operational maturity are non-negotiable requirements. Our proven track record in these domains positions us as the premier trusted partner for organizations where technology reliability and security cannot be compromised.

    Netizen holds ISO 27001, ISO 9001, ISO 20000-1, and CMMI Level III SVC registrations demonstrating the maturity of our operations. We are a proud Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) certified by U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) that has been named multiple times to the Inc. 5000 and Vet 100 lists of the most successful and fastest-growing private companies in the nation. Netizen has also been named a national “Best Workplace” by Inc. Magazine, a multiple awardee of the U.S. Department of Labor HIRE Vets Platinum Medallion for veteran hiring and retention, the Lehigh Valley Business of the Year and Veteran-Owned Business of the Year, and the recipient of dozens of other awards and accolades for innovation, community support, working environment, and growth.

    Looking for expert guidance to secure, automate, and streamline your IT infrastructure and operations? Start the conversation today.

  • IBM Confirms Critical Authentication Bypass in API Connect (CVE-2025-13915)

    IBM Confirms Critical Authentication Bypass in API Connect (CVE-2025-13915)

    IBM has disclosed a critical security flaw affecting its API Connect platform that could allow an attacker to bypass authentication controls and gain unauthorized access. The issue is tracked as CVE-2025-13915 and carries a CVSS v3.1 score of 9.8, placing it in the highest severity tier. The weakness falls under CWE-305, which refers to authentication bypass stemming from defects in the primary authentication mechanism.

    IBM published the CVE record on December 26, 2025 and states that the flaw can be exploited remotely without prior access or user interaction. This means an external attacker could potentially reach protected API Connect components as if authenticated.

    Affected Versions

    The vulnerability impacts the following API Connect releases:

    • API Connect versions 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.5
    • API Connect version 10.0.11.0

    Other versions are not listed as affected in the CVE record or vendor advisory.

    Severity and Risk

    The CVSS vector assigned to CVE-2025-13915 is AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. This reflects network reachability, low attack complexity, no credentials required, and high impact across confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

    Authentication flaws are especially dangerous because they undermine the core safeguard that separates legitimate users from outsiders. In environments where API Connect is used to manage critical API traffic, this exposure can extend well beyond the application itself.

    Vendor Advisory and Remediation

    IBM has released interim fixes through Fix Central. Customers are instructed to download the appropriate package, review the included Readme file, extract the installation archive, and apply the fix that corresponds to their deployed version.

    For organizations unable to patch immediately, IBM advises disabling self-service sign-up within the Developer Portal. This reduces the accessible surface area for attackers while remediation work is pending.

    IBM reports that there is currently no evidence of exploitation in the wild. Even so, the combination of remote access, lack of authentication requirements, and high-impact potential warrants prompt attention.

    Product Context

    API Connect is a lifecycle API management platform used worldwide across banking, aviation, technology, and enterprise IT. It supports the creation, publication, security enforcement, and monitoring of APIs deployed across cloud and on-premises environments. Any authentication weakness within such a platform has the potential to affect downstream services and data flows.

    What Organizations Should Do

    Organizations running the affected versions should retrieve and apply the interim fix without delay. Where possible, Developer Portal sign-up features should be restricted until the environment is fully updated. Security teams may also want to review access logs for unusual activity associated with API Connect components to confirm that no unauthorized access has occurred.

    IBM’s official advisory and the CVE listing for CVE-2025-13915 provide further implementation guidance and version-specific details.

    How Can Netizen Help?

    Founded in 2013, Netizen is an award-winning technology firm that develops and leverages cutting-edge solutions to create a more secure, integrated, and automated digital environment for government, defense, and commercial clients worldwide. Our innovative solutions transform complex cybersecurity and technology challenges into strategic advantages by delivering mission-critical capabilities that safeguard and optimize clients’ digital infrastructure. One example of this is our popular “CISO-as-a-Service” offering that enables organizations of any size to access executive level cybersecurity expertise at a fraction of the cost of hiring internally. 

    Netizen also operates a state-of-the-art 24x7x365 Security Operations Center (SOC) that delivers comprehensive cybersecurity monitoring solutions for defense, government, and commercial clients. Our service portfolio includes cybersecurity assessments and advisory, hosted SIEM and EDR/XDR solutions, software assurance, penetration testing, cybersecurity engineering, and compliance audit support. We specialize in serving organizations that operate within some of the world’s most highly sensitive and tightly regulated environments where unwavering security, strict compliance, technical excellence, and operational maturity are non-negotiable requirements. Our proven track record in these domains positions us as the premier trusted partner for organizations where technology reliability and security cannot be compromised.

    Netizen holds ISO 27001, ISO 9001, ISO 20000-1, and CMMI Level III SVC registrations demonstrating the maturity of our operations. We are a proud Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) certified by U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) that has been named multiple times to the Inc. 5000 and Vet 100 lists of the most successful and fastest-growing private companies in the nation. Netizen has also been named a national “Best Workplace” by Inc. Magazine, a multiple awardee of the U.S. Department of Labor HIRE Vets Platinum Medallion for veteran hiring and retention, the Lehigh Valley Business of the Year and Veteran-Owned Business of the Year, and the recipient of dozens of other awards and accolades for innovation, community support, working environment, and growth.

    Looking for expert guidance to secure, automate, and streamline your IT infrastructure and operations? Start the conversation today.

  • Netizen Cybersecurity Bulletin (December 30th, 2025)

    Netizen Cybersecurity Bulletin (December 30th, 2025)

    Overview:

    • Phish Tale of the Week
    • React2Shell, One Month Later: What We Now Know
    • One of the Largest Insurance Data Breaches of 2025: Aflac Confirms 22.65 Million Impacted
    • How can Netizen help?

    Phish Tale of the Week

    Ofteften times phishing campaigns, created by malicious actors, target users by utilizing social engineering. For example, in this text message, the actors are appearing as an unnamed organization. The message politely explains that they’re about to invest in a stock “projected to deliver a 60 percent return this week.” It seems both urgent and genuine, so why shouldn’t we respond yes? Luckily, there’s plenty of reasons that point to this being a scam.

    Here’s how we can tell not to fall for this smish:

    1. The first warning sign for this SMS is the fact that we do not recognize the number or the sender. Legitimate financial institutions and service providers clearly identify themselves in their messages and usually contact customers through verified channels. When a text arrives from an unknown number with no context, it should always be treated with caution, especially if it relates to money, investments, or account activity. Unsolicited investment messages are a common red flag, since reputable firms do not cold-text offers like this.
    2. The second warning sign in this text is the messaging itself. This message tries to push you into acting quickly by promising a “60 percent return” and stating that this will happen “this week.” Smishing and phishing scams often rely on urgency so that recipients react emotionally instead of stopping to verify the source. It is always wise to slow down and review the tone and claims in any text before clicking links or replying.
    3. The final warning sign for this SMS is the lack of any verifiable sender identity or legitimate business details. Real investment firms identify themselves clearly, include required disclosures, and do not make sweeping claims about guaranteed or near-term profits. This text asks you to reply “YES,” which is a common tactic used by scammers to confirm that your number is active and to draw you further into the scheme. All of these elements point to this being a smishing attempt rather than a genuine investment opportunity.


    General Recommendations:

    A smishing attack will typically direct the user to click on a link where they will then be prompted to update personal information, such as a password, credit card, social security, or bank account information. A legitimate company already has this sensitive information and would not ask for it again, especially via your text messages. 

    1. Scrutinize your messages before clicking anything. Have you ordered anything recently? Does this order number match the one I already have? Did the message come from a store you don’t usually order supplies from or a service you don’t use? If so, it’s probably a phishing attempt.
    2. Verify that the sender is actually from the company sending the message.
    3. Did you receive a message from someone you don’t recognize? Are they asking you to sign into a website to give Personally Identifiable Information (PII) such as credit card numbers, social security number, etc. A legitimate company will never ask for PII via instant message or email.
    4. Do not give out personal or company information over the internet.
    5. Do not click on unrecognized links or attachments. If you do proceed, verify that the URL is the correct one for the company/service and it has the proper security in place, such as HTTPS.

    Many smishing messages pose a sense of urgency or even aggressiveness to prompt a form of intimidation. Any SMS requesting immediate action should be vetted thoroughly to determine whether or not it is a scam. Also, beware of messages that seek to tempt users into opening an attachment or visiting a link. For example, an attachment titled “Fix your account now” may draw the question “What is wrong with my account?” and prompt you to click a suspicious link.

    Cybersecurity Brief

    In this month’s Cybersecurity Brief:

    React2Shell, One Month Later: What We Now Know

    About a month after the disclosure of React2Shell, the unauthenticated remote code execution flaw affecting React Server Components, the conversation has shifted from breaking news to reflection. At first, the headlines focused on urgency, exploitation speed, and the sheer number of affected deployments. With time to review the research and incident reports, the picture has become clearer. The story is less about a single CVE and more about what it revealed about modern application stacks.

    React2Shell was impactful because exposure flowed from the framework layer itself. Organizations using default React and Next.js deployments inherited risk even if their custom code was clean. Research teams from Wiz, Unit 42, Google, AWS, and others aligned on the same fundamental point: unsafe handling of serialized component data inside the server-side pipeline created a direct path to remote code execution. No unusual configuration was required. For many environments, simply being on default settings was enough.

    The tempo of exploitation quickly became a defining theme. Proof-of-concept exploit code appeared soon after disclosure, followed by automated scanning activity. Some honeypots saw compromise in only a few minutes. Threat intelligence teams confirmed that both state-linked and financially motivated attackers were involved. Reports did not just describe shell access. They documented backdoors, tunneling tools, miners, and botnet implants, which showed that adversaries viewed this as a viable and persistent entry point.

    Different security reports complemented one another rather than compete. Wiz and Unit 42 demonstrated consistent exploit reliability across environments. Google and AWS confirmed that exploitation was not theoretical by connecting it to live activity. Huntress documented behavior after access was gained, which helped shift the discussion from exposure to impact. Patrowl contributed nuance by pointing out that some early exposure figures were inflated by noisy scanning patterns. The result was a more mature view of the situation without minimizing the seriousness of the flaw.

    A key lesson from the past month relates to long-standing assumptions. For years, many teams treated mainstream frameworks as relatively safe foundations, focusing most defensive energy on custom code, configuration control, and operational discipline. React2Shell challenged that thinking. A widespread framework became a direct access point overnight, and the required response speed exceeded what many patch programs can deliver. Most enterprises cannot upgrade and redeploy critical application infrastructure within hours. Attackers clearly can move inside that window.

    Remediation guidance remains straightforward. Patches for React and downstream frameworks such as Next.js are available and should be applied quickly. The second part of the response is deeper. Since exploitation began almost immediately, teams should evaluate whether affected systems were reachable during the exposure window and review them for post-compromise activity, such as unexpected processes, persistence tools, or outbound tunneling traffic. Version checks alone cannot answer that question.

    To read more about this article, click here.

    One of the Largest Insurance Data Breaches of 2025: Aflac Confirms 22.65 Million Impacted

    Aflac has confirmed that personal information belonging to roughly 22.65 million people was stolen during a cyber intrusion first detected in June 2025. The company initially disclosed the incident on June 20 after identifying suspicious activity on its U.S. network on June 12. While the attack did not deploy ransomware or disrupt operations, the scope of exposed data makes this one of the most significant insurance sector breaches of the year.

    After completing its investigation in December, Aflac reported that files accessed during the intrusion contained personal data belonging to customers, beneficiaries, employees, agents, and others associated with the company. The compromised information includes names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver’s license details, government ID numbers, and medical and health insurance information. In some cases, additional sensitive identifiers may also have been included.

    Aflac stated that the attack originated from a sophisticated cybercrime group and indicated that the breach appeared to be part of a broader campaign targeting the insurance industry. While the company did not attribute the incident to a specific actor, the timeline aligns with reporting from Google’s Threat Intelligence Group that flagged increased targeting of insurance providers by the group commonly referred to as Scattered Spider.

    The company noted that it is not aware of any confirmed misuse of the stolen data at this time. Even so, the sensitivity of the information involved raises clear concerns about identity fraud, medical identity abuse, and long-tail financial risk. To help mitigate potential harm, Aflac is offering affected individuals 24 months of credit monitoring, identity theft protection services, and medical fraud protection support.

    Notifications are now underway, and impacted individuals are being urged to monitor financial and medical accounts closely, remain alert to potential phishing or social engineering attempts, and make use of the protection services being offered. The investigation reinforced a broader warning already circulating in the sector: organized threat groups continue to prioritize insurance companies, and the scale of data under management amplifies the consequences when defenses falter.

    To read more about this article, click here.

    How Can Netizen Help?

    Founded in 2013, Netizen is an award-winning technology firm that develops and leverages cutting-edge solutions to create a more secure, integrated, and automated digital environment for government, defense, and commercial clients worldwide. Our innovative solutions transform complex cybersecurity and technology challenges into strategic advantages by delivering mission-critical capabilities that safeguard and optimize clients’ digital infrastructure. One example of this is our popular “CISO-as-a-Service” offering that enables organizations of any size to access executive level cybersecurity expertise at a fraction of the cost of hiring internally. 

    Netizen also operates a state-of-the-art 24x7x365 Security Operations Center (SOC) that delivers comprehensive cybersecurity monitoring solutions for defense, government, and commercial clients. Our service portfolio includes cybersecurity assessments and advisory, hosted SIEM and EDR/XDR solutions, software assurance, penetration testing, cybersecurity engineering, and compliance audit support. We specialize in serving organizations that operate within some of the world’s most highly sensitive and tightly regulated environments where unwavering security, strict compliance, technical excellence, and operational maturity are non-negotiable requirements. Our proven track record in these domains positions us as the premier trusted partner for organizations where technology reliability and security cannot be compromised.

    Netizen holds ISO 27001, ISO 9001, ISO 20000-1, and CMMI Level III SVC registrations demonstrating the maturity of our operations. We are a proud Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) certified by U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) that has been named multiple times to the Inc. 5000 and Vet 100 lists of the most successful and fastest-growing private companies in the nation. Netizen has also been named a national “Best Workplace” by Inc. Magazine, a multiple awardee of the U.S. Department of Labor HIRE Vets Platinum Medallion for veteran hiring and retention, the Lehigh Valley Business of the Year and Veteran-Owned Business of the Year, and the recipient of dozens of other awards and accolades for innovation, community support, working environment, and growth.

    Looking for expert guidance to secure, automate, and streamline your IT infrastructure and operations? Start the conversation today.