• Cyberattack hits operational technology at more than 30 Minnesota community water systems, briefly taking treatment plant offline and forcing several towns onto manual operations
• A leaked WaterISAC memo obtained by WIRED relays a state fusion center assessment tying the intrusions to Iranian-affiliated hackers, but no US agency has formally attributed the attack yet
• The CISA had warned four days earlier that Iranian-affiliated actors were compromising internet-facing PLCs, repeating guidance that has mostly fallen on deaf ears

More than 30 community water systems across Minnesota were hit by a coordinated cyberattack, targeting the operational technology running pumps, wells, water towers, and wastewater lift stations rather than the office networks behind them.

Minnesota IT Services disclosed the attack on July 28 2026 and activated a statewide incident response, stating that it wasn't aware of any Minnesota city asking residents to change their drinking water use just yet.

A memo obtained by Wired, circulated by the water sector information-sharing group WaterISAC and carrying a restricted TLP: AMBER handling marking, relays a Minnesota state fusion center assessment that ties the intrusions to Iranian-affiliated hackers.

A warning that was more or less ignored

Four days before the attacks, CISA updated an advisory, AA26-097A, warning that Iranian-affiliated actors were compromising internet-facing programmable logic controllers made by Rockwell Automation, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and possibly others across the US water, energy, and government sectors. It documented confirmed disruptions and financial losses.

This drew no immediate response from state functionaries, and it is easy to see why: the US has tens of thousands of community water systems that serve small populations and lack budgets for dedicated cybersecurity staff.

This is despite there being a precedent: Iranian-linked actors hit the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa in Pennsylvania in November 2023, defacing a Unitronics controller with an anti-Israel message. CISA said at the time those devices were exposed to the internet with default passwords still in place. The advice issued then is the same advice being issued this week, which is telling about how little has changed since.

The WaterISAC memo, dated the day the attacks concluded, passes on a state fusion center report linking the activity to Iranian-affiliated actors. That memo was not meant to be public, but it has been corroborated by The New York Times and The Washington Post, which reported that they spoke to federal officials and US intelligence agencies, respectively, lending credence to the claims.

CISA later warned that attackers are changing PLC passwords to lock operators out of their own equipment, and repeated the advice that has been unchanged for years: get PLCs off the public internet and put remote access behind a VPN or gateway.

Who was affected?

The worst of the cyberattack hit Braham, a town of roughly 1,700 people, where the city said attackers shut down the operating controls, taking the water treatment plant and the well offline. Crews restored it manually within a couple of hours, and residents were told to minimize water use in the meantime.

Plymouth, a Minneapolis suburb of about 80,000, found the problem confined to equipment connected over cellular links at two water towers and several wastewater lift stations. Its IT division disconnected the affected kit from the network entirely to stop the attack and prevent retargeting during reconfiguration.

Maple Plain declared a local state of emergency to manage its response, and South St. Paul reported that some automated controls were compromised. In most cases, contingency procedures held and water and wastewater operations continued.

None of this is happening in a vacuum, however. The June memorandum that paused fighting between the US and Iran has broken down, and both are trading strikes, including recent US attacks near the Strait of Hormuz that destroyed a water facility and cut supply to more than 20,000 people. Whoever carried out the Minnesota attacks, the symbolism of targeting municipal water is unlikely to be accidental.

The damage that these intrusions caused was limited; they produced brief outages that trained staff fixed by hand. That is an outcome with a silver lining, and it depended on utilities having people who knew how to run a treatment plant without its automation, even if its digital defenses collapsed outright.

• Instructions hidden as white text in a Word document can make Microsoft 365 Copilot silently alter the file it is drafting and copy the instructions into the output
• Each poisoned document becomes a carrier, so the attack spreads through ordinary internal workflows without the original malicious file and needs no macros, malware, or code execution
• Microsoft has shipped two mitigations across a 144-day disclosure, including a model upgrade, and the attack was still reproducible by the researcher

A security researcher has published a proof of concept showing that instructions hidden inside a Word document can cause Microsoft 365 Copilot to silently alter the file it is drafting, then copy those same instructions into the finished document, so the next person to use it becomes a carrier too.

Håkon Måløy, a data scientist with a doctorate in applied machine learning, disclosed the technique as the third installment of his Context Collapse series, after a 144-day coordinated disclosure with the Microsoft Security Response Center.

The reason this is being reported ahead of a fix is that it still works despite multiple attempts by Microsoft, as he notes that no robust mitigation for the broader vulnerability class is currently available.

A clever attack designed around Copilot's approach to text

The underlying attack belongs to a family known as cross-domain prompt injection, or XPIA. An attacker writes instructions in a natural-language document, formats them as white text on a white background at a small point size, and shares the file.

Because Copilot for Word strips formatting before passing text to the underlying language model, the model reads text the human never sees. This is true even for documents that are not opened by the user on purpose: The attack can trigger either when a user manually attaches a document to Copilot or when Copilot, working in Work IQ mode, searches the user's OneDrive for relevant files and finds the malicious one on its own.

It is also more dangerous than other exploits because of one key element: propagation. The hidden prompt in Måløy's proof of concept had two parts. One instructed Copilot to alter the document being drafted, in his demonstration halving every financial figure in a quarterly report.

The other instructed Copilot to copy the prompt into the new document and conceal it, framed innocuously as source tracking and readability formatting. Copilot did both, appending the instructions in white text and mentioning neither action to the user.

The disclosure timeline is the most uncomfortable part of the report. Måløy reported to MSRC on March 6 2026. Microsoft confirmed the behavior on March 31 and shipped a first mitigation in early April via a reworked Edit with Copilot experience, which successfully blocked his original prompt wording. He reproduced the attack with different wording the same week, and a second case was opened.

The second fix, on July 14, consisted of upgrading the underlying model to GPT-5.5. Måløy broke it the following day using GPT-5.6, then voluntarily offered Microsoft a further two-week delay to attempt another mitigation. The class still reproduced on the disclosure date, indicating that although a fix is in the works, the exploit is still possible to run.

A complicated issue that lacks a proper resolution

The issue goes far beyond Microsoft Word: an AI assistant must ingest untrusted content to determine whether it is relevant or hostile. But the content enters the same context window as the system prompt and the user's actual request, so by the time the model evaluates whether the text is an attack, the attacker's tokens have already shaped that evaluation.

As Måløy puts it, "the content being inspected participates in the act of inspection."

Microsoft confirmed it had reviewed the findings in a statement to The Register but stopped short of indicating a timeline for a complete fix:

“We have addressed the findings reported by the researcher and thank them for working with us through coordinated vulnerability disclosure," the company said.

"To address this class of risk, we use a defense-in-depth strategy with safeguards that block malicious instructions at multiple points and help keep tasks aligned with users’ requests. We are continuously strengthening these safeguards as the technology and threat landscape evolve. We encourage customers to install the latest updates, use multiple layers of security protection, treat content from unknown sources with caution, and review AI-generated content before using or sharing it.”

Måløy's recommendations are to treat externally sourced documents as untrusted when using them with Copilot, review attachments before starting an AI-assisted draft, and review Copilot's output carefully before sharing or reusing it.

He also suggested that generated documents should carry provenance metadata that records source material and model edits, which would not prevent injection but would make an infection traceable after the fact.

With Copilot extending further into agentic products that create and manipulate documents with less human oversight, the scope of how exploits like this could affect workflows (and users) will widen rather than narrow, and a complete solution is not yet in sight.

• Kaspersky says empty web pages are watching you, and the research backs up the warning
• Over 90% of parked domains now send visitors somewhere malicious, and clearing your cookies will not help
• Blank pages are also a problem: many 'Coming Soon' placeholders are quietly fingerprinting your device

Kaspersky has unveiled a rather underreported attack vector which is increasingly being used by threat actors to harvest private data from unsuspecting victims: registered websites that are yet to be developed.

Its warning focuses on parked domains, the registered web addresses that have no real website behind them yet, arguing that the blank screens and "Coming Soon" placeholders users dismiss as harmless are frequently doing work in the background.

The company says simply loading one of these pages can trigger silent collection of a visitor's IP address, approximate location, User-Agent string and cookie identifiers, and that operators go further by building browser fingerprints through other techniques, then feeding the result into advertising networks to assemble targeted profiles without consent from users.

Browser fingerprinting sans the permissions

The mechanics Kaspersky describes are worth understanding, because fingerprinting is the part most readers will not have encountered, and the part that conventional privacy habits do not touch.

For context, a cookie is a file placed on your machine that you can delete, thereby limiting tracking. A fingerprint is not stored on your machine at all. It is derived from how your specific hardware and software combination renders a test image, draws 3D graphics, or processes an audio signal, producing a value distinctive enough to identify the same device across unrelated sites.

Browser fingerprinting, the method used to capture such data within a browser session, is attractive to trackers because it is considerably harder to shake off. A private browsing window prevents your machine from keeping a local record of the visit, but it does not change how your hardware renders the test image, so the fingerprint it produces remains largely the same.

Such domains can also cause more direct damage than selling one's information to advertisers. Kaspersky says threat actors embed scripts that bounce visitors onward to fraudulent platforms, adult content, or online casinos. It flags typosquatting as a particularly acute risk, in which a domain differing from a well-known brand by a letter or two can capture mistyped traffic, landing the user on a phishing page or triggering a drive-by download.

This isn't the first time the problem has been reported, either, as recent research from Infoblox finding that in large-scale experiments, over 90% of the time, a visitor to a parked domain was routed to illegal content, scams, scareware, antivirus subscription traps, or malware.

Kaspersky recommends several ways to mitigate the risk, including avoiding suspicious links, clearing cache and cookies after an unintended visit, and using software that blocks web tracking.

Clearing cookies is worth noting, though: it addresses the cookie identifiers Kaspersky mentions, but by the company's own explanation it does nothing about fingerprinting, because there is nothing stored locally to clear.

Parked domains, including blank pages that appear inert, are now a routine part of criminal infrastructure rather than digital litter and should be treated with caution. At best, you give away more information than you meant to. At worst, you become the victim of an attack you never saw coming.

• Researchers show Gatekeeper can be bypassed by replacing a previously run legitimate macOS app with malware
• Attack requires prior user‑level code execution, then swaps in a malicious app that Gatekeeper won’t re‑verify
• Apple dismissed the issue, saying locally rebuilt bundles fall outside Gatekeeper’s scope, leaving risk to social engineering

A pair of researchers claims to have found a way around Gatekeeper, a built-in macOS security feature that helps protect users from running malicious or untrusted software. However Apple doesn’t really see it that way and has seemingly decided not to pursue the issue further.

Gatekeeper’s modus operandi is rather simple - when a user downloads an app from outside the App Store, it verifies the product comes from an identified developer and is notarized by Apple. If it can’t verify it - it won’t allow it to run on the machine.

Now, security researchers Talal Haj Barky and Tommy Mysk claim that, as long as a legitimate app was run at least once on a macOS device, it can be replaced with a malicious version, and Gatekeeper won’t even blink its virtual eye.

Locally built

That also means the attack is not that straightforward to pull off. The threat actor needs to have a way to execute user-level code (for example, a malicious app, a compromised software package installed through a package manager, or a prompt injection attack that tricks an AI agent).

Once that is obtained, they can archive a legitimate app, remove the original, then replace it with malware, and Gatekeeper will not try to re-authorize it. That malicious version can then trick the victim into compromising the device even further, since a certain level of trust was already established.

After reporting the issue to Apple, the company apparently just closed it.

"Apple doesn't consider this attack to be 'modifying' the signed executable," Mysk said. "Instead, Apple says that by archiving/restoring the app bundle, the proof-of-concept code overwrites the entire app bundle, making it locally built. Locally built app bundles are not covered by macOS guards. And this is why access to Keychain or TCC protected directories require system authorization prompts. And for users to accept those is a matter of social engineering attacks that Apple considers out of scope."

Via The Register

• Recorded Future found an Iran-linked group spreading spyware
• The malware is delivered through fake VPN and media player apps
• Researchers assess that most targets are Iranian users

A new report from Recorded Future's Insikt Group describes a campaign that inverts the whole point of a privacy tool: fake VPN apps built specifically to spy on the people who install them.

Researchers have linked fresh infrastructure to an Iran-nexus threat cluster they track as TAG-182, which is using fake VPN and media player downloads to allegedly deliver a surveillance tool called MarkiRAT. The group is "highly likely" to be targeting Iranians living inside and outside the country, the report says.

It's a blunt reminder that choosing one of the best VPN services is a lot more secure than downloading free, unvetted tools.

Fake apps, real surveillance

Insikt Group identified a cluster of attacker-controlled domains allegedly used to stage downloads of applications that appear nowhere on Google Play or Apple's App Store.

Two names stand out: Pis2ray VPN and a media player branded YESHICA, which was quietly renamed YESHICA YEPlayer in March 2026 after researchers publicly exposed the original.

According to researchers, if you download and run one of these files, you get MarkiRAT, a remote access Trojan. In plain terms, that is software that hands control of your device to somebody else.

Analysts have documented it capturing screenshots and uploading them to attacker-run servers, while disguising itself under believable process names.

It also abuses BITS, the background service Windows uses to fetch updates, to pull down further files. Because that activity looks like ordinary system housekeeping rather than an attack, it tends to slip past routine cleanup.

MarkiRAT is not new. It has previously been used by Ferocious Kitten, a group Kaspersky documented conducting years of covert surveillance against activists inside Iran.

Recorded Future stops short of attributing TAG-182 to any specific Iranian agency, but places it within a broader ecosystem of state-aligned surveillance groups.

Why a fake VPN makes such an effective lure

Distribution runs largely through social media. Insikt Group found Instagram posts promoting Pis2ray VPN in the weeks following street protests in Iran in late 2025, and again around the country's prolonged internet shutdown, which ended with partial restoration of access on 26 May 2026.

The people most desperate for a virtual private network (VPN) in a censored country are exactly the people most likely to install one from a social media link, because the official stores are often the very thing they cannot reach.

Recorded Future considers it almost certain that most targets are located in Iran or tied to anti-government movements in Europe and North America. TechRadar has covered previous Iran-linked fake VPN campaigns, and this one seems to follow the same pattern with better infrastructure.

How to stay safe

Most readers will never be targeted by a state actor, but the underlying lesson travels.

Install VPN apps only from official stores, and check that the provider has a real, verifiable presence outside the app listing.

Treat any VPN promoted through an Instagram post, a Telegram channel, or a direct message as suspect, however polished it looks.

Star ratings are a weak signal, since fake reviews are cheap.

• Huntress spots malicious Claude Artifact spoofing Claude Desktop, spreading SectopRAT malware
• Victims were redirected via Bing ads, infecting at least 29 organizations between July 21–22, 2026
• Claude removed the artifact after 7,000+ views; malvertising risks persist despite disclaimers on artifacts

At least 29 organizations have been infected with a Remote Access Trojan (RAT) after mistaking a public Claude Artifact for a legitimate Claude page.

A Claude Artifact is an interactive document, or piece of code, that the AI generates and then hosts on the Claude platform. It can then be shared with other people as an example, or proof of concept, for different solutions. The link to an artifact usually looks something like this:

claude[.]ai/public/artifacts/ca466f1f-21c0-42af-b329-8f1c7534a891

Claude Artifacts are often used for phishing and other forms of scams, and we’ve seen it in ClickFix attacks in the past. Claude responded by adding a disclaimer to every artifact, stating that the content is user-generated and thus unverified.

In this particular case, a malicious artifact was created to spoof the download page for Claude Desktop. Victims would get redirected to an attacker-controlled domain, where instead of the Claude app, they’d download SectopRAT, a remote access trojan capable of stealing credit card data, personal information, files, passwords, and more.

Promoting the scam

The artifact was then promoted on Bing, showing up at the very top of search results to people searching for “Claude Desktop App”.

For years, the cybersecurity community has warned about malvertising, urging users to double-check the domain before clicking on any links, even promoted ones. However, the problem here is that the ad takes the victims to the legitimate Claude domain, making scrutiny that much harder.

The campaign was spotted by security researchers Huntress, who said that between July 21 and July 22, 2026, their SOC “lit up with a swathe of unusual executable installs, Defender exclusions, and anomalous persistence across 29 organizations, all coming from ClaudeDesktop.exe.”

Claude has since removed the malicious artifact, but not before it raked up more than 7,000 views. It is possible that other organizations, outside Huntress’ field of view, also fell victim to this scam.

• Nichirei Co confirms cyberattack disrupting refrigerated warehouse and frozen food logistics, impacting customers including KFC Japan
• KFC warned of delivery delays leading to possible menu restrictions, shortened hours, or temporary suspension of online orders
• No data leaks or attacker claims have surfaced; disruptions suggest ransomware, but both companies expect operations to normalize by week’s end

Nichirei Co, a large Japanese company which produces frozen and processed foods, and operates cold-chain logistics to distribute them across the country, has confirmed it suffered a cyberattack which affected some of its customers, including KFC.

The company confirmed the news in a notice stating, “Today, Nichirei Co experienced a system failure caused by unauthorized access."

Nichirei said that it is currently investigating the incident, but that there is no evidence of personal or customer data leaking outside the company. However, due to the nature of the incident (which hasn’t been explained in detail), multiple operations have been affected, including refrigerated warehouse inbound/outbound operations, and frozen food shipping services.

No claims yet

These disruptions affected, among others, KFC - one of the largest fast food chains in the world. In a separate announcement, KFC said that a system failure at Nichirei Logistics Group, which happened on July 13, affected the company’s logistics and delivery sites. “From Tuesday, July 14, 2026, food delivery to KFC stores is expected to be affected,” it said.

“As a result, each store may suspend operations depending on some products going out of stock, menu restrictions, shortened business hours, or ingredient stock availability. Additionally, online orders from the official app and website have also been temporarily suspended.”

The nature of the attack, or the identity of the attackers, were not disclosed. Since Nichirei had to shut down some of its services, it could mean this was a ransomware attack and that some company data was stolen after all. The Register reports that KFC Japan hasn’t posted information about store closures and continues to promote summer menu items.

At press time, no threat actors claimed responsibility for the attacks, and no Nichirei/KFC data surfaced on the dark web. The companies expect to resume normal operations by the end of the week.

Via The Register

Geopolitical tensions are mounting, and nation states are employing new types of strategies to gain intelligence. A recent Five Eyes warning, for example, accused Chinese military intelligence officers of using professional networking sites and online job platforms to target individuals of interest.

In this specific case, the agents pose as recruiters advertising seemingly legitimate work to build relationships and, ultimately, get their hands on non-public information. Popular sites like LinkedIn, Indeed and Upwork have all seen this new type of attack take place.

At the same time, a parallel threat sees operatives applying for jobs within trusted organizations with access to intelligence, creating insider threats that experts warn AI might be mostly responsible for.

Generative AI, for example, can create documents, write applications and even supply live answers during real-time remote interviews, meaning that a small group of fake applicants can extend their reach much more quickly.

Rather than attacking existing workers, nation states are creating their own job candidates

Once inside an organization and with access to company tools like PCs, emails and other internal systems, nation state spies can then move laterally to acquire the information they sought.

Security experts at Exabeam warn that, because this technique is still evolving, it might not always be so easy to spot. Additionally, motives can differ, with Chinese intelligence operations typically seeking military, political or economic information. North Korean agents, on the other hand, tend to be tied to stealing money, which could also come with the side effect of data and intelligence theft.

Exabeam even observed this type of attack first-hand, when a North Korean-affiliated applicant used a false identity to apply for a job at the company. After passing technical tests, a video interview and other standard checks, the suspect’s laptop was quickly flagged for unusual activity.

In the following Q&A with AI Strategy and Security Research VP Steve Povolny, I discuss these new types of attacks, who’s responsible for stamping them out and what we can do to prevent similar incidents from happening more commonly.

• The Five Eyes alliance recently warned that foreign intelligence groups are using job platforms to recruit insiders. How significant is this threat, and what is driving its growth?

This is among the most serious access-driven threats facing cleared workers, and it keeps growing because the economics now favor the attacker.

Foreign intelligence services no longer need handlers and dead drops when they can post a job ad on LinkedIn or Upwork and let candidates self-select based on the access listed in their own resumes. Generative AI lets them run thousands of these conversations at once, drafting outreach and scoring which applicants sit closest to sensitive information without a trained officer.

The Five Eyes alert describes a scaled, automated funnel, and that scale is what makes it dangerous.

• A parallel risk runs alongside that warning: adversaries who secure employment directly rather than recruiting an existing employee. Which scenario presents the greater defensive challenge, and why?

The infiltration model gives defenders less to work with, which makes it the harder problem. When an adversary recruits someone already on staff, most of the suspicious behavior happens outside the company on platforms the employer never sees, yet the insider remains a known person with a verified identity and a real history.

When the adversary becomes the employee, the company has onboarded a fabricated person and handed them a laptop and standing network access on day one. No behavioral baseline exists, since everything that account does counts as a first. The deception also clears the controls most organizations trust, so the failure lands before any security tool gets a vote.

• Exabeam identified a North Korea-affiliated individual who gained employment at the company. How did the operative clear Exabeam's hiring process, and what first signaled that something was wrong?

He cleared it by performing well on the parts we test and forging the parts we verify. Applying under the alias Trevor Rothluebber, he aced the technical interview and take-home assessment, passed the video interview and cleared our standard pre-employment process including the background check and I-9 validation.

Our hiring team flagged a suspicion that he leaned on generative AI for live help during the video call, the first soft signal. The hard signal arrived the moment he logged into his corporate account. Our threat intelligence feed matched his username to activity previously associated with North Korean operatives and rated it high risk, and that single match reframed how the team read everything that followed.

Simultaneously, Exabeam’s platform detected a number of anomalies inconsistent with a brand new employee’s first day, and escalating in severity within hours. Incident response quietly isolated and reimaged his laptop before any real damage could be done.

• The candidate completed applications, interviews and assigned work without raising alarm. In retrospect, what indicators were present, and why did standard screening miss them?

The indicators existed, but they lived in places our screening was never built to read. The driver's license he submitted was either AI-generated or very badly manually modified, and the tell was physical. The image had unique aberrations, such as the ears in the photo which had an unnatural and pixelated modification an artifact that image generators still produce, and a reviewer skims past.

The live AI assistance during the interview was another, since his answers carried a fluency that did not match the natural hesitation you expect when someone reasons through an unfamiliar problem. Standard screening missed all of it because background checks and identity validation confirm whether documents are internally consistent and whether a record exists, and they never ask whether the human attached to those documents is real.

Further fabrication of documents such as I-9 were missed by a 3rd party identity verification company, and validation of (fake) job references was not properly identified.

• How did AI contribute to the deception? What did the fraudulent documentation involve, and what capabilities does AI introduce that traditional forgery methods lack?

AI showed up at nearly every stage. The fraudulent documentation centered on a forged driver's license we believe was generated rather than physically produced, paired with a stolen identity that gave the paperwork a real history to rest on.

During the interview the candidate appeared to have run an AI copilot feeding him answers in real time, and many of these tools now stay invisible to everyone else on the call even while the candidate shares a screen. What AI adds over traditional forgery is volume and believability together. A skilled forger could always produce one convincing passport, but the craft capped how many operations could run at once.

Generative tools remove that ceiling, so a single actor can fabricate convincing documents and coach themselves through a live technical interview across dozens of applications at once, and the forgery stopped being the bottleneck it used to be.

• The Five Eyes warning focused on China, while the Exabeam case involved North Korea. Do these actors share tactics and objectives, or do they represent distinct operational models that overlap on method?

They overlap heavily on method while running on different motives, which defenders should sit with. The Chinese operation the Five Eyes described aims at intelligence collection, pulling government and military insight out of people who already hold access.

The North Korean program that hit us and so many others in this industry is funded differently, since much of its purpose is revenue for a sanctioned regime, with intrusion and theft riding alongside the paycheck. The objectives diverge, yet the tradecraft has converged on one toolkit of fabricated identities, AI-assisted documents, manufactured professional histories and the patient relationship-building that lets an operative stay quiet.

When two adversaries with separate goals reach the same playbook, that tells you the playbook works and other actors are already watching.

• Conventional insider threat programs are built to detect employees who become compromised over time. How should organizations identify a candidate who was an adversary from the point of hire?

Our mindset must shift toward treating the moment of hire as the start of the highest-risk window rather than the end of vetting. Traditional insider programs watch for drift, the employee who gradually turns after a financial shock or a grievance, so they depend on a baseline built over months.

A candidate who was hostile from day one never produces that baseline, which forces you to scrutinize the earliest behavior most closely. In our case, the catch came from putting new accounts under enhanced monitoring and letting an AI agent correlate scattered signals that no single alert would have justified escalating.

The working principle is to give hiring workflows and new-hire activity the same suspicion you already apply to production access.

• Where should accountability for this threat reside within an organization? Is it a security function, an HR function, or a gap that persists because ownership is unclear?

Accountability most often lives in the gap right now, and that gap is exactly why the threat works. Hiring sits with HR and talent acquisition, who are measured on filling roles quickly and are not equipped to run identity verification at an intelligence-grade level.

Detection sits with security, which usually gains no visibility into a candidate until that person already holds a badge and a laptop, and the adversary exploits the seam between the two.

The workable answer is shared ownership with a clean handoff, where security sets the identity and behavioral standards hiring must meet and stays involved through the first weeks of employment rather than inheriting the problem once onboarding closes.

• Many mid-sized companies lack dedicated threat intelligence resources. What practical measures can such organizations implement to reduce their exposure?

Useful defense does not require a dedicated threat intelligence team. The interview itself is the cheapest control available, and small changes make it far more revealing.

Underspecifying a problem on purpose shows whether a candidate asks clarifying questions like a real engineer or simply produces a confident answer and switching the problem partway through tests whether they adapt or whether something is feeding them responses.

Asking for an external webcam that shows the workspace instead of a shared screen removes one of the easiest hiding spots for an interview copilot. Beyond hiring, the highest-leverage move is placing every new employee on a watchlist for closer monitoring through their first weeks, which costs configuration time rather than budget.

Even a basic, low-cost threat intelligence feed would have surfaced the username match that broke our case open.

• What is the most contested prediction on this issue, one that many security leaders would currently dispute?

My contested prediction is that within a couple of years the verified human interview, run live and in person for any role with meaningful access, returns as a security requirement. Many security leaders will fight that because it breaks the remote-first hiring model they spent years optimizing.

The objection I expect is that it does not scale and shrinks the talent pool, and those concerns are legitimate. My counter is that the economics have already flipped for high-access roles, since the cost of onboarding a single fabricated adversary now dwarfs the friction of one in-person verification step.

The deeper claim underneath it is that remote identity verification as we practice it today is no longer reliable for sensitive positions, and AI is what made it unreliable. Most security leaders are not ready to say that out loud yet.

• Group‑IB warns of scams exploiting Celine Dion’s concert comeback, with fraudsters selling duplicate Ticketmaster tickets and spoofing sites like AXS and Paris La Défense Arena
• Scammers embed themselves in Facebook fan groups and marketplaces, even using voice messages to build trust and make fake offers seem legitimate
• Fans are advised to only buy from official distributors, verify tickets in person if using resellers, and contact banks to dispute charges if scammed

Celine Dion is back, and hackers are already trying to exploit the fact for their own financial gain, experts have warned.

A report from security researchers Group-IB has claimed there are numerous scam campaigns all across the internet and social media, looking to exploit gullible fans and steal their money.

Its aptly named “The Scam Will Go On” report said it saw scammers lurking in Facebook Groups, Facebook Marketplace, and other fan-centric spaces, offering concert tickets for sale. The tickets themselves, hosted on Ticketmaster, are valid. However, the scammers only have a few tickets which can be redeemed by the first person who reaches the venue. Everyone else will be denied entry, since their tickets will already have been used.

How to avoid getting scammed

But that’s not the only scam. Some people don’t want to pay an unknown third person via wire, and would prefer to purchase the tickets directly from a service.

For those people, the scammers created entire websites, spoofing ticketing distributors such as AXS and Ticketmaster. Group-IB also saw fake websites spoofing Celine Dion and Paris La Défense Arena, the stadium where the concert will take place.

“We see that such an event generates excitement and provides scammers with another opportunity to make a fortune at the expense of unsuspecting fans,” Group-IB warned.

“Scammers are using increasingly sophisticated techniques, such as embedding themselves into social networking fan groups and speaking directly to their victims via voice messages to make the interaction more personal and gain their victims’ trust more easily. Furthermore, official ticketing platforms are being misused to make scams seem legitimate.”

The researchers recommend fans only visit official websites and those of official distributors, and if they absolutely must buy from a reseller, to make sure they’re purchasing a physical ticket, in person. Those that fell for the scam should call their bank and lodge an objection on their credit card.

• IO research shows 87% of UK cybersecurity managers doubt the credibility of speed‑focused certification programs
• Rapid, automated compliance creates a false sense of security, with certifications like ISO 27001 not guaranteeing resilience
• Experts stress continuous monitoring and human oversight, as automated recommendations and evidence still need validation and interpretation

Speed-focused compliance programs could help businesses get cybersecurity certifications quicker, but security professionals are skeptical if the speed comes at the expense of actual business resilience.

This is according to new research from resilience specialists IO, which claims that 87% of senior cybersecurity managers in the UK believe the speed at which certification is achieved affects its credibility.

According to the report, compliance initiatives that are either heavily automated or compressed into short timeframes are creating a false sense of security. Certifications like ISO 27001 might help companies win contracts and maintain an image, but researchers are warning that certification alone does not guarantee actual operational resilience.

Gaps in security posture

“Organizations that focus on achieving certification as quickly as possible are at risk of leaving gaps in their security posture,” says Chris Newton-Smith, CEO of IO. “Certification can open doors to new contracts and demonstrate commitment to recognised standards but treating certification as the end goal rather than the outcome of establishing and embedding effective compliance is more often than not at the expense of long-term resilience. Businesses must treat compliance not as a tick-box exercise but an evolving, iterative, and business critical project.”

Polling 251 cybersecurity managers in the UK, IO found that 31% consider continuous controls monitoring as the strongest indicator of compliance resilience. At the same time, a fifth (21%) said certifications could reflect security controls at the time of an audit, but could soon after become obsolete.

IO also stressed the importance of human expertise in these programs. Almost half (45%) of the respondents said human involvement is still essential when evaluating if automated compliance recommendations are still relevant and accurate, and another third (33%) said complex regulations still need human interpretation.

Finally, 32% stressed the importance of human in validating compliance evidence generated by automated systems.

• Huntress report highlights “EvilTokens” PhaaS scaling phishing attacks 1,380% in early 2026 compared to last year
• AI integration enables per‑victim personalization at scale, bypassing MFA, with subscription tiers from $600 to $1,500
• Service sold openly on Telegram, showing how PhaaS now operates like a startup with cheap, powerful attack capabilities

Cybercriminals offering phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) are increasingly operating like a tech startup, and a good one, at that. They are also using Artificial Intelligence (AI), which helped them scale significantly. This is according to a new report from cybersecurity researchers Huntress, called “EvilTokens and the Rise of AI-Powered Phishing”.

In the report, Huntress claims that this particular PhaaS operation, called EvilTokens, was used to run 1,380% more phishing attacks in early 2026 compared to the same period last year.

“We’re seeing a clear maturation of the phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) market as threat actors increasingly integrate AI workflows into their product offerings,” the report reads. “The result is directly observable in our telemetry: a 1,380% increase in device code phishing attacks detected between July–December 2025 and January–April 2026, with over 50% of those incidents linked to two major waves of correlated incidents.”

A cheap service

“Furthermore, across hundreds of incidents associated with EvilTokens, no two phishing lures were identical. This level of per-victim personalization was previously limited to targeted, manually crafted campaigns. Now, it’s achievable at scale by any threat actor at the price of a subscription service”

So, AI is not only used to scale the operation, but it is also used for personalization at an unprecedented level. At the same time, the service is relatively cheap to use: it is being sold on Telegram for as little as $600.

If this sounds like a lot, keep in mind that a single successful phishing attack is enough to steal data worth hundreds of thousands on the black market, or even millions - in ransom negotiations.

EvilTokens’ service is tiered, too. The cheapest package costs $600, while two more expensive ones cost $1,000 and $1,500, respectively. For criminals, it is likely worth the investment, since this PhaaS is capable of bypassing multi-factor authentication, as well.

• LastPass confirmed a supply chain breach via Klue, where stolen OAuth tokens let attackers access its Salesforce environment
• Customer names, contact details, and CRM data were exposed, but master passwords were not; phishing risk remains high
• Threat actor Icarus claimed responsibility; other firms including Recorded Future, Tanium, Jamf, Sprout Social, Gong, and Insurity also impacted

Password manager LastPass confirmed that it lost sensitive customer data in a supply chain attack that struck a third party.

As LastPass explained in a newly released incident report, unnamed threat actors first targeted Klue, a third-party market intelligence platform that integrates with its Salesforce and Gong systems. After obtaining its OAuth tokens, the attackers were able to access LastPass’ Salesforce environment and exfiltrate sensitive data stored there.

“On June 12th, LastPass was made aware of an incident that occurred at Klue (klue.com), a third-party market intelligence platform utilized by our go-to-market teams, which integrates with our Salesforce and Gong systems,” LastPass said.

Compromising names and emails

"We immediately launched an investigation and learned that, as part of this incident, an unauthorized actor was able to obtain OAuth tokens Klue held for many of its customers, including LastPass.”

“The threat actor then used these credentials to access LastPass customer data within our Salesforce environment.”

Further in the report, the password manager said the attackers most likely accessed customer names, phone numbers, email addresses, postal addresses, support case information, and sales/CRM-related data.

Passwords, including the master password, were most likely not exposed. However, criminals can use the data they obtained to launch phishing attacks, through which they might trick the victims into sharing those secrets, as well.

LastPass is now urging customers to remain vigilant and be careful with incoming messages, particularly those claiming to come from the company.

According to BleepingComputer, the Klue supply chain attack was claimed by a threat actor called Icarus, which apparently used compromised legacy credentials for an integration service to breach the intelligence platform.

Besides LastPass, a number of other organizations are affected as well, the publication further reported, including Recorded Future, Tanium, Jamf, Sprout Social, Gong, and Insurity. LastPass has now disabled employee access to Klue.

Via BleepingComputer

• Airbnb scams have surged 30x since 2023, including a sharp rise this year
• Criminals hijack legitimate host accounts to to trick holidaymakers
• Staying safe isn't so straightforward as threats evolve

Airbnb-related scam activity has increased 30x since the first half of 2023, according to new research from Saily and NordStellar, confirming that cybercriminals continue to go after holidaymakers seeking the best deals amid rising prices.

The report ultimately concludes that attackers are now targeting the trust built by larger platforms, saving them from having to build new identities from scratch.

And to top it all off, the nature of scams is also changing, as instead of using suspicious websites to obtain victim payments or information, criminals are now targeting legitimate Airbnb host accounts which have spent years amassing positive reviews and high ratings.

Exploiting legitimate accounts and hijacking trust

While the end goal remains high volumes of vulnerable consumers, scammers have added an extra layer of victim in their pipeline. Verified Airbnb hosts are now valuable assets for criminals because they already have identity verifications, positive reviews, booking histories, years of activity and established credibility.

Once the verified account is compromised, attackers can then go on to scam higher volumes of unsuspecting victims by posting – and charging for – fake property listings.

“Travelers are getting better at spotting obvious scams,” Saily Head of Product Matas Cenys said. “Criminals know this, so they are increasingly trying to steal trust instead of building fake trust from scratch.”

Where this type of attack differs from others, though, is that the victims never leave the platform. Rather than falling victim to phishing attacks and being redirected to malicious external sites, they interact fully with supposed legitimate hosts on the Airbnb platform.

While Airbnb attacks have seen a 30x increase in around three years and a sharp rise in the last year alone, they reflect a much broader trend of attackers compromising existing trusted accounts.

The recent ramp-up in attacks could also be tied to the summer season, with holidaymakers looking to book last-minute deals in the run-up to the summer season. Urgency and pressure to keep costs low also adds to criminals’ success.

“Everything looks normal until they arrive at their destination and discover the accommodation never existed," Cenys added.

How to protect yourself from booking scams

Saily is recommending that all communication stays within the booking platform and that customers avoid payment methods suggested outside of official channels. Unusually attractive listings in high-demand destinations could also be taken with a pinch of salt, and savvy shoppers may choose to reverse image search a property to double check its authenticity.

“As travel booking becomes increasingly digital, trust becomes one of the most valuable currencies in the travel ecosystem,” Cenys warned.

As for abusing victim trust, researchers also argue that AI has aided attacks by allowing criminals to produce better fake listings more quickly.

More generally, Airbnb revealed that two in five Americans have fallen victim for an online scam, with the average loss totalling nearly $2,000. The company has introduced measures to remind its users how to avoid scams, including introducing identity verification and reminders not to leave the platform, but account takeovers can still slip under the radar.

Airbnb also holds guest payments until 24 hours after check-in to ensure that everything is as described. Anti-fraud tech also prevented around 265,000 suspicious listings from appearing on the platform in 2025, the company boasted.

The company posted a comprehensive eight-step list of how to avoid scams on its platform online, calling out pressure tactics and unusual deals.