Netizen Blog and News

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

recent posts

about

  • Netizen: December 2025 Vulnerability Review

    Netizen: December 2025 Vulnerability Review

    Security vulnerabilities are a common occurrence in managing any business’s organizational security. The prompt patching and remediation of any new vulnerabilities are critical to reducing the outside attack surface. Netizen’s Security Operations Center (SOC) has compiled five critical vulnerabilities from December that should be immediately patched or addressed if present in your environment. Detailed writeups below:

    CVE-2025-20393

    CVE-2025-20393 is a critical zero-day vulnerability impacting Cisco Secure Email Gateway appliances running AsyncOS and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager. Cisco initially disclosed the issue after detecting real-world attacks linked to a China-nexus threat actor (tracked as UAT-9686). The flaw allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to gain command execution on vulnerable appliances with root-level privileges, giving full control over the underlying operating system. Public reporting indicates targeted exploitation began before disclosure, with attackers focusing on internet-exposed systems used in enterprise and government environments. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 10.0, reflecting the fact that no credentials, user interaction, or elevated privileges are required for exploitation.

    Victims observed behavior consistent with reconnaissance, persistence activity, and execution of attacker-controlled payloads. The attack path appears conditional, depending on specific feature configurations present on affected appliances. Cisco has not yet released full technical details, but the company confirmed ongoing investigation and acknowledged active exploitation. CISA added CVE-2025-20393 to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog on December 18, 2025, directing federal agencies to remediate as a priority. Security researchers also noted coordinated password-spraying activity against Cisco VPN gateways during the same period, suggesting broader targeting of Cisco infrastructure by the same actor set.

    Given full system compromise is possible, organizations should isolate impacted appliances from the internet where feasible, apply Cisco’s interim guidance, monitor for unauthorized admin accounts and modifications, and review logs and outbound connections for evidence of compromise. Patching should be treated as urgent once Cisco releases a permanent fix, as continued exposure presents a significant risk to email security infrastructure and downstream systems integrated with these gateways.

    CVE-2025-55182

    CVE-2025-55182, widely referred to as React2Shell, is a critical pre-authentication remote code execution vulnerability affecting React Server Components (RSC) in versions 19.0.0, 19.1.0, 19.1.1, and 19.2.0. The affected packages include react-server-dom-parcel, react-server-dom-turbopack, and react-server-dom-webpack, and the risk extends to frameworks that embed these components such as Next.js and React Router implementations that expose server functions. The flaw stems from unsafe deserialization logic in the RSC Flight protocol. Server Function endpoints accept serialized request payloads sent over HTTP and attempt to reconstruct React objects and callable functions on the server. The vulnerable code trusts the inbound serialized data without hard boundaries around what is allowed during deserialization. An attacker who can reach an exposed RSC endpoint can submit a crafted payload that injects malicious objects into the deserializer so that attacker-controlled values are interpreted as executable server logic.

    From an attack-path standpoint, this is particularly dangerous because the weakness sits before any authentication checks. The typical exploit flow involves the attacker identifying a server function endpoint that processes RSC Flight payloads, then sending a single HTTP request containing a maliciously structured binary or JSON-encoded Flight stream. During processing, the server runtime attempts to resolve and invoke the referenced functions and data structures. The crafted payload manipulates this behavior so that arbitrary Node.js execution occurs in the server process context. No credentials are required, and there is no need to trick an end user into clicking anything. Default installations of affected versions are exposed if server components are reachable from the internet, which means routine application deployments may already present a viable target surface. Because the execution path occurs inside the application runtime rather than an external interpreter, traditional web security controls often fail to block the attack, and in many observed cases both Linux- and Windows-based deployments were impacted, including containerized environments.

    Successful exploitation grants the attacker the ability to run code with the privileges of the application service account. That access can be used to deploy webshells, steal secrets, pivot deeper into cloud environments, or stage ransomware. Public reporting has confirmed active exploitation by advanced threat actors shortly after disclosure, and CISA added the CVE to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. The vulnerability is rated at the maximum CVSS 10.0 level due to the combination of remote reachability, low attack complexity, lack of authentication, and the severe confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact.

    Organizations running affected React Server Component versions or frameworks that consume the vulnerable serialization libraries should assume exposure if endpoints are internet-accessible. The immediate priority is to upgrade to the patched releases provided by the React project and any downstream framework vendors, validate that mitigations are deployed across all environments including staging systems, and review server logs and runtime telemetry for suspicious RSC requests or unexpected server function invocation behavior dating back to early December 2025. Given the pre-auth nature of the flaw and the breadth of affected ecosystems, this vulnerability represents a material operational risk until completely remediated.

    CVE-2025-6218

    CVE-2025-6218 is a high-severity directory traversal flaw in RARLAB WinRAR that can lead to remote code execution. The weakness sits in the way WinRAR handles file paths inside archive files. A malicious archive can include specially crafted paths that escape the expected extraction directory and write files elsewhere on the system. If a user opens or interacts with one of these archives — such as by downloading it from a malicious site or opening it from email — the attacker-controlled files can be written and executed in the context of the current user. This vulnerability has been confirmed as exploited in the wild and has been added to the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, underscoring its operational relevance to defenders.

    The practical impact depends on the user’s privileges and the presence of additional controls, but code execution through a trusted file archiver presents clear risk for both consumer and enterprise environments. Organizations using WinRAR should apply the vendor’s fixed release and review systems for signs of anomalous archive activity linked to suspicious paths or unexpected file placement. Since exploitation requires only basic user interaction and attackers routinely weaponize archive vulnerabilities for phishing-style delivery, this CVE warrants prompt remediation and user awareness..

    CVE-2025-14733

    CVE-2025-14733 is a critical out-of-bounds write flaw in WatchGuard Fireware OS that allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code. The weakness affects Fireware deployments that use IKEv2 for Mobile User VPN or Branch Office VPN when the VPN is configured with a dynamic gateway peer. Impacted versions include 11.10.2 through 11.12.4_Update1, 12.0 through 12.11.5, and 2025.1 through 2025.1.3. Because exploitation requires only network access to a vulnerable device and no authentication, compromised systems can be taken over completely, exposing internal networks, VPN credentials, and downstream assets. This vulnerability has been confirmed as exploited in the wild and is listed in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, signaling that active threat actors are targeting unpatched Firebox devices.

    Organizations should update to the patched Fireware releases provided by WatchGuard and review VPN configurations that rely on IKEv2 with dynamic peers. Since exploitation grants full device compromise, affected firewalls should be treated as potentially hostile if they were exposed before patching, with incident response procedures applied as needed. Monitoring for anomalies on VPN tunnels, unexpected administrative logins, and configuration changes can help identify prior malicious activity.

    CVE-2025-62221

    CVE-2025-62221 is a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver caused by a use-after-free condition. A logged-in attacker with limited privileges can trigger memory corruption and gain full control of the system, impacting confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Microsoft confirmed that this flaw was exploited before a patch was released, and it was one of the most notable fixes in the December 2025 Patch Tuesday update cycle. Although exploitation requires local access, the vulnerability is valuable for threat actors who already have a foothold through phishing, malware, or lateral movement, since it allows them to elevate to administrator or SYSTEM.

    Given the confirmed in-the-wild exploitation, organizations should prioritize deployment of the December 2025 cumulative updates across all supported Windows platforms. Security teams should also review endpoint telemetry for signs of privilege escalation activity such as unexplained SYSTEM-level processes tied to user accounts, abnormal driver or filter activity, or privilege escalation behavior following initial access events. Hardening privileged access procedures, reducing local admin footprint, and monitoring for persistence mechanisms can help contain the blast radius if this vulnerability has already been used as part of a broader intrusion.

    How Can Netizen Help?

    Netizen ensures that security gets built-in and not bolted-on. Providing advanced solutions to protect critical IT infrastructure such as the popular “CISO-as-a-Service” wherein companies can leverage the expertise of executive-level cybersecurity professionals without having to bear the cost of employing them full time. 

    We also offer compliance support, vulnerability assessments, penetration testing, and more security-related services for businesses of any size and type. 

    Additionally, Netizen offers an automated and affordable assessment tool that continuously scans systems, websites, applications, and networks to uncover issues. Vulnerability data is then securely analyzed and presented through an easy-to-interpret dashboard to yield actionable risk and compliance information for audiences ranging from IT professionals to executive managers.

    Netizen is an ISO 27001:2013 (Information Security Management), ISO 9001:2015, and CMMI V 2.0 Level 3 certified company. We are a proud Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business that is recognized by the U.S. Department of Labor for hiring and retention of military veterans. 

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

  • Old FortiOS SSL VPN 2FA Bypass Under Active Exploitation: CVE-2020-12812

    Old FortiOS SSL VPN 2FA Bypass Under Active Exploitation: CVE-2020-12812

    Fortinet has issued a new advisory warning customers that CVE-2020-12812, an improper authentication flaw first disclosed in 2020, is once again being used in real-world attacks. The weakness affects FortiOS SSL VPN under specific configurations and allows users to authenticate without being prompted for a second factor simply by changing the letter case of the username.

    CVE-2020-12812 carries a CVSS score of 5.2, but the operational risk can be much higher in environments that rely heavily on VPN and administrative access controls. The problem appears when two-factor authentication is configured for local users while authentication is actually delegated to a remote service such as LDAP. Because FortiGate handles usernames in a case-sensitive way and many LDAP directories do not, a mismatch can trigger fallback authentication that skips the 2FA requirement.

    How the Bypass Works

    Fortinet explains that if a legitimate user account exists as “jsmith,” a login attempt as “Jsmith,” “JSmith,” or any other variation using different case may bypass the local entry and authenticate directly against LDAP. If that LDAP group is also used in firewall or VPN authentication policies, the user is logged in without the expected second factor. This behavior can apply to administrative accounts and SSL VPN users, depending on the policy configuration.

    This flaw depends on three conditions being present:

    • Local user entries are configured on the FortiGate with 2FA that reference LDAP.
    • Those same users exist as members of groups within the LDAP directory.
    • At least one of those LDAP groups is tied to an authentication policy on the FortiGate, such as SSL VPN, IPsec VPN, or admin access.

    When these criteria are present, a case mismatch leads FortiGate to stop checking the local account and instead authenticate directly against LDAP.

    History and Current Exploitation

    Fortinet originally addressed the flaw in July 2020 with updates to FortiOS 6.0.10, 6.2.4, and 6.4.1. Despite the available fixes, the company now reports “recent abuse” of the weakness in the wild. U.S. government reporting had already flagged this issue as one of several perimeter-device weaknesses abused in prior campaigns.

    The advisory does not provide details on who is exploiting the flaw or how successful those attempts have been. Even so, the renewed activity highlights how older configuration weaknesses can remain attractive to attackers long after patches are published.

    Recommended Configuration Changes

    Organizations still running affected builds should address username case handling without delay. Older versions can use the command that disables case sensitivity for local accounts. Later versions, including 6.0.13, 6.2.10, 6.4.7, 7.0.1, and above, support the related set username-sensitivity disable command. Once applied, the device treats all case variations of a username as identical, preventing the fallback condition that leads to a bypass.

    It may also make sense to review LDAP group usage. If a secondary LDAP group is not needed, removing it eliminates the bypass path entirely, since authentication will fail when a username does not match the local entry.

    Incident Response Guidance

    Fortinet advises impacted customers to reset credentials and contact support if they discover any authentication events where admin or VPN users logged in without 2FA being applied. This step helps reduce lingering risk from any unauthorized access that may already have taken place.

    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.

  • Defending Against React2Shell: CVE-2025-55182

    Defending Against React2Shell: CVE-2025-55182

    CVE-2025-55182, commonly referred to as React2Shell, is a critical pre-authentication remote code execution (RCE) flaw impacting React Server Components (RSC), Next.js, and related frameworks. The bug sits in the way affected versions parse and trust serialized payloads sent via the Flight protocol. With a CVSS score of 10.0, the vulnerability allows a single HTTP request to trigger arbitrary Node.js execution on the server, without user interaction and without authentication. Public proof-of-concept exploit code is already in circulation, default installs are exposed, and exploitation has been observed across Windows and Linux platforms including containerized environments.

    Where the vulnerability sits in the stack

    React Server Components allow UI logic to execute partly on the server. A client request sends a serialized payload over the Flight protocol, the server deserializes it, runs server-side logic, and returns the resulting component tree. Affected versions of React and Next.js fail to validate the structure and content of incoming payloads before deserializing them. This results in:

    • Prototype pollution inside object graphs used by RSC
    • Injection of attacker-controlled object properties into execution paths
    • Arbitrary server-side behavior invoked during component resolution

    Node.js ultimately executes code paths influenced by polluted objects, giving the attacker execution inside the application process. Once code runs, the application context becomes a post-exploitation environment rather than a web layer.

    What the malicious payload actually does

    In real-world exploitation, the attacker sends a POST request containing a crafted serialized object. That payload manipulates internal RSC structures and injects malicious constructs that React incorrectly treats as valid serialized component data. This causes the backend to:

    • Deserialize attacker-controlled structures
    • Hydrate them into live JavaScript objects
    • Trigger function calls or imports under Node.js
    • Execute code the attacker controls

    Because this occurs before authentication, the attack path is exposed to anyone who can reach the vulnerable service. There is no dependency on session state or user permissions.

    Why default configurations are exposed

    Many security issues depend on developer mistakes. React2Shell does not. The default dependency chains ship with the affected behavior enabled. That means:

    • Developers do not need to misconfigure anything
    • The bug exists even in new projects
    • CI/CD pipelines may auto-pull vulnerable versions
    • Containers inherit the flaw silently

    Attackers only need a reachable endpoint that uses RSC.

    Post-exploitation techniques observed

    Once execution is achieved, attackers typically test code execution with simple commands such as whoami or file touch operations, then progress to:

    • Reverse shells into Cobalt Strike or similar infrastructures
    • Dropping RATs such as VShell and EtherRAT
    • Deploying SNOWLIGHT loaders for stage-two payload delivery
    • Persisting through new user creation and SSH key insertion
    • Enabling root login on Linux systems
    • Installing RMM tooling like MeshAgent

    Some operators deploy XMRig cryptominers immediately if the environment is not visibly monitored.

    Attackers also abuse bind mounts and hidden directories to conceal tools and logs. Cloudflare Tunnel endpoints (for example *.trycloudflare.com) have been used for payload staging and command channels.

    Credential and token harvesting activity

    Because React applications frequently run adjacent to sensitive workloads, attackers often pivot straight into credential discovery. Observed behavior includes:

    • Querying Azure IMDS for instance tokens
    • Querying AWS, GCP, and Tencent metadata endpoints
    • Running TruffleHog and Gitleaks for repo-based secrets
    • Pulling environment variables for embedded API keys
    • Targeting OpenAI keys, Databricks tokens, and Kubernetes service account tokens
    • Using Azure CLI (az) and Azure Developer CLI (azd) to enumerate and acquire tokens

    From there, lateral movement into cloud control planes and downstream services is possible.

    Container-specific exposure patterns

    Many vulnerable deployments run in containers. Execution inside a container does not automatically stop an attacker. Risk depends on:

    • Host namespace isolation
    • Privileged container status
    • Volume mounts
    • Network segmentation
    • Runtime defenses

    Weakly isolated containers give attackers paths to host-level compromise.

    Detection patterns security teams should expect

    Telemetry tied to React2Shell compromises commonly includes:

    • Suspicious Node.js process behavior
    • Node-spawned shells
    • Encoded PowerShell execution
    • Unexpected service creation
    • Cryptocurrency miner execution
    • Process injection alerts
    • Kerberos ticket abuse
    • Secret discovery patterns
    • Hands-on-keyboard lateral movement

    Reverse shell strings, /dev/tcp/, base64 decoding chains, and bash -i patterns are frequent.

    Identifying whether you are exposed

    Security teams can audit application directories for packages such as:

    react-server-dom-webpack
    react-server-dom-parcel
    react-server-dom-turbopack
    next

    Then validate versions against affected releases, including:

    • React 19.0.0 through 19.2.0
    • Next.js 15.x, early 16.x, and late 14.x canary builds (specific ranges apply)

    If versions match, treat the application as exploitable.

    Patch strategy

    Patching removes the attack path. Fixed versions include:

    • React 19.0.1, 19.1.2, 19.2.1
    • Next.js 15.0.5, 15.1.9, 15.2.6, 15.3.6, 15.4.8, 15.5.7, 16.0.7

    Framework-level updates must be verified to pull corrected dependency trees. Internet-facing workloads should be upgraded first.

    Hardening and compensating controls

    Until fully patched, teams should:

    • Monitor Node.js parent processes for suspicious child execution
    • Flag outbound connections from web processes
    • Centralize logs across endpoint, container, and cloud
    • Apply Web Application Firewall signatures where feasible
    • Accelerate triage of encoded command alerts
    • Validate integrity of SSH authorized_keys
    • Review for unauthorized RMM installation
    • Audit root login configuration

    High-fidelity detection begins with correlation across telemetry layers. Single alerts rarely tell the whole story.

    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.

  • What SMBs Miss When They Rely Only on Automated Security Tools

    What SMBs Miss When They Rely Only on Automated Security Tools

    Small and mid-sized businesses increasingly depend on automated security tools to defend their environments. Endpoint agents, vulnerability scanners, cloud security dashboards, and automated alerting platforms promise broad coverage with minimal staffing. For organizations under cost pressure, automation feels like a rational tradeoff. The issue is not that these tools lack value; it is that automation by itself leaves meaningful gaps that attackers routinely exploit.

    Where Automated Detection Stops Working

    Automated tools operate on predefined logic. They scan for known indicators, flag deviations from expected baselines, and generate alerts based on static or semi-static rules. That works well for commodity threats and basic hygiene problems. It breaks down in situations where context matters. Attackers do not behave like test cases. They blend legitimate activity with malicious intent, chain together low-severity signals, and move slowly enough to stay below automated thresholds. A system that evaluates each alert in isolation often misses the narrative forming across days or weeks.

    Alert Volume Without Context or Prioritization

    Another blind spot involves alert interpretation. Automation can tell you that something happened, but it rarely tells you why it matters. SMBs often accumulate dozens or hundreds of alerts that are technically accurate yet operationally ambiguous. Without experienced analysts reviewing them, teams either ignore the noise or overreact to individual events. Both outcomes increase risk. Missed alerts allow intrusions to mature. Overreaction leads to alert fatigue and misallocated effort, which eventually causes teams to distrust their own tooling.

    Environment Drift and the Limits of Baseline-Driven Tools

    Automated tools also struggle with environment-specific nuance. SMB environments tend to be messy by necessity: legacy systems coexist with cloud services, contractors share access with employees, and permissions grow organically rather than through strict design. Automation assumes clean baselines and consistent configurations. When reality deviates, tools either flag everything or quietly accept risky behavior as normal. Neither result produces reliable security outcomes.

    Why Automated Response Lacks Judgment

    Response is another area where automation falls short. Many tools can isolate a host or block an IP address, but few can make informed decisions during a live incident. Determining whether activity represents testing, misconfiguration, insider misuse, or external compromise requires judgment. That judgment depends on experience, threat intelligence, and familiarity with the organization’s business operations. Automated containment without analysis risks disrupting critical systems or tipping off an attacker before their full scope is known.

    Human Analysis in Modern Security Operations

    This is where SOC as a Service becomes relevant for SMBs. A managed SOC does not replace automation; it operationalizes it. Automated tools generate telemetry, and SOC analysts provide interpretation, correlation, and prioritization. Instead of raw alerts, decision-makers receive incidents that reflect business impact and attacker intent. Patterns that look insignificant in isolation become visible once reviewed across endpoints, identities, email, and network activity.

    Continuous Monitoring and Real-Time Incident Handling

    A SOC as a Service model also brings continuous coverage that SMBs rarely achieve internally. Attacks do not respect business hours, and many intrusions advance overnight or during weekends. Automated tools may log activity, but without real-time review, response is delayed. Managed SOC teams monitor continuously, investigate anomalies as they emerge, and act before attackers gain durable access.

    Using Threat Intelligence to Stay Ahead of Active Campaigns

    Threat intelligence is another differentiator. Automated platforms generally rely on embedded feeds that update on fixed schedules. SOC analysts track active campaigns, shifting techniques, and emerging abuse patterns, then apply that insight to customer environments. That human layer allows defenses to adjust ahead of widespread exploitation rather than after signatures catch up.

    From Alerts to Decisions: Closing the Gap for SMBs

    For SMBs, the decision is less about buying more tools and more about making existing investments effective. Automation provides scale. Human analysis provides meaning. SOC as a Service connects the two by turning security data into decisions and decisions into action. Organizations that rely solely on automation often believe they are covered, right up to the moment an incident proves otherwise.

    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 (12/22/2025)

    Netizen: Monday Security Brief (12/22/2025)

    Today’s Topics:

    • Cisco AsyncOS Zero-Day Actively Exploited in Targeted Email Gateway Intrusions
    • Threat Actors Abuse PuTTY for Lateral Movement and Quiet Data Exfiltration
    • How can Netizen help?

    Cisco AsyncOS Zero-Day Actively Exploited in Targeted Email Gateway Intrusions

    Cisco has issued an urgent warning regarding an actively exploited, maximum-severity zero-day vulnerability affecting Cisco AsyncOS software used by Cisco Secure Email Gateway (SEG) and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager appliances. The flaw, tracked as CVE-2025-20393 with a CVSS score of 10.0, is being weaponized by a China-linked advanced persistent threat actor identified as UAT-9686.

    Cisco disclosed that it became aware of the campaign on December 10, 2025, following evidence of real-world exploitation against a limited subset of appliances that were reachable from the internet. At this stage, the total number of affected organizations remains unknown.

    CVE-2025-20393 stems from improper input validation within AsyncOS. Successful exploitation allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root-level privileges on the underlying operating system of the affected appliance. This grants full control over the device and removes any meaningful security boundary between the application layer and the host OS.

    All versions of Cisco AsyncOS are impacted. Exploitation is conditional rather than universal, requiring a particular feature configuration that exposes a vulnerable attack surface.

    For exploitation to occur, the following conditions must be present on either physical or virtual appliances:

    • The Spam Quarantine feature must be enabled
    • The Spam Quarantine interface must be reachable from the public internet

    Spam Quarantine is not enabled by default, which limits exposure. Cisco has advised administrators to verify whether the feature is active by reviewing interface configuration settings within the web management console. Appliances meeting both conditions represent the primary target population observed in this campaign.

    Cisco’s investigation shows exploitation activity dating back to at least late November 2025. Once access is achieved, UAT-9686 deploys multiple post-exploitation utilities designed for persistence, lateral access, and operational cleanup.

    Observed tooling includes ReverseSSH, also known as AquaTunnel, and Chisel, both of which provide encrypted tunneling capabilities that enable remote command execution and traffic proxying. Cisco also identified the use of a log-cleaning utility called AquaPurge, indicating deliberate efforts to evade forensic analysis.

    A lightweight Python backdoor dubbed AquaShell was also recovered from compromised systems. AquaShell listens passively for unauthenticated HTTP POST requests containing specially crafted payloads. Upon receipt, the backdoor decodes the embedded commands using a custom routine and executes them directly within the system shell. This design allows command-and-control traffic to blend into normal HTTP activity with minimal operational overhead.

    The use of AquaTunnel is consistent with tooling previously attributed to Chinese threat groups such as APT41 and UNC5174, reinforcing Cisco’s attribution assessment.

    Cisco has confirmed that attackers deploy a persistence mechanism that survives standard remediation steps. At present, rebuilding the affected appliance from a known-good state is the only reliable method to fully remove the implanted access. Configuration changes alone are insufficient once compromise has occurred.

    This persistence risk significantly raises the operational impact of the vulnerability, shifting the response from routine patching to full device recovery in confirmed intrusion scenarios.

    No software fix is currently available. Cisco is advising customers to reduce exposure through configuration and network controls until an update is released. Recommended actions include restricting internet access to the Spam Quarantine interface, placing affected appliances behind firewalls that permit traffic only from trusted sources, and separating mail-handling and management functions across distinct network interfaces.

    Cisco also advises disabling HTTP access to the primary administrative portal, reducing the attack surface by shutting down unused services, enforcing stronger authentication mechanisms such as SAML or LDAP, and rotating default administrative credentials.

    Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has added CVE-2025-20393 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies are required to apply mitigations by December 24, 2025, reflecting the severity and active exploitation status of the flaw.

    Separate from the AsyncOS exploitation, GreyNoise has reported a coordinated credential-based campaign targeting enterprise VPN infrastructure. The activity involves large-scale scripted login attempts against Cisco SSL VPN and Palo Alto Networks GlobalProtect portals. More than 10,000 unique IP addresses participated in the activity, which focused on common username and password combinations rather than vulnerability abuse.

    Attack surface intelligence from Censys indicates that at least 220 Cisco Secure Email Gateway instances are currently exposed to the internet. Not all are necessarily vulnerable, though the figure highlights the size of the potential target pool.

    Threat Actors Abuse PuTTY for Lateral Movement and Quiet Data Exfiltration

    Incident responders are seeing a steady rise in attackers abusing PuTTY, the widely used Windows SSH client, as a dual-purpose tool for lateral movement and data exfiltration. Because PuTTY is a legitimate administrative utility, its use blends easily into normal IT workflows, allowing attackers to move through environments with minimal friction and limited detection. In several recent investigations, PuTTY activity remained one of the few reliable artifacts after attackers aggressively removed traditional filesystem evidence.

    PuTTY fits squarely into “living off the land” tradecraft. Rather than introducing custom malware or bespoke tunneling tools, adversaries can rely on binaries that are commonly present in enterprise environments or easily introduced without raising alarms. Utilities such as plink.exe and pscp.exe allow attackers to establish SSH tunnels between compromised systems, pivot laterally across the network, and quietly transfer sensitive files out of the environment.

    From a defender’s perspective, this activity can look indistinguishable from routine administrative access. SSH sessions, file transfers, and encrypted tunnels are expected behaviors on many networks, particularly in mixed Windows and Linux environments. That ambiguity makes PuTTY an effective choice for post-compromise operations.

    Even when attackers delete binaries, scripts, and logs, PuTTY leaves behind durable registry artifacts that can expose their movement. Research highlighted by Maurice Fielenbach shows that PuTTY stores SSH host key information under:

    HKCU\Software\SimonTatham\PuTTY\SshHostKeys

    These registry entries record the destination IP address, port, and host key fingerprint for every SSH connection initiated by the user context. In investigations where event logs were incomplete or wiped, these keys provided a reliable breadcrumb trail of attacker activity. By correlating registry timestamps with authentication logs and network telemetry, responders were able to reconstruct lateral movement paths and identify previously unseen pivot points.

    Recent campaigns underscore how PuTTY abuse often begins earlier in the intrusion lifecycle. SEO-poisoned download campaigns distributing trojanized PuTTY installers have been used to deliver secondary payloads such as the Oyster backdoor. Once footholds are established, attackers pivot internally using SSH and exfiltrate data through outbound HTTP POST requests or tunneled channels.

    Similar SSH-based movement patterns have been documented in ransomware operations such as DarkSide and in activity linked to North Korean threat actors. In each case, attackers favored standard tooling to escalate privileges, maintain persistence, and move laterally without triggering traditional malware signatures.

    Detection remains difficult precisely because PuTTY usage is often legitimate. Endpoint activity alone may not appear suspicious if PuTTY is already installed and used by administrators. The signal typically emerges only when usage patterns deviate from established baselines, such as SSH sessions originating from systems that do not normally initiate them, connections to non-standard ports, or sudden bursts of file transfer activity following an initial compromise.

    Network-focused platforms like Darktrace and similar tools often flag this activity indirectly, for example through anomalous east-west traffic or unexpected encrypted flows leaving the environment. On endpoints, registry-based hunting becomes a critical technique when process execution data is incomplete.

    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.

  • Security-as-a-Service and the Problem of Fragmented Tooling

    Security-as-a-Service and the Problem of Fragmented Tooling

    Security teams often begin with a simple set of tools that match the size of their environment. Over time, though, new cloud platforms, business applications, and compliance obligations introduce more alerts, more data, and more risks. Each new challenge tends to bring another vendor product into the stack. Before long, the security program is made up of disconnected tools that rarely speak to one another and require constant upkeep. This scattered layout drains time, creates uncertainty during investigations, and leaves decision-makers unsure which system holds the most accurate view of an incident.

    How Fragmentation Takes Shape

    Tool sprawl usually happens gradually. An endpoint suite covers the workstation fleet, while a cloud security product monitors API calls. A threat intel feed is added, along with a vulnerability scanner and a separate logging tool that handles only part of the environment. Each one introduces dashboards, custom rules, and its own learning curve. What begins as a practical way to fill capability gaps slowly becomes an environment where no single platform can explain what is happening across the full attack surface.

    This creates a kind of operational drift. Analysts toggle between interfaces to piece together timelines or confirm whether an alert is relevant. Important events blend into background noise simply because they are spread across multiple systems. Even well-trained teams struggle to maintain speed when half their effort is spent validating whether alerts align or conflict.

    Where Security-as-a-Service Fits

    Security-as-a-Service offers a way to pull these pieces back into a unified structure. Instead of adding yet another tool to the list, the service brings monitoring, analysis, and response under one provider responsible for connecting signals from across the environment. The focus shifts from maintaining a maze of products to maintaining a clear understanding of what the environment is doing at any given moment.

    A service-driven approach does not eliminate an organization’s existing technology. It organizes it. Telemetry is collected from the customer’s systems and processed through a common analytical layer, giving analysts a single point of reference. Patterns become easier to trace because the underlying data is normalized rather than scattered. Investigations progress faster since responders do not need to bounce between tools to understand what triggered an alert.

    Closing the Gaps Attackers Rely On

    Fragmented tooling creates blind spots that attackers use to their advantage. An adversary compromising an identity service may leave traces in places that an endpoint tool would never see. A suspicious cloud API call may never reach a traditional SIEM unless it is configured precisely. Security-as-a-Service helps close these gaps by examining behavior as a whole instead of as isolated data points.

    When activity is analyzed together, it becomes easier to spot signs of credential theft, privilege misuse, shadow SaaS usage, or lateral movement attempts that span platforms. This integrated view improves the timing of detection and lowers the chance that a small but important anomaly will be overlooked.

    Reducing Operational Noise

    One of the strongest benefits of Security-as-a-Service is the reduction of noise within the security stack. Instead of treating each alert as a stand-alone event, the service groups related signals, applies context, and delivers findings that have already been examined by trained analysts. This eases workload pressure and allows internal teams to concentrate on the issues that actually require attention.

    The shift also reduces the burden of upkeep. Many organizations struggle with tool maintenance, patching, new feature rollouts, and tuning. A managed service absorbs much of that operational strain. The customer still maintains control of decisions and priorities but no longer needs to manage the constant administrative load that comes with a scattered set of products.

    A More Adaptable Way to Scale Security

    As organizations adopt new cloud platforms or launch new services, their security needs rarely grow at the same pace. Fragmented tooling becomes stretched thin during periods of rapid expansion, forcing internal teams to revisit integration work or add yet another product to the mix. Security-as-a-Service adapts more easily by expanding analytical capacity, adding data sources, or adjusting monitoring approaches without requiring the customer to redesign their security architecture.

    This adaptability supports a healthier long-term posture. Instead of reacting to each new risk with another tool purchase, organizations gain an overarching layer that evolves with them and maintains consistent visibility through periods of change.

    Building a Clearer and More Manageable Security Model

    Fragmentation is not a sign of failure. It is a byproduct of growth, evolving technology, and the steady increase of attack surface complexity. Still, it creates unnecessary challenges that slow down investigations and cloud leadership’s ability to understand the organization’s real exposure.

    Security-as-a-Service provides a path forward by shifting focus from individual tools to unified outcomes. It brings structure to detection, context to alerts, and clarity to investigations, creating a security program that is easier to manage and more capable of identifying threats that cross boundaries between systems.

    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.

  • Why CBP Is Treating Quantum Threats as a Present-Day National Security Risk

    Why CBP Is Treating Quantum Threats as a Present-Day National Security Risk

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection is moving into a decisive phase of its quantum preparedness program as it approaches 2026. Senior leadership has framed this effort as a necessary response to long-term cryptographic risk rather than a speculative research exercise. The focus centers on protecting sensitive government data against future cryptanalytic breakthroughs tied to large-scale quantum computing, with post-quantum cryptography positioned as a core defensive control.

    CBP’s role as a border security and law enforcement agency places it at the center of high-value data flows. These include biometric identifiers, traveler records, targeting intelligence, law-enforcement communications, and interagency operational data. Much of this information retains sensitivity for decades, making it vulnerable to “harvest now, decrypt later” collection strategies already used by advanced adversaries.

    Post-Quantum Cryptography as a Defensive Baseline

    CBP began structured post-quantum cryptography work several years ago in coordination with federal partners, including NIST. That early alignment matters. Quantum-resistant algorithms introduce changes across key management, certificate lifecycles, authentication protocols, VPN architectures, and embedded systems. Migration timelines in large enterprises often stretch across many years, especially in environments with legacy infrastructure and mission-critical uptime requirements.

    Quantum-capable adversaries would be able to undermine widely deployed public-key systems such as RSA and ECC through Shor’s algorithm. That outcome would collapse trust in digital signatures, TLS sessions, secure email, software update chains, and identity systems that rely on asymmetric cryptography. For a federal agency with global data exchange and persistent intelligence value, exposure would not begin at the moment quantum machines mature; it already exists through silent collection of encrypted traffic.

    CBP’s stated objective of preventing data harvesting signals a shift from passive readiness to proactive cryptographic hardening. Deploying NIST-selected PQC algorithms at scale reduces the future payoff of intercepted data, even if quantum computing advances faster than projected.

    Enterprise-Scale Implications for Federal Infrastructure

    Post-quantum migration is not a single technology swap. It forces changes across hardware security modules, smart cards, mobile devices, IoT endpoints, cloud services, and partner integrations. Key sizes increase, performance profiles change, and some constrained environments face non-trivial engineering tradeoffs.

    CBP’s approach suggests recognition that cryptographic agility must become an architectural property rather than a compliance checkbox. Systems designed to rotate algorithms, certificates, and trust anchors without service disruption place agencies in a stronger defensive position as standards continue to evolve.

    Operational Uses of Quantum Computing

    Beyond defensive cryptography, CBP is also moving toward limited operational use of quantum computing for optimization problems. Access to a quantum computer for experimental workloads allows exploration of areas where classical methods struggle with combinatorial complexity.

    One cited application involves optimizing communications tower placement to improve data exchange with agents and officers in the field. These problems involve terrain modeling, signal propagation, coverage overlap, and redundancy constraints. Quantum optimization techniques may offer performance gains in evaluating large solution spaces, even at current hardware maturity levels.

    CBP has also referenced movement away from flat, two-dimensional network planning models toward three-dimensional analysis for line-of-sight communications. That shift reflects a broader trend in mission networks, where spatial awareness, environmental modeling, and dynamic topology analysis improve reliability in contested or remote environments.

    Security Drivers Behind the Timeline

    Quantum readiness is being framed as a race against adversary adaptation rather than a distant research milestone. Nation-state intelligence services and transnational criminal groups already invest heavily in long-term data collection. Cryptographic transitions that wait for visible quantum breakthroughs arrive too late to protect historical data.

    Federal agencies face added pressure due to statutory data retention requirements, cross-border information sharing, and dependence on commercial technology stacks that change slowly. Early movement toward PQC creates time to test interoperability, performance impact, and failure modes before adoption becomes mandatory across government.

    A Shift in Federal Technology Posture

    CBP leadership has characterized its approach as moving away from incremental modernization toward faster, more decisive change. Quantum technology acts as a forcing function for that posture. It touches security architecture, network engineering, vendor relationships, and workforce skill sets at once.

    As 2026 approaches, CBP’s progress will likely serve as a reference model for other federal entities assessing how to integrate quantum-resistant security controls and selective quantum computing use into operational environments without waiting for crisis-driven mandates.

    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.

  • What Is a Rootkit?

    What Is a Rootkit?

    A rootkit is a class of post-exploitation malware built to preserve long-term, privileged access to a compromised system while actively concealing its presence. Unlike most malware families that prioritize immediate payload execution or data theft, a rootkit exists to subvert visibility itself. It alters how an operating system reports processes, files, memory, network activity, and security events, allowing attackers to operate inside an environment without triggering normal detection mechanisms.

    Rootkits achieve this by interfering with trusted system components. These include kernel subsystems, bootloaders, firmware interfaces, shared libraries, and virtualization layers. Once installed, a rootkit can mask secondary malware, suppress security tooling, interfere with logs, and reestablish attacker access even after partial remediation. Their value lies in dwell time. Rootkits give adversaries the space needed to stage follow-on actions such as credential theft, lateral movement, ransomware deployment, or espionage.

    Rootkits as a Post-Exploitation Capability

    A rootkit is not an initial access mechanism. It does not deliver itself through phishing or exploit chains in isolation. Its role begins after compromise, once an attacker has achieved administrative or kernel-level execution. At that stage, the rootkit becomes an infrastructure component for the intrusion rather than the intrusion itself.

    Within MITRE ATT&CK, rootkit activity maps to defense evasion and persistence techniques. T1014 (Rootkit) captures kernel- and user-space manipulation, while T1542.003 (Bootkit) reflects compromise of the boot process. These techniques often reinforce others such as process injection, credential dumping, scheduled task abuse, or covert command-and-control staging. In practice, the rootkit is the layer that keeps those behaviors hidden.

    Terminology and Placement

    The term “rootkit” is often used broadly, though it covers several distinct implementations based on execution depth. Bootkits operate before the operating system loads. Kernel-mode rootkits execute inside ring 0. Firmware implants reside below the OS entirely. Hypervisor rootkits insert themselves beneath the guest operating system using virtualization features. User-mode rootkits remain in process space and manipulate APIs or shared libraries.

    These are not interchangeable from a detection or response perspective. Each location represents a different trust boundary and a different failure point for defensive tooling.

    Historical Development

    Early rootkits emerged in Unix environments during the 1990s. They modified userland utilities such as ps, ls, and netstat so malicious processes or network connections would never be displayed. Defensive tooling adapted, which forced attackers deeper into the operating system.

    Kernel-level rootkits followed, intercepting system calls directly rather than modifying binaries. This removed reliance on disk artifacts and bypassed integrity checks. Modern variants extend even further. UEFI rootkits execute before the kernel and survive OS reinstallation. Hypervisor rootkits exploit hardware virtualization to monitor and manipulate a system from outside the guest OS. Cloud-oriented rootkits embed persistence into container runtimes, shared images, or orchestration layers where endpoint tooling has limited reach.

    As infrastructure moved toward ephemeral workloads and abstracted platforms, visibility gaps widened. Rootkits exploit those gaps.

    Rootkit Taxonomy

    User-Mode Rootkits

    User-mode rootkits execute inside normal process space. They hook application programming interfaces, replace shared libraries, or inject code into trusted services. Their purpose is output manipulation. File listings, registry queries, process enumeration, and network calls are filtered before reaching security tools.

    Deployment is relatively simple and does not require kernel exploits. Detection is more achievable with mature EDR telemetry and memory inspection, though they still evade basic monitoring.

    Kernel-Mode Rootkits

    Kernel rootkits operate inside the OS kernel and override core functionality. They hook system call tables, patch kernel modules, or register malicious drivers. From this position, they can hide processes, sockets, files, and even security agents themselves.

    On Windows, these rootkits often abuse signed drivers or exploit kernel vulnerabilities to bypass enforcement. On Linux, malicious loadable kernel modules override functions such as readdir() or /proc enumeration. Stability and persistence increase sharply at this layer.

    Bootkits

    Bootkits compromise the bootloader and execute before the kernel initializes. Their code runs at startup, patches kernel memory, and launches secondary payloads long before endpoint agents load. Disk-based scans and OS reinstallations do not remove them unless boot records are fully rewritten.

    Bootkits often appear alongside firmware manipulation or disk encryption abuse in advanced intrusion sets.

    Firmware Rootkits

    Firmware rootkits infect BIOS, UEFI, or embedded device firmware. They reside outside the operating system and reintroduce malware during every boot cycle. Visibility from the OS is effectively nonexistent.

    Remediation requires hardware reflashing with verified images. Several publicly documented campaigns have demonstrated firmware implants used for espionage, particularly in long-term access operations.

    Hypervisor Rootkits

    Hypervisor rootkits leverage hardware virtualization to insert a malicious layer beneath the operating system. The target OS runs as a guest, unaware that execution is being monitored and modified. All activity becomes observable and alterable by the attacker.

    Detection from within the guest is extremely difficult. Telemetry must come from the host, firmware, or hardware attestation layers.

    Library and Runtime Rootkits

    Library rootkits replace or hijack shared system libraries. On Linux, LD_PRELOAD abuse is common. On Windows, system DLL replacement or sideloading achieves similar outcomes. These rootkits alter program behavior without modifying the kernel, often filtering outputs or redirecting execution paths.

    Cloud and Container Rootkits

    In cloud-native environments, rootkit functionality is embedded into container images, init containers, daemonsets, or node-level services. Persistence is achieved through orchestration mechanisms rather than traditional startup paths. Some attacks rely on permissive IAM roles rather than local privilege escalation.

    Visibility is complicated by shared infrastructure and transient workloads.

    Installation and Execution Flow

    Rootkits require elevated execution. Attackers obtain this through credential abuse, kernel exploits, signed driver misuse, or supply chain compromise. Once privileges are available, the rootkit modifies system behavior at its chosen layer.

    On Windows systems, kernel rootkits hook SSDT entries or register malicious drivers. On Linux, kernel modules override filesystem and process enumeration functions. Firmware rootkits write directly to flash regions. Hypervisor rootkits manipulate virtualization extensions.

    Once active, the rootkit’s first priority is concealment. Secondary tooling is then deployed under its protection.

    Role in the Attack Lifecycle

    Rootkits appear after initial access and privilege escalation. Their presence marks a transition from intrusion to occupation. They cloak lateral movement tooling, credential access activity, tunneling utilities, and data staging operations.

    In ransomware campaigns, rootkits delay detection and interfere with response tooling. In espionage operations, they suppress audit trails and extend dwell time. In cryptomining cases, they hide resource consumption and block security agents.

    Their value lies in persistence and deception rather than payload execution.

    Detection Challenges and Indicators

    Rootkits target the mechanisms defenders trust. Logs disappear. Processes fail to enumerate. Drivers load without visibility. Detection relies on identifying inconsistencies rather than signatures.

    On Windows systems, unregistered kernel drivers, resource consumption without visible processes, and conflicting registry query results raise concern. On Linux systems, discrepancies between raw disk views and directory listings, missing processes in ps that appear in /proc, or abnormal syscall table entries are common indicators.

    Memory analysis is often required. Rootkits unlink themselves from standard enumeration paths. Volatile memory still contains overwritten pointers, rogue kernel objects, and injected code.

    SIEM and XDR platforms should correlate telemetry across layers. Disk activity that lacks process lineage, network traffic from signed drivers, or kernel behavior that deviates from baseline merit investigation.

    Memory Forensics and Rootkit Exposure

    When disk and runtime telemetry fail, memory remains the final source of truth. Kernel objects cannot fully erase themselves from RAM. Analysts use memory snapshots to identify hidden drivers, altered syscall tables, and direct kernel object manipulation artifacts.

    Comparing in-memory structures to known-good kernel images exposes subversion that no log will show. Memory analysis demands skill and effort, though it remains one of the few reliable methods against advanced rootkits.

    Prevention and Hardening Strategy

    Rootkit defense begins below the operating system. Secure boot, driver enforcement, and firmware integrity controls are foundational. Unsigned kernel modules should be blocked. Firmware updates should be verified. Privileged access should be constrained and audited.

    Endpoint tooling must extend into kernel telemetry and integrity monitoring. File integrity baselines, boot chain validation, and memory visibility reduce blind spots. In cloud environments, hardened base images, restricted IAM roles, and workload attestation limit persistence paths.

    Reinstalling an operating system without validating firmware or boot components does not restore trust.

    Incident Response for Rootkit Compromise

    Suspected rootkit infections require containment without destroying evidence. Systems should be isolated but kept powered when possible to preserve volatile artifacts. Memory and disk acquisition should occur before remediation.

    Trust must be rebuilt from verified sources. Bare-metal reinstallation, firmware reflashing, and image replacement are often required. In cloud environments, instances should be terminated and rebuilt from validated templates.

    Root cause analysis must identify the privilege escalation vector that enabled installation. Without addressing that path, reinfection remains likely.

    Engagement of specialized incident response teams is appropriate when firmware or hypervisor compromise is suspected.

    Rootkit FAQs

    How do rootkits remain hidden for long periods of time?

    Rootkits remain hidden by altering how the operating system reports its own state. Rather than stopping security queries outright, many rootkits intercept and modify responses so that tools receive sanitized results. File listings omit malicious artifacts, process enumeration excludes attacker-controlled threads, and network utilities fail to show active connections. This approach preserves system stability and reduces the chance of user-visible failures that would prompt investigation.

    At deeper levels, kernel and firmware rootkits modify internal data structures or execution paths so that monitoring tools rely on already-compromised information sources. Once visibility itself is corrupted, conventional detection loses reliability.

    Why are rootkits difficult for EDR and antivirus tools to detect?

    Most endpoint tools operate at the same or higher abstraction level than the operating system they monitor. A kernel-mode or firmware-level rootkit executes below those tools, allowing it to manipulate the data they depend on. If process lists, file metadata, or kernel callbacks are altered before EDR inspection occurs, the security tool observes a false representation of the system.

    Signature-based detection also struggles since many rootkits use custom loaders, encrypted payloads, or legitimate signed drivers. Detection relies less on known indicators and more on behavioral inconsistencies across system layers.

    What role does memory forensics play in rootkit detection?

    Memory forensics provides visibility into execution state that disk and log analysis cannot offer. Even when a rootkit hides files, drivers, or services from the operating system, its code and modified kernel structures still exist in volatile memory. Analysts can identify discrepancies by reconstructing kernel object lists, inspecting syscall tables, and comparing in-memory structures to known-good baselines.

    This technique is resource-intensive and requires specialized expertise, though it remains one of the few reliable options against advanced kernel and firmware rootkits.

    What is Direct Kernel Object Manipulation (DKOM) in practical terms?

    DKOM refers to the direct modification of kernel data structures in memory without using standard system APIs. A rootkit using DKOM may remove its process from linked lists that tools like Task Manager or ps rely on, even though the process continues executing normally. Network connections, drivers, and registry objects can be hidden using the same method.

    Since no API calls are involved, security tools that monitor function usage or driver registration events often miss DKOM-based activity entirely.

    Can a system be trusted after a rootkit infection?

    Once a rootkit is confirmed, system trust is fundamentally broken. The operating system can no longer be assumed to report accurate information about its own state. Even if malware appears removed, hidden persistence mechanisms may still exist at the kernel, bootloader, or firmware level.

    Restoring trust requires rebuilding from verified installation media and validating firmware integrity. In some cases, hardware replacement or firmware reflashing becomes necessary to eliminate residual risk.

    Are rootkits used by cybercriminals or only nation-state actors?

    Both groups use rootkits, though sophistication varies. Nation-state actors often deploy firmware or boot-level rootkits for long-term surveillance and reentry. Criminal groups tend to favor kernel-mode rootkits to hide credential theft tools, cryptominers, or ransomware staging activity. Public cases show sustained use across espionage, financially motivated attacks, and large botnet operations.

    Rootkits no longer indicate exclusivity to advanced intelligence services. They represent a practical tool for any actor seeking extended dwell time.

    What security controls reduce the risk of rootkit installation?

    Controls that restrict privileged execution reduce exposure significantly. Enforcing secure boot, blocking unsigned drivers, limiting kernel module loading, and restricting firmware updates narrow the attack surface. Strong credential hygiene and least-privilege access reduce the likelihood that attackers can reach the execution level rootkits require.

    Visibility below user space also matters. Kernel telemetry, boot-chain validation, integrity monitoring, and memory-aware detection increase the chance of identifying tampering before long-term persistence is established.

    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 (12/15/2025)

    Netizen: Monday Security Brief (12/15/2025)

    Today’s Topics:

    • Featured Browser Extensions Caught Harvesting AI Chat Data at Scale
    • Actively Exploited WinRAR Flaw Draws Multiple APT Groups and CISA Action
    • How can Netizen help?

    Featured Browser Extensions Caught Harvesting AI Chat Data at Scale

    A Chrome browser extension promoted as a trusted, “Featured” tool has been caught quietly collecting AI chat conversations at massive scale, raising serious questions about extension marketplace oversight and user consent in AI-heavy workflows.

    Urban VPN Proxy, a Chrome extension with roughly six million users and a 4.7-star rating, was found intercepting and exporting every prompt and response exchanged with major AI platforms. That includes ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, Grok, Meta AI, DeepSeek, and Perplexity. The same extension also reports more than 1.3 million installs on Microsoft Edge.

    The behavior was introduced in version 5.5.0, released July 9, 2025. From that point forward, AI data harvesting was active by default, controlled through hard-coded settings rather than user configuration. Anyone using the extension for its advertised VPN functionality effectively received new surveillance code without meaningful notice or opt-in.

    The technical mechanism is direct and difficult for users to observe. The extension injects platform-specific JavaScript files into AI chat sessions, including scripts such as chatgpt.js and gemini.js. Once active, those scripts override standard browser networking interfaces, intercepting both fetch() and XMLHttpRequest() calls. Every AI interaction is routed through the extension before being sent onward, allowing the full conversation to be captured.

    Captured data includes user prompts, AI responses, session identifiers, timestamps, platform details, and related metadata. That information is then transmitted to remote infrastructure controlled by Urban VPN, including analytics and statistics endpoints under the company’s domain.

    Koi Security, which disclosed the activity, noted the practical risk created by automatic extension updates. Users who installed Urban VPN months or years earlier for basic proxy services woke up to a version that harvested sensitive AI conversations without fresh consent or clear disclosure. From a security perspective, that change materially alters the threat profile of the extension.

    Urban VPN’s privacy policy was updated shortly before the release, acknowledging that AI prompts and outputs are collected. The policy frames the practice as support for “safe browsing” and marketing analytics, claiming that data is filtered, de-identified, and aggregated. At the same time, the company concedes that sensitive information may still be processed and that complete removal of personal data cannot be guaranteed.

    More concerning is the downstream data-sharing model. One of the listed recipients of collected browsing data is BIScience, an ad intelligence and brand monitoring firm that owns Urban Cyber Security Inc. The policy states that BIScience receives raw, non-anonymized data to generate commercial insights shared with business partners.

    That relationship is not new. Earlier this year, independent researchers accused BIScience of collecting detailed clickstream data through third-party browser extensions under misleading disclosures. According to those findings, BIScience supplies SDKs to extension developers that funnel browsing data to infrastructure under its control, exploiting policy carve-outs in Chrome’s Limited Use requirements.

    Urban VPN markets an “AI protection” feature that warns users when prompts contain personal data or when AI responses include suspicious links. The presentation suggests user safety controls. What it does not disclose is that AI conversation harvesting continues whether that feature is enabled or disabled.

    As Koi Security described it, users receive warnings about sharing sensitive data with AI providers while the extension simultaneously sends that same data to its own servers for resale. From a risk standpoint, the protection messaging functions more as cover than control.

    The issue extends beyond a single extension. Koi Security identified identical AI interception logic in three other tools published by the same developer: 1ClickVPN Proxy, Urban Browser Guard, and Urban Ad Blocker. Combined, those extensions account for more than eight million installs across Chrome and Edge. Most carry “Featured” badges, signaling platform endorsement and quality review.

    That badge carries weight. For many users, it represents an implicit trust signal from Google or Microsoft. Security teams often treat featured extensions as lower risk during audits. This case shows how easily that trust can be abused.

    The broader takeaway is not limited to Urban VPN. AI chat interfaces now sit at the center of sensitive workflows. Users draft legal language, troubleshoot production systems, discuss health concerns, and disclose internal business context through these tools. Browser extensions operate at exactly the layer where that data passes in clear view.

    Actively Exploited WinRAR Flaw Draws Multiple APT Groups and CISA Action

    CISA has added a WinRAR vulnerability to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog following confirmation that multiple threat groups are actively abusing the flaw in real-world attacks.

    The issue, tracked as CVE-2025-6218 and rated 7.8 on the CVSS scale, is a path traversal vulnerability in WinRAR for Windows. Successful exploitation allows an attacker to place files outside the intended extraction directory, opening a path to unintended code execution under the current user’s context. Exploitation hinges on user interaction, typically through opening a malicious archive delivered via phishing or visiting a hostile webpage.

    RARLAB addressed the vulnerability in WinRAR version 7.12, released in June 2025. Only Windows builds are affected. Unix-based and Android versions remain unaffected.

    At a technical level, the flaw enables attackers to write files into sensitive locations such as the Windows Startup folder or application template paths. This behavior can establish persistence that triggers execution on system startup or during normal application use, without relying on exploits that immediately draw attention from endpoint defenses.

    Multiple security firms, including BI.ZONE, Foresiet, SecPod, and Synaptic Security, have documented exploitation by at least three distinct threat groups. The campaigns show consistent use of phishing-delivered RAR archives and deliberate targeting rather than indiscriminate mass distribution.

    One set of attacks has been attributed to the Russian-linked group tracked as GOFFEE, also known as Paper Werewolf. BI.ZONE reported that the group combined CVE-2025-6218 with another WinRAR path traversal flaw, CVE-2025-8088, during phishing campaigns observed in July 2025. The activity focused on organizations inside Russia and relied on carefully crafted archives to place malicious files in execution paths.

    The vulnerability has also been weaponized by the South Asia-focused Bitter APT, tracked as APT-C-08 or Manlinghua. Foresiet’s analysis shows the group using malicious RAR files that include a legitimate Word document alongside a malicious macro template. During extraction, the archive drops a weaponized Normal.dotm file into Microsoft Word’s global template directory.

    Normal.dotm loads automatically every time Word is opened. By replacing the legitimate template, the attacker achieves persistent macro execution without relying on subsequent phishing emails or user interaction. This approach bypasses many email-based macro defenses since the malicious behavior occurs after the initial compromise.

    Once persistence is established, Bitter deploys a lightweight downloader that retrieves a C# trojan from external infrastructure hosted at johnfashionaccess[.]com. The payload supports keylogging, screenshot collection, credential harvesting from RDP sessions, and file exfiltration. Campaign telemetry suggests spear-phishing remains the primary delivery method.

    CVE-2025-6218 has also appeared in campaigns attributed to Gamaredon, a Russian state-aligned group known for sustained operations against Ukrainian government and military entities. In activity first observed in November 2025, the group used malicious WinRAR archives to deploy malware known as Pteranodon.

    Researchers assessing the campaign described it as deliberate and mission-focused, aligning with military-oriented intelligence collection and disruption rather than opportunistic cybercrime. Follow-on analysis shows Gamaredon also abusing CVE-2025-8088 to deploy Visual Basic Script malware and a destructive wiper dubbed GamaWiper.

    ClearSky assessed this activity as the first confirmed instance of Gamaredon engaging in destructive operations rather than its traditional espionage-focused tradecraft. That shift increases the risk profile of unpatched systems, particularly inside government and defense environments.

    Given confirmed exploitation, CISA has directed Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies to remediate affected WinRAR installations by December 30, 2025. Organizations outside the federal space should treat the timeline as a practical benchmark rather than a compliance formality.

    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.

  • Abusing Shared Drives for Quiet Lateral Movement

    Abusing Shared Drives for Quiet Lateral Movement

    Attackers looking to move sideways inside a network increasingly treat shared file stores, on-prem SMB/CIFS shares, collaboration drives, and cloud file services, as low-risk highways for staging, discovery, and quiet data collection. These locations are attractive because they are widely trusted, broadly accessible, and rarely monitored closely enough to catch subtle behavior. Lateral movement through file shares lets an adversary expand access without noisy scans or obvious remote execution attempts, often succeeding long before defenders notice anything unusual.

    How Threat Actors Use Shared Drives

    Adversaries use shared drives in several ways. They drop reconnaissance tools, scripts, or encrypted archives into folders where service accounts or administrators will eventually access them. They hide tooling inside harmless-looking filenames or deeply nested folders and rely on routine user actions to trigger execution or movement. When cloud storage is available, attackers can shift staging and exfiltration into remote accounts under their control, which makes detection even more difficult. This fits into the broader pattern of living off trusted services instead of relying on noisy exploits.

    Why Shared Drives Work Well for Quiet Lateral Movement

    Shared drives are busy environments by design. Users copy files constantly, sync folders across devices, and run automated tasks that generate steady background noise. That noise makes it easy for attackers to hide small deviations, such as a new executable or a large archive dropping into a common folder. Weak permissions, legacy share configurations, and wide write access contribute to the problem. In hybrid environments, attackers can also pivot between on-prem shares and cloud collaboration drives, where trust models differ and oversight is inconsistent.

    Common Techniques Observed

    A typical attack path looks like this: foothold on a workstation, reconnaissance to locate writable or commonly accessed shares, staging of scripts or payloads, and then using legitimate processes, scheduled tasks, sync tools, backup software, or service accounts, to move code or credentials deeper into the environment. Credential theft often plays a supporting role. Once an attacker captures usable tokens or hashes, they can access more shares and deploy more staged tools without generating obvious red flags. Because the approach blends in with normal behavior, dwell time increases and response becomes harder.

    Detection Challenges

    Catching this activity is difficult because file creation, movement, and deletion events are high volume and rarely filtered with security in mind. Many environments forward these events into logging platforms without linking them to identity or process behavior, which reduces visibility and increases fatigue. Successful detection usually requires establishing baselines: who normally writes to a given share, which processes interact with shared folders, and how service accounts move across systems. Attack-path mapping also helps, since the relationships between identities, hosts, and shares often reveal the routes attackers prefer.

    Practical Mitigations That Reduce Risk

    Risk drops considerably when organizations strengthen access control, tighten permissions, and improve visibility around shared storage.

    Start with access cleanup. Remove broad write rights, restrict legacy shares, and review service accounts that touch multiple systems. Enforce secure authentication where possible and, for cloud drives, monitor third-party app consents and permissions granted to automation tools. File integrity monitoring helps when paired with process and identity telemetry, because an unexpected write by a rarely used account or a desktop process writing archives to a server becomes much harder to overlook.

    Combine this with attack-path analysis. Understanding how users, groups, and systems connect makes it easier to predict the lateral routes an attacker would choose. Treat shared drives as part of the identity surface rather than just storage, and aim for monitoring that ties file events to real user behavior. Tabletop exercises focused on file-based staging can uncover operational blind spots before a real attacker finds them.

    What To Do When You Find Staging Artifacts

    If you discover suspicious files or scripts on a shared drive, start with containment and context. Limit access to the affected share or narrow the permissions used to drop the artifact. Capture metadata, timestamps, ACLs, and the host that created or modified the file, and search for similar files across other shares. Check account activity around the time of the write and look for related scheduled tasks, process launches, or signs of credential misuse. Preserve evidence before cleaning anything up and coordinate with system owners to avoid breaking legitimate workflows. These steps help determine how far the attacker progressed and whether other systems have been touched.

    Balancing Operations and Security

    Hardening shared filesystems often requires cooperation across storage teams, identity teams, and security teams. Start with the highest-risk shares and accounts, and phase changes carefully so you don’t disrupt business operations. Improving telemetry and conducting regular threat hunts focused on file-based staging will shorten dwell time and reduce the chance that an attacker uses shared drives as a quiet highway through the network.

    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.