Cybersecurity incidents can unfold in hours, but response plans often fail at the point of execution: ownership is unclear, investigation findings is difficult to access, and critical decisions are delayed. That is why incident response cannot be something your organization figures out in real time.

The Detection and Response Team (DART) – the Microsoft team that delivers Defender Experts Cybersecurity Incident Response – has supported organizations across 54 countries and regions through some of their most challenging security moments; and while we sincerely hope you never need to call us in the middle of a live incident, we do want to help you prepare for that possibility before it becomes real.

That’s exactly what the Cybersecurity Incident Response Readiness Workshop is designed to do.

What is the Cybersecurity Incident Response Readiness Workshop?

The Cybersecurity Incident Response Workshop is a collaborative, scenario driven workshop designed to evaluate your organization’s incident response (IR) plan against realistic, real-world security events, guided by DART researchers.

Rather than reviewing your plan in isolation, we work through simulated incidents together. Participants navigate realistic attack scenarios, present investigation findings, discuss decisions, and receive direct feedback from responders with extensive experience handling complex incidents worldwide.

What makes DART’s approach different?

DART’s approach combines active participation with lessons drawn from frontline incident response. Instead of reviewing a plan as a static document, the Cybersecurity Incident Response Workshop exercises how people, processes, and technology work together under pressure. Participants practice detection, containment, and response decisions while DART security researchers provide feedback grounded in real-world incident experience.

The workshop creates a controlled environment for teams to test how they detect, investigate, contain, and communicate during an incident. DART security researchers examine how people, processes, and technology work together across identity, endpoint, cloud, and communications, including whether the organization’s tools, logs, and telemetry support timely decisions against real threat actor behaviors.

Additionally, the workshop includes threat hunting exercises that let incident response teams investigate realistic scenarios with urgency but without the pressure of a live incident. This hands-on practice strengthens technical judgment and helps teams coordinate their response more effectively.

Why organizations run this workshop

The goal is not to pass or fail. It’s to discover how well your organization can make and execute critical response decisions under pressure, and where preparation today can prevent delay during a real incident.

During the Workshop, organizations are able to:

• Compare and contrast their incident response plan with insights drawn from DART’s experience across thousands of real‑world cases.
• Exercise response processes using real-world scenarios to identify strengths and improvement opportunities, including processes, threat hunting techniques, and the use of cybersecurity technologies.
• Identify potential gaps in both tools and procedures before a threat actor finds them.

In short: it’s a chance to see what holds up under pressure, where coordination or visibility begins to bend, and what your organization should reinforce before a threat actor puts the response plan to the test.

Our approach: How we assess your maturity

The workshop blends structured analysis with hands-on knowledge transfer, creating an experience that is both evaluative and practical.

The assessment examines how your organization’s people, processes, and technology support incident response across identity, endpoint, cloud, and communications. It also evaluates whether available tools and telemetry provide the visibility needed to respond to real threat actor tactics.

Additional knowledge transfer is delivered through interactive exercises led by DART, encouraging cross-team collaboration while sharing proven detection and containment practices drawn from real incidents.

What organizations walk away with

By the end of the workshop, organizations leave with a clearer view of how their incident response capability performs today and where focused improvements can strengthen readiness. You’ll take away:

• Clear identification of strengths and opportunities in IR preparation and execution.
• Insight into how tools, techniques, and available data perform during an incident.
• A summary of findings and prioritized recommendations to help strengthen incident response readiness and guide next steps.

Scope and structure

The engagement begins by aligning on objectives, participants, logistics, and expected outcomes so the scenarios and discussions can be tailored to the organization’s needs

The workshop spans 2 or 3 days, including:

• Kick off and introductions to understand who the audience is and what they hope to gain from the workshop; this helps us tailor our delivery approach for each unique organization
• Knowledge-transfer sessions
• Scenarios and guided discussions assessing current capabilities
• Closeout and recommended next steps

Practice before it matters

If your incident response plan lives mostly on paper, or if it’s never been exercised with the people who will use it, the Cybersecurity Incident Response Workshop provides a safe, structured way to change that. When a real incident happens, you don’t want your first conversation about roles, investigation findings, or decision-making to happen in the middle of a crisis.

Don’t wait for a live incident to test your response plan, if you have an established Unified Enterprise agreement with Microsoft, reach out to your Customer Success Account Manager (CSAM) to schedule a Cybersecurity Incident Response Workshop and give your teams the opportunity to practice before it matters most.

Learn more

• To learn more about DART capabilities, please visit our website, or contact your Microsoft Customer Success Account Manager or Premier Support contact.
• For the latest security research from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community, check out the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Blog.
• To get notified about new publications and to join discussions on social media, follow us on LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), and Bluesky.
• To hear stories and insights from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community about the ever-evolving threat landscape, listen to the Microsoft Threat Intelligence podcast.

The post Cybersecurity IR Workshop: The workshop you shouldn’t miss appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

Have you ever read the Talos IR Quarterly Trends report and wondered, “How did that phishing or ransomware campaign actually play out? When was Talos IR contacted, how did they contain it, and how did they remediate the environment?" 

You’re in luck. Next Tuesday, August 11, Cisco Talos Incident Responders will be hosting an exclusive, unrecorded 30-minute webinar to review the most high-impact incidents our customers faced in Q2 2026. This isn’t a rehashing of the report itself, but a candid discussion of what happened, how we handled it, and what it means for your organization. 

The session is designed for security professionals of all levels, from analysts and incident responders to managers and senior leaders. We'll focus on strategic takeaways and business impact, with just enough technical depth to provide context and spark meaningful conversations. 

Registration is required to attend. Don’t miss this chance to hear real-world stories from the frontlines of cyber defense, directly from the team who lived them.

Introduction

Because of the amount of data that can be obtained and the high impact that successful attacks may have, educational institutions are frequent targets of cybercriminals. Both public and private schools and universities rely on software for managing personally identifiable information (PII) that is often insecure or insufficiently tested against known vulnerabilities. In addition, machines used by multiple people without accountability can be vulnerable to insider threats.

The complexity of academic environments amplifies this risk. Unlike corporate networks, educational institutions have to provide a network that supports students, professors, researchers, administrative staff, third-party contractors, and visitors. Each of these groups has different security requirements and access control levels, making it difficult to enforce consistent security policies. A security breach can have severe consequences since it may expose vast amounts of sensitive information, such as social security numbers (CPF in Brazil), addresses, phone numbers, and even parents’ names. Armed with this information, attackers can attempt phishing attacks and impersonate the victims in SIM swapping attacks, a common practice in Brazil.

In this article, we provide details about attacks on educational institutions in Brazil observed by our Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) since 2025. We share general statistics, common threats, initial access vectors, and the impact of such violations. Additionally, we present some interesting cases encountered by our team and the identified TTPs. Finally, we offer recommendations to help institutions protect themselves against future attacks.

Key findings and statistics

Our dataset encompasses incident response cases from January 2025 to June 2026. As the chart below shows, the majority of attacks targeted institutions in São Paulo state, Brazil’s most populous state and a significant center of economic and financial activity. We also had cases in Rio de Janeiro and Pernambuco.

Geographical distribution of incident response requests at educational institutions (download)

Of the customers who requested incident response, 60% were private institutions and 40% were public institutions.

Private and public institutions (download)

The most frequent reasons for requesting IR services were related to suspicious endpoint activities, encrypted files, and the presence of suspicious files.

Incident response request reasons (download)

High-severity incidents accounted for 40% of the total cases, while the remaining 60% were medium severity.

Distribution of incidents by severity (download)

The high-severity incidents were mainly related to ransomware attacks. Interestingly, private institutions were the most targeted by ransomware, while incidents in public institutions were mostly related to suspicious endpoint activity and privilege escalation attempts. The most common ransomware families found in our dataset were DragonForce and LockBit 3, whose builder was leaked back in 2022. By using the leaked LockBit builder with a valid privileged account, attackers can build variants capable of disabling defenses and erasing logs.

The most common initial access vectors included the use of valid accounts, exploitation of public-facing applications, and insiders.

Initial access vectors (download)

For privilege escalation, the attackers often relied on Potato variants (GodPotato, SweetPotato, and BadPotato).

We also observed attackers using tools like AnyDesk for remote access, PsExec for lateral movement within compromised infrastructures, and AV-killer malware to terminate the system’s defenses. The latter was mainly used in ransomware-related incidents.

These data reveal an interesting pattern in the threat landscape affecting educational institutions in the region. Many incidents were not caused by highly sophisticated techniques but rather by the abuse of common weaknesses such as valid accounts, exposed applications, and inadequate patch management, as well as the use of publicly available tools that are well-known to the adversaries. The prevalence of ransomware in private institutions suggests a stronger financial motivation, likely because attackers assume these organizations are more capable of paying for data recovery than public schools and universities.

Most attacks were discovered promptly and lasted from a few minutes to a couple of hours. However, technical incident response activities averaged 9.6 hours. This indicates that the impact caused by an incident often extends beyond the timeframe of the active attack, requiring extensive triage and analysis by the forensic investigators to fully restore operations.

One interesting fact is that we are still observing the use of Windows 10 in the infrastructures of educational institutions, even after Microsoft’s official end-of-support date of October 2025. In addition, we found that some customer organizations were using Windows Server 2016 without security patches and fixes. Using outdated and unsupported operating systems increases the attack surface of an infrastructure because attackers can exploit publicly available vulnerabilities to access vulnerable systems and expand their presence in the network. In addition, legacy operating systems may be incompatible with modern evidence collection tools, necessitating extra time and alternative procedures for forensic acquisition.

Obsolete systems in organizations (download)

Interesting cases

Case 01 – Leaked LockBit builder

In one case, we identified the use of a custom version of LockBit that was generated using the leaked builder. The ransomware was delivered to the organization’s infrastructure via a valid account that had been leaked. It encrypted the organization’s internal systems, including file servers and databases that stored student profiles and other data. There was no evidence of data exfiltration from the affected machines.

During our analysis of the LockBit sample, we were able to extract its configuration. Interestingly, it was configured without the impersonation and spreading options. This meant the attacker had to perform manual lateral movement to deploy the malware across the network.

"config": {
    "settings": {
      "impersonation": false,
      "local_disks": true,
      "network_shares": true,
      "kill_processes": true,
      "kill_services": true,
      "set_wallpaper": true,
      "self_destruct": true,
      "kill_defender": true,
      "wipe_freespace": true,
      "psexec_netspread": false,
      "gpo_netspread": false,
…

Further analysis revealed that the attacker used PsExec for lateral movement. By analyzing the Update Sequence Number (USN) Journal, we were able to identify .KEY files associated with PsExec that showed us the previously compromised machines used by the attacker.

After gaining access to the target machines, the adversaries deployed a batch script to disable the system’s defenses. Our analysis of this artifact showed that they had the administrative credentials to disable the EDR in place. In addition, the script enabled RDP, which gave the attackers remote access to the target. The listing below shows an excerpt of the script:

reg add "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Terminal Server" /v fDenyTSConnections /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name="allow RemoteDesktop" dir=in protocol=TCP localport=3389 action=allow
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender" /v DisableRealtimeMonitoring /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection" /v DisableBehaviorMonitoring /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection" /v DisableOnRealTimeProtection /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection" /v DisableIOAVProtection /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection" /v DisableScriptScanning /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Spynet" /v SpyNetReporting /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Spynet" /v SubmitSamplesConsent /t REG_DWORD /d 2 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run" /v "SecurityHealth" /t REG_SZ /d "" /f
reg delete "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\MyComputer\NameSpace\{UUID}" /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender" /v ServiceKeepAlive /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
sc stop WinDefend
sc config WinDefend start= disabled

Finally, by cross-checking the Prefetch files, we were able to identify the precise dates of PsExecSvc.exe and LBB.exe (LockBit) execution. This revealed that the attacker established the initial connection to the analyzed machine around 5:30am UTC and ran LBB.exe for the last time at 10am UTC on the same day, resulting in an activity window of approximately four hours and thirty minutes. We were able to identify the extent of the compromise and the additional machines that required network isolation for further forensic analysis, containment, and remediation.

Case 02 – DragonForce deployed via AnyDesk

In another incident, we identified a compromised user account that the adversaries used to install the AnyDesk software to enable remote access. Although the attacker erased the system logs after encrypting the victim’s files, we were able to identify the ransomware execution event via the Prefetch and Amcache.hve files, which provided us with the SHA-1 hash of the sample.

Once we obtained the SHA-1 of the malicious artifact (named by the attacker as 1.EXE), we were able to confirm that it was a DragonForce variant. Even though the lack of evidence made the analysis more difficult, this case shows that forensic investigators must be prepared to identify information that the attackers missed or left untouched.

Case 03 – Python keylogger used by an insider

The third incident illustrates how a series of bad practices enabled an insider to collect passwords from other users inside the infrastructure. First, the customer contacted us stating that a machine was exhibiting strange behavior: files containing passwords were being created. We started with triage collection on one of the affected machines.

Evidence from the Program Compatibility Assistant (PCA) showed the execution of two suspicious files, Windows Host Widgets.exe and Windows Host Widgets_.exe, both located in the C:\Users\<user>\.vscode\dlo directory, where <user> represents a user account shared by everyone who uses the machine. The same artifacts were identified within the Amcache.hve file, and multiple executions were also confirmed by analyzing the Prefetch files. Another interesting source of evidence, UserAssist, confirmed that the threat actor also executed both EXE files by double-clicking on them.

MFT analysis showed that multiple log files named cacheX.txt were created in the previously mentioned directory, where X was a number that increased with each malware execution. We then analyzed the EXE files to confirm their behavior. Luckily, both proved to be the same Python script, which we could easily decompile.

As shown in the listing below, the script contains methods and strings with Portuguese names. It is capable of hiding the log files from view in Explorer. The developer also set a procedure to identify when the Caps Lock key was pressed, in order to record the correct passwords.

def get_base_path():
    ...

def encontrar_proximo_nome(base='cache'):
    ...

def set_file_hidden(filepath):
    ...
    ctypes.windll.kernel32.SetFileAttributesW(str(filepath), FILE_ATTRIBUTE_HIDDEN)
    ...

with open(log_file, 'a', encoding='utf-8') as f:
    f.write(f'\n\n--- Registro iniciado em {datetime.datetime.now()} ---\n')
set_file_hidden(log_file)
...

def is_capslock_on():
    return bool(ctypes.windll.user32.GetKeyState(20) & 1)

...

def on_press(key):
    ...

def on_release(key):
    ...

def main():
    with keyboard.Listener(on_press=on_press, on_release=on_release) as listener:
        listener.join()

if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()

This simple script did not implement any persistence or automated data exfiltration mechanisms. Therefore, the insider likely had to manually retrieve the generated log files containing the text typed by the victims. By revisiting the previously collected evidence, we identified USB connections around the same time as the script’s executions. This suggests that removable media was probably used to collect the generated keylogging logs from the environment. As a result of the investigation, the customer changed the passwords of all affected accounts. However, without additional evidence or footage, it was not possible to conclusively attribute the activities to a specific individual and take the appropriate disciplinary and legal measures.

Conclusions and recommendations

The incidents highlighted in this article demonstrate that Brazilian educational institutions face a diverse set of threats, ranging from ransomware operations to insider activity. In many cases, the attackers relied on valid credentials, exposed services, remote access tools, poor patch management, and insufficient endpoint hardening rather than advanced malware or new techniques. Based on these findings, educational institutions should prioritize controls that reduce the likelihood of account compromise and the impact of ransomware deployment. They should also improve forensic visibility after an incident.

Institutions should enforce the use of multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all publicly accessible services, especially VPNs, remote access portals, and email accounts. Since valid accounts were one of the most common initial access vectors observed in our dataset, MFA can significantly reduce the likelihood that stolen or reused credentials alone will compromise the entire environment. We also recommend periodically reviewing privileged accounts, removing unnecessary administrative permissions, and avoiding shared accounts, especially on machines accessed by multiple users, since this makes accountability extremely difficult.

Each user should have their own account, following the principle of least privilege to prevent unauthorized software execution. Additionally, it is advisable to restrict and monitor the use of remote access tools such as AnyDesk or TeamViewer. Unexpected installations or executions of these tools should be treated as high-priority alerts.

To minimize the impact of ransomware, educational institutions should improve their backup and recovery strategy. Backups should be isolated from the primary environment (preferably in more than one location) and tested regularly. Centralized logging, extended EDR telemetry retention, and proper time synchronization across hosts can also improve the ability to reconstruct an attack timeline and implement the necessary response measures.

The use of outdated systems increases the attack surface, so we recommend that organizations adopt an effective update and patch management policy. It is also important to raise security awareness, since users must understand the risks associated with credential sharing, unknown executables, and unauthorized software.

From a digital forensics and incident response (DFIR) perspective, the reviewed incidents demonstrate that effective incident response activities require correlating multiple forensic artifacts in order to reconstruct the attacker’s actions. Investigators should be aware of how to find information even when logs are missing. Many other artifacts are preserved and can be used for this purpose, such as Amcache, PCA, Prefetch, UserAssist, MFT, and USN Journal. The attackers may fail to erase all traces of their activity, so taking a broad forensic approach is of the utmost importance for determining the scope of the compromise and supporting containment and remediation actions.

Observed TTPs

The table below shows the observed TTPs in our dataset, including cases not detailed in this post.

Phishing was the primary means of gaining initial access this quarter, appearing in over half of all Cisco Talos Incident Response (Talos IR) engagements – an increase from approximately a third of engagements last quarter. Attackers continued to innovate their delivery methods to evade defenses, deploying QR code-embedded PDFs to bypass traditional email gateways and hosting links on trusted cloud platforms. We also saw a spike in authentication abuse this quarter — observed in 65 percent of engagements compared to 35 percent last quarter — with attackers frequently bypassing or defeating multi-factor authentication (MFA) using adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) proxies, session-token theft, MFA fatigue attacks, and self-enrolled devices, amongst other methods.  

Ransomware incidents made up over 20 percent of engagements this quarter, similar to just under 20 percent last quarter. Talos IR responded to Sinobi ransomware for the first time, as well as previously seen variants Nitrogen and Warlock. We observed ransomware operators leveraging legitimate remote monitoring and management (RMM) tools, such as trojanized MeshAgent binary and Zoho Assist, for stealthy access, requiring defenders to prioritize behavior-based monitoring and strict control over administrative binaries.

In the latest Talos Threat Perspective episode, we explore these trends, and highlight where defenders have the best opportunities to detect attackers:

QR phishing campaign leverages trusted infrastructure to target Australian organizations     

Starting in April, we observed a persistent QR code phishing campaign targeting primarily Australian organizations that leverages compromised Microsoft 365 accounts to harvest credentials and propagate the attack via internal contact lists. The campaign, which remained ongoing as of late June 2026, employs auto-generated, victim-tailored PDF documents containing QR codes that direct to adversary-controlled M365 credential harvesting pages. If credentials are successfully captured, the adversary attempts access to the victim’s Microsoft account and conducts various post-compromise actions including creating email inbox rules for defense evasion, leveraging SharePoint to host malicious documents, and sending additional internal and external phishing emails to continue the compromise chain. 

We assess with high confidence that the threat actor, who we have dubbed UAT-11764, will almost certainly continue leveraging this QR code phishing operation, using each newly compromised mailbox's contact lists to expand its reach and sustain the campaign's momentum. By weaponizing existing, trusted infrastructure like SharePoint and M365, UAT-11764 can bypass many standard email security gateways. As such, network defenders should implement policies that block or flag emails containing QR codes within PDF attachments, enforce phishing-resistant MFA on M365 accounts, and monitor for suspicious inbox rule creation and anomalous SharePoint file staging as indicators of post-compromise activity. 

ARToken platform provides toolkit for Microsoft 365 account compromise 

Talos uncovered a phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) operator platform, ARToken, in an engagement this quarter that is closely linked to the EvilTokens platform. According to our analysis, the ARToken panel exposes 80+ API endpoints for device code phishing, primary refresh token (PRT) persistence, email access, business email compromise (BEC) operations, and SharePoint exfiltration — all accessible to operators through a React-based dashboard. Our investigation into the platform found phishing lures that impersonate trusted vendors and abuse legitimate Microsoft services, allowing attackers to bypass MFA through the OAuth device authorization flow rather than stealing passwords. 

ARToken extends beyond a typical phishing kit by providing affiliates with a comprehensive post-compromise toolkit. We observed capabilities including automated token management, persistent access through PRTs, OneDrive and SharePoint administration, geo-dynamic templates, inbox rule manipulation, cross-account keyword monitoring, and collaborative token sharing. We also identified advanced anti-analysis techniques, including layered evasion mechanisms and encrypted client-side payloads, highlighting the increasing sophistication of modern PhaaS platforms and reinforcing the need for organizations to monitor device code authentication, enforce Conditional Access policies, and strengthen defenses against token-based attacks.  

Ransomware trends 

Ransomware and pre-ransomware incidents made up over 20 percent of engagements this quarter, relatively similar to just under 20 percent last quarter. As previously mentioned, Talos IR responded to Sinobi ransomware for the first time, as well as previously seen variants Nitrogen and Warlock. We observed operators from these groups leveraging tools not previously identified in public reporting, including a trojanized MeshAgent binary and Zoho Assist for remote access.

Sinobi ransomware operators weaponize MeshAgent for covert backdoor access

We responded to a Sinobi ransomware engagement for the first time in April; while this ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) operation emerged nearly a year ago, there has been minimal public reporting on the actors’ operations.  

Notably, we observed the threat actors use a trojanized MeshAgent binary as their primary C2 mechanism during this engagement, a tactic that has not been previously associated with the group in public reporting. MeshAgent is the open-source agent component of the MeshCentral remote management platform. Here, the actor weaponized it into a covert durable backdoor installed as a SYSTEM-level auto-start service, communicating over encrypted WebSocket (WSS) to an attacker-controlled server. This approach allowed the actor to blend malicious traffic with legitimate remote management activity and maintain undetected access for approximately three days before ransomware deployment. 

Following C2 establishment, the actor moved laterally through the network using RDP and WinRM, leveraging a service account with a weak, easily cracked password obtained from the domain credential store, ntds.dit. The actor ultimately deployed the ransomware across the entire domain using a malicious Group Policy Object (GPO) logon script. The incident resulted in the encryption of systems with the .SINOBI file extension, alongside observed data exfiltration staging activity conducted via rclone.exe.

Looking forward, Sinobi operators will likely continue weaponizing legitimate tools like MeshAgent because these binaries blend into standard administrative traffic and bypass many traditional signature-based alerts. The use of GPO-based deployment scripts suggests an understanding of enterprise architecture, and operators will likely continue to exploit centralized management features to ensure rapid, domain-wide encryption. Defenders should prioritize monitoring of administrative tools and implement strict application allowlisting to prevent unauthorized binaries from running as services. Further, proactive hunting for unauthorized MeshAgent instances and auditing service account permissions may help in identifying and disrupting Sinobi activity before encryption. 

Warlock actors deploy Zoho Assist to attempt remote access without active user sessions

In one engagement, we observed Warlock ransomware operators (also known as Storm-2603) deploying an installer for the RMM tool Zoho Assist Unattended Agent, which is designed to allow administrative remote control of an endpoint without a user logged in. The tool, which we have not previously seen attributed to Warlock, enables the attackers to maintain persistent, stealthy, and unrestricted control, significantly increasing the potential malicious impact of an incident.  

While the activity in this particular did not lead to encryption, it was consistent with a successful Warlock ransomware attack Talos observed in May. To counter this threat, organizations must shift from signature-based detection to behavior-based monitoring, focusing on the specific tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) utilized by Storm-2603, such as the abuse of legitimate administrative tools and rapid movement within the network.

Targeting 

For the second quarter in a row, health care led as the most targeted industry vertical accounting for 17 percent of all engagements, with public administration and manufacturing following at 14 percent each. A shared characteristic of these top-targeted sectors is a critical lack of downtime tolerance. The vast majority of targeted health care organizations were entities that directly support clinical operations and/or diagnostic services, where service interruption can result in operational and patient-care consequences. Almost all targeted public administration organizations were local governments, which provide essential public services, while the targeted manufacturing entities represented high-value targets within the industrial supply chain, where potential disruptions could create cascading effects across the downstream technology and energy sectors.

Initial access 

As mentioned, phishing was the top means of gaining initial access this quarter, accounting for over half of engagements where initial access could be determined — an increase from 35 percent last quarter. Many phishing engagements included MFA-bypass techniques, such as OAuth device-code phishing and AiTM frameworks, allowing adversaries to intercept session tokens. Other observed means of achieving initial access included exploitation of public-facing applications and drive-by compromise.

Recommendations for addressing top security weaknesses

Implement properly configured, phishing-resistant MFA and tighten authentication controls 

Authentication abuse was the most prevalent security weakness this quarter, observed in 65 percent of engagements — up sharply from 35 percent last quarter. Adversaries consistently defeated or bypassed MFA using AitM proxies and session-token theft, MFA fatigue attacks, registration of attacker-controlled devices for authentication, and legacy authentication protocols that circumvent MFA altogether. To reduce this risk, Talos IR recommends transitioning from push- and SMS-based MFA to phishing-resistant methods such as FIDO2/WebAuthn and hardware security keys. Organizations should also restrict self-service MFA enrollment by requiring helpdesk verification, block legacy authentication through Conditional Access, enforce number matching or verified push where phishing-resistant methods are not yet feasible, and condition access on device compliance and trusted infrastructure rather than geographic location alone.   

Configure centralized logging with adequate retention across the environment 

Insufficient logging and visibility was the second most common weakness, observed in 42 percent of engagements compared to 18 percent last quarter. Deficiencies included domain controller security logs retained for only a few hours, host event logs truncated or overwritten before capture, absent NetFlow that prevented reconstruction of external authentication and exfiltration, on-device-only logs that adversaries deleted to evade detection, and short cloud-telemetry retention that did not extend back to the true initial-access date. In several engagements these gaps prevented definitive determination of the initial access vector or the scope of data exfiltration. Talos IR recommends implementing a SIEM or centralized logging platform with a minimum of 90 days of retention, forwarding logs from servers, workstations, network infrastructure, cloud identity providers, and security appliances off-device so they survive log tampering and host rebuilds, and enabling process-creation, command-line, and cloud API (e.g., Microsoft Graph) auditing. Talos IR's Log Architecture Assessment service can identify gaps and provide a roadmap to a complete view of the environment. 

Conduct robust patch management and reduce exposed infrastructure 

Vulnerable, exposed, or unpatched internet-facing infrastructure was the third most common weakness, observed in 31 percent of engagements, similar to last quarter’s 25 percent.  A variety of different vulnerabilities were targeted including ToolShell, an older Telerik UI deserialization flaw, and SD-WAN and perimeter-VPN appliance CVEs. Internet-exposed services were also subjected to SQL-injection and denial-of-service activity. Talos IR recommends identifying and prioritizing the patching or decommissioning of all end-of-life and externally exposed systems, isolating systems that cannot be immediately upgraded, restricting management plane and remote access services behind a VPN or trusted source, deploying a Web Application Firewall (WAF) with rules for known exploitation patterns, and establishing a vulnerability management process capable of rapidly identifying and patching exposed assets — particularly given the accelerating reduction in time between vulnerability disclosure and exploitation. 

Enforce strict outbound email thresholds to disrupt attack propagation 

Finally, unlimited outbound email thresholds were a notable security weakness this quarter, enabling threat actors to propagate malicious activity in almost 15 percent of engagements. Though not as prevalent as the above weaknesses, it was more frequently observed than in previous quarters and warrants mention. For example, in one engagement, a user clicked on a malicious phishing email that led to credential theft and account compromise. Shortly after the threat actors gained access to the user’s mailbox, they sent over 6,600 phishing and spam emails to continue the attack chain. The failure to contain the compromise via outbound rate limiting significantly amplifies the damage of a single compromised credential; implementing these controls is a low-effort, high-impact mitigation strategy that effectively disrupts the attack chain. 

Top-observed MITRE ATT&CK techniques  

The table below represents the MITRE ATT&CK techniques observed in this quarter’s Talos IR engagement. Given that some techniques can fall under multiple tactics, we grouped them under the most relevant tactic in which they were leveraged. Please note this is not an exhaustive list.  

Key findings from the MITRE ATT&CK framework include:  

• Consistent with phishing being a top threat this quarter, email hiding rules was the most observed tactic for persistence while internal spearphishing was most seen for lateral movement. 
• Use of valid accounts was frequently observed for both privilege escalation and persistence, highlighting how identity abuse remains a key theme across engagements.  
• Actors also relied on legitimate tools and web protocols to challenge detection, abusing native email features and cloud APIs, relying on standard web protocols for C2, and using valid administrative credentials for RDP and SSH.

The following analysis presents the key findings from Kaspersky Compromise Assessment engagements performed in 2025. A compromise assessment is an independent, expert-driven service that examines whether a target network has been compromised. The service combines threat intelligence analysis (including darknet sources), tool-aided endpoint scanning, a systematic review of security event logs and network traffic, and, when necessary, an initial incident response and digital forensic investigation.

This report focuses on missed incidents – threats that remained undetected for weeks, months, or even years.

Key trends observed during compromise assessment engagements

• Proactive compromise assessment decreases the number of missed high-severity incidents. The highest proportions of high-severity incidents were revealed in organizations that requested our compromise assessment service after containing a known incident. The lowest proportions of high-severity incidents were observed in organizations that conducted regular audits. Of all the incidents discovered, 20% were found manually, while enterprises missed 60% because of the absence of high-confidence alerts from the tools in place.
• Nearly a third of discovered incidents took over three months to detect. The longer a threat persisted in the target environment, the greater the likelihood that an incident would be severe. 30.8% of all discovered incidents and 52% of high-severity compromises had historical activity spanning over three months. The oldest incident discovered in 2025 had gone undetected for four years.
• Malicious files often remain in backups and are restored after incident response activities. 40% of all discovered web shells resided in backups and went unnoticed until a proper compromise assessment was conducted.
• Threat actors rely on remote management tools and LoLBins. These types of tools were found in all compromise assessment engagements that resulted in an incident detection.
• Monitoring tools and controls are not self-sufficient; operational maturity makes the difference. Monitoring tools must be configured and adapted to the changing threat landscape. Furthermore, human analysts need to review low-confidence alerts. A lack of continuous monitoring and threat hunting activities increased the likelihood of high- and medium-severity incidents to 84–86%. At the same time, high‑severity incidents were rare among organizations with in-house capabilities to reverse-engineer malware.
• Communication issues lead to missed incidents. Nearly a third of the compromise assessments revealed communication issues that impacted incident response activities.
• The incident response playbook is not set in stone. For incident response to be efficient and effective, playbooks must be updated as new artifacts are discovered. Treating the incident response plan as a living document reduces the risk of missing threats.

About the Kaspersky Compromise Assessment service

Our global compromise assessment portfolio spans several regions. In 2025, around 71% of the incidents we identified affected our customers in the META region, while the APAC and CIS regions accounted for the remaining 29%.

Geographic distribution of incidents identified during Kaspersky Compromise Assessment projects in 2025 (download)

Our service was requested by organizations from a diverse set of sectors. The government sector accounted for around 29% of incidents, followed by the education (19%) and financial (17%) sectors.

Distribution of economy sector incidents identified during Kaspersky Compromise Assessment projects in 2025 (download)

Detection logic families

Our compromise assessments operate on a continuously updated catalogue of indicators of attack (IoAs). Because the raw set of IoAs is too granular for high-level reporting, we map them to a concise set of detection logic families. The statistics indicate that three detection families dominate the incident mix:

• Credentials from dumps: 12.4% of all incidents;
• Specific living-off-the-land (LOTL) tools: 11.2 %;
• Specific malware families: 11.2 %.

These three detection logic families represent high-fidelity indicators of attack that reliably signal infrastructure compromises ranging from dormant, disk-based malware to persistent and multi-stage attacks.

Distribution of detection logic families (download)

Reasons for requesting Kaspersky Compromise Assessment services

Analysis of our compromise assessment engagements that took place in 2025 reveals a clear correlation between the stated purpose of the engagement and the risk profile of the findings. General audits dominate the portfolio with 56% of requests, followed by authority reporting engagements (19%), post-incident checkups (17%), and acquisitions (9%).

Statistics on the reasons behind CA project requests (download)

When the findings are classified by severity, the post-incident checkup category exhibits the highest proportion of high-severity incidents (40.7%). The full breakdown is shown below.

Post-incident checkups are frequently initiated after an initial incident response (IR) effort. The elevated share of high-severity findings suggests that IR activities, which are typically limited to containing a known incident, do not provide a complete view of the broader environment. Consequently, other threats may remain undetected until a full compromise assessment is performed.

Merger and acquisition-related assessments are proactive assessments performed when a company acquires another entity. This involves the target’s network being scanned for hidden threats before the two environments are merged. These assessments demonstrate a balanced distribution of severity: 28.6% low-severity, 42.8% medium-severity, and 28.6 % high-severity. This reflects the mixed risk posture of target environments of acquisitions, which are often evaluated for both known vulnerabilities and hidden malicious activity. Similarly, other proactive approaches like general audit assessments or assessments driven by the need to regularly submit a compliance report to a regulatory authority, share almost the same ratio. This indicates that regular, proactive and compliance-oriented assessments tend to reveal substantive issues earlier in the attack lifecycle, reducing the likelihood that they will evolve into high-severity incidents.

Organizations that conduct regular audits have the highest rate of low-severity findings (36%) and the lowest rate of high-severity issues (28%). We can assume with medium confidence that continuous, proactive compromise assessments are more effective at limiting the emergence of high-severity compromises than reactive, incident-driven evaluations. The data collected in 2025 are consistent with this hypothesis. Integrating regular, third-party compromise assessments into governance processes can therefore reduce the probability of unexpected high-severity findings and improve overall risk posture.

The following case study illustrates the impact of relying on a reactive rather than proactive approach. It describes a persistent threat that remained dormant on a client’s network and was only discovered after a comprehensive compromise assessment was performed following initial IR activity.

Case study: Dormant threat uncovered only by a compromise assessment

A midsize enterprise suffered a high-severity intrusion that was contained and remediated by the IR team within the defined scope of the initial alert. Following containment, the organization requested a check to determine if any additional footholds existed elsewhere in the network. To address this need, the organization engaged Kaspersky’s Compromise Assessment (CA) service, which performed a full forensic review of the environment beyond the scope of the initial incident.

Compromise assessment experts collected forensic metadata, historical security event logs, and Active Directory configuration data from the entire infrastructure. Threat hunting queries were executed against the aggregated telemetry, focusing on persistence mechanisms, lateral movement artifacts, and anomalous process activity. As a result, a number of severe threats were detected and reported; for example, malicious persistence:

1. A cron job that recreates a web shell
   A critical Linux system (web server) had a cron job that automated fetched a copy of a PHP web shell from a public GitHub repository and placed it in an online directory. Even if the file was removed by security personnel, the cron job would simply download it again, giving the attacker a persistent remote code execution point on the web server.
   
2. A live reverse shell
   On a server hosting a published web application, the process list showed a bash reverse shell.It was run by a user with the username “apache,” which was the account used to run the web application. This may indicate that the attacker exploited a vulnerability in the web application to gain remote code execution, allowing them to establish a reliable command and control channel that bypassed the firewall because it was initiated from inside the network.
3. ClipBanker data stealer persisting via Windows registry
   A ClipBanker variant was detected on a user’s workstation machine maintaining persistence by adding itself to the registry key HKU\S-1-5-21-[REDACTED]-500\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\9Er6IIp.
   
   This was done after adding the malware’s folder to Windows Defender exclusions and applying hidden and system attributes to the file to hide it from regular users.
4. Malicious WMI event consumer with deceptive alias
   A malicious WMI event consumer was detected that downloads and executes a PowerShell script. It created the alias “Kaspersky” for “Invoke-Expression” in an attempt to blend in as legitimate activity in the hope that a quick glance at the script would not raise suspicion. Kaspersky’s Cyber Threat Intelligence confirmed that the downloaded script (no longer reachable) was a weaponized payload used to spread the infection further.
   

The IR containment was rapid, focused and effective in addressing the specific incident that triggered the alert. However, the broad-scope compromise assessment revealed multiple backdoors across the environment, each using a different persistence technique: cron jobs, scheduled registry runs, and WMI subscriptions. The infected hosts were outside the original IR scope, so they remained unseen until a comprehensive hunt was conducted.

Incident response excels at stopping the bleeding and ensuring business continuity after a known incident. A compromise assessment provides a health check that determines whether any other wounds exist. By pairing timely IR with regular, full network compromise assessments, the organization had both the reactive agility to contain incidents and the proactive visibility to eradicate malicious persistence wherever it was hiding. The investigation uncovered additional undetected footholds, providing a clearer view of the environment and reducing the likelihood of a repeat incident.

Missed long-term incidents

The statistics on the mean time to detect (MTTD) incidents identified during compromise assessment projects are concerning. Many incidents go unnoticed for extended periods. For example, in 2025 we identified an incident that was approximately four years old!

Such prolonged detection times can lead to severe consequences, as 30.8% of incidents have historical activity spanning over three months. These incidents can range from dormant malware to persistent threats, highlighting the need for robust detection and response mechanisms.

Severity distribution of incidents by MTTD (download)

The relationship between detection latency and incident severity was analyzed by grouping findings according to their MTTD:

• For incidents detected within the first month, severity is more or less evenly distributed among the low, medium and high categories.
• However, as the MTTD increases, the severity of incidents shifts towards higher severity. Notably, a high proportion of incidents that took between 30–60 days to be detected are medium-severity incidents (78.57%), while those detected between 60–90 days are predominantly high-severity (71.43%).
• Among incidents detected after 90 days, a significant proportion are also high-severity incidents (52%).

Overall, 52% of high-severity incidents are only identified after 90 days of going undetected. This represents a concrete risk: the longer an incident goes undetected, the higher the probability of severe compromise. Organizations that integrate continuous detection, threat hunting activities, and regular compromise assessments can reduce MTTD, limit threat escalation, and lower their overall risk profile.

The following case study highlights the importance of timely detection and response to prevent incidents from escalating into high-severity events.

Case study: Four-year-old crypto mining activity on domain controllers

In May 2025, our compromise assessment experts identified three domain controllers on a customer network that were infected with malicious files. The files had remained hidden for almost four years. They were created in the C:\Windows\Fonts\Mysql directory, abusing its unique characteristic whereby only font files in this directory are visible to regular users. Files with the names nei.bat, dl1host.exe, bat.bat, cmd.bat, and a spoofed svchost.exe were found there. These files were created in June and July of 2021.

Kaspersky Threat Intelligence confirmed that these files are part of a crypto-mining campaign called NSABuffMiner, which spreads via the SMB protocol by exploiting the EternalBlue (MS17-010) vulnerability. A patch was released for this vulnerability in March 2017, four years before the initial compromise. This was more than enough time to patch the systems. This underscores the importance of implementing effective patch management operations and staying informed through threat intelligence news feeds.

Based on the organization’s request, the malicious files were collected along with a forensic image for analysis and revealed the following:

• bat.bat and cmd.bat generate random IPs and scan them with a lightweight port scanner renamed taskhost.exe to locate live hosts with SMB port 445 and NetBIOS port 139 open and looking for vulnerable machines.
• Discovered vulnerable IPs are handed to helper scripts named bat, poab.bat, load.bat, and loab.bat that execute the malware mance.exe, Eter.exe, and puls.exe to inject the malicious DLLs Eternalblue2.dll and Doublepulsar2.dll into lsass.exe and explorer.exe, enabling lateral movement.
• Persistence is then established by creating scheduled tasks to execute the propagation and infection scripts, and services are created to execute the crypto miner, with the names MicrosoftMysql, MicrosoftFonts, and MicrosoftMSSql. Other scheduled tasks were also observed with the names At1 and At2 and created for the same purpose.
• After successfully compromising the machine and installing the persistence mechanisms, a cleanup task is performed to delete temporary files and dropped malware.

Because of the lack of proper monitoring and threat hunting procedures, the organization was unaware that a mining operation had been hijacking their resources for four years, running on their domain controllers.

Unintentional malware preservation

An issue that is frequently discovered during compromise assessment activities is that of web shells remaining or being restored on target systems. Based on data collected during 2025 compromise assessment engagements, 64% of web shell incidents were classified as high-severity findings, 7% as low-severity (possibly legitimate files, but potentially compromised), and 29% as medium-severity findings requiring eradication.

Web shell incident distribution by severity (download)

One way web shells persist is through infected backups. The distribution of discovered incidents in our projects shows that 60% of the web shells were located on active systems, while 40% were stored in backups. Restoring such backups can reintroduce the threat long after the initial infection.

Web shell location (download)

Another common issue is asset inventory gaps, which were observed in 25% of engagements. This resulted in untracked devices, particularly cloud-only Linux web servers that are not joined to Active Directory, evading routine scans.

Asset inventory issues (download)

An attacker can plant a web shell on such a cloud server, and that server never appears in the inventory, though is still regularly backed up. As a result, the web shell may persist on the cloud server for a long time. If it is occasionally deleted, the backup server later restores the infected files, exposing the web shell to third parties again. This demonstrates that without a complete and up-to-date asset inventory, detection capabilities are significantly impaired.

One case was observed in which the web shell was located on an internal file server (not a web server) within a .rar archive at the following path: D:\backup\[redacted_for_privacy].rar/wwwroot/<…>/[redacted_for_privacy].aspx

During the investigation, the server administrators indicated that the folder had been copied from a different server that was offline at the time of the assessment. Because of poor asset inventory, the company’s security team did not detect the infection of this server. As a result of the backup procedure, the web shell was copied to the internal file server. Forensic analysis of the offline server revealed that the adversary had introduced a backdoor to the majority of the Windows servers in the environment, configuring the local administrator account with an identical password.

The technique involved using PsExec to execute a .cmd script across all the servers listed in a .txt file; the script altered the local administrator password to a common value:

Legitimate, yet suspicious: LoLBins and remote management tools

In 2025, nonstandard remote management (RM) utilities were observed in all compromise assessment engagements. Living-off-the-land binaries (LoLBins) were also present in every engagement. These findings highlight the ongoing challenge for security operations centers (SOCs) that must distinguish between legitimate administrative use and malicious abuse.

The observed remote management utilities span both proprietary platforms, such as TeamViewer and AnyDesk, and freely available tools, including PsExec, VNC servers, and open-source RM frameworks. These binaries are used daily in many environments for troubleshooting, software deployment, or remote support. However, the same capabilities – creating a new local admin account, copying files to a remote share, or launching a network port scan for diagnostics – are also typical of attacker post-exploitation activity. Our analysts frequently encounter cases where a legitimate sysadmin action resembles a lateral movement step. This makes the mere fact that “a remote management tool was executed” insufficient to classify it as an incident. Instead, the incident must be judged against an organization-specific baseline of expected usage. Establishing that baseline requires a deep, contextual understanding of who is authorized to run the tool, from which endpoints, and under which circumstances – a resource-intensive process on a case-by-case basis.

LoLBins, binaries that are part of the operating system or commonly installed utilities (such as certutil, bitsadmin, regsvr32, and wmic), were also present in every assessment. While these files are trusted system components, threat intelligence confirms they are often repurposed for lateral movement, data exfiltration, and persistence. The graph below shows the severity distribution for incidents involving riskware or a LoLBin binary. The relatively high share of medium- (40%) and high-severity (31%) findings underscores that misuse of legitimate utilities is often the vector that enables a compromise to progress beyond the initial foothold.

Severity distribution of incidents involving riskware or LoLBin involvement (2025) (download)

To address the potential use of LoLBins and remote management tools by attackers, we recommend a multi-layered approach that goes beyond static deny lists:

1. Formalize a policy that enumerates the remote management tools authorized for use. The policy must be coupled with a requirement to forward software operational logs to a central log management platform (SIEM or dedicated log collector). Continuous monitoring of these logs enables a SOC to detect deviations from authorized usage patterns.
2. Periodically perform a software inventory audit to identify unauthorized remote management tools. Consider collecting data from the following registry keys on all hosts:
   • HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall
   • HKLM\Software\WOW6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall
   • HKEY_USERS\*\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall
   • HKEY_USERS\*\Software\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall
3. Enrich the hashes (MD5/SHA-256) of every executed binary with a functional category, such as “Remote Access”, “Golden Image”, or “Security Software.” Correlating the category with the execution path makes it possible to hunt for instances where a “Remote Access” binary runs from a non-standard location, such as %TEMP% or a user’s Downloads folder.
4. Deploy detection rules that capture known LoLBin abuse patterns, such as certutil -decode, bitsadmin -transfer, regsvr32 -i <dll>, wmic process call create. These rules should be continuously baselined against the organization’s normal activity. The baseline is derived from a period of verified legitimate use and refreshed whenever new legitimate use cases emerge. Alerts are generated only when observed behavior diverges from the established norm, thereby reducing noise while preserving sensitivity to genuine abuse.

Impact of not having continuous monitoring and proactive threat hunting

Analyses of recent compromise assessment projects reveal a systematic blind spot in organizations that follow the security-by-purchase model to defend their networks. Without continuous human monitoring or a dedicated threat hunting program, the severity profile of detected incidents becomes heavily skewed toward a higher impact:

Often, the problem is not a lack of tools, but rather a lack of operational use of those tools. Many enterprises deploy next-generation security solutions and then let them run in “set-and-forget” mode, or they rely exclusively on an alert-driven workflow. The following issues are common in such organizations:

• Alert fatigue: high false positive rates drown analysts in noise, forcing them to triage superficial indicators rather than conduct deep, contextual investigations.
• Fragmented analyst assignment: without a dedicated hunting team, the same analyst may be tasked with dozens of unrelated alerts, limiting the time available for the hypothesis-driven exploration required to uncover stealthy footholds.

The practical consequence is that adversaries retain an extended dwell time, enabling continued lateral movement and data exfiltration before the organization becomes aware of the breach. This pattern represents a measurable risk exposure that translates directly into business impact. As the following example illustrates, merely purchasing security controls does not guarantee detection; continuous monitoring, regular alert validation, and structured threat hunting are essential to reduce dwell time and limit business impact.

Case study: Secure by design without continuous monitoring

The enterprise invested in security controls and assumed that the environment was secure by design. However, security controls require proper configuration, continuous tuning, and active monitoring to be effective. The tools had been installed, but no one was ensuring that the security controls were configured effectively, there was no analyst reviewing the alerts they produced, and no schedule existed to review the collected logs.

The organization opted for Kaspersky’s Compromise Assessment service. Historical security logs were collected and investigated as part of the assessment procedures. The goal was simple: to determine what had really been going on in the network over the previous few months.

Log analysis revealed clear evidence of malicious activity. Activities related to Impacket behavior were discovered that led to the deployment of Cobalt Strike and Mimikatz on several critical servers, including the domain controllers. These activities were three months old at the time of detection, and the enterprise was unaware of them because there was no effective 24/7 monitoring in place.

Impacket is a collection of Python scripts for network protocols and low-level network packet manipulation. Attackers can abuse it to move laterally into the network. The following are examples of its artifacts detected in the network:

The attacker used Impacket to execute a PowerShell command that downloaded an executable from a command-and-control server. This server was found to be associated with Cobalt Strike. Cobalt Strike is a post-exploitation tool that provides capabilities for remote command execution and lateral movement within a compromised network. The execution was set up via a scheduled task that attempted to masquerade as a legitimate Google Chrome update task.

The timeline assessment confirmed the presence of a Mimikatz binary and a memory dump associated with the same incident on the compromised system, confirming that a credential theft operation had indeed taken place.

The organization was completely unaware of the breach. The activity had gone undetected for three months because the deployed controls were never monitored. Upon learning of the findings, a full-scale incident response was initiated to eradicate the footholds, rotate credentials, and harden the security of the environment.

Security controls are not self-sufficient. Deploying a firewall or an EDR solution does not automatically protect you. Without proper configuration, baseline tuning, and, most critically, continuous log monitoring and threat hunting, those controls become merely decorative. Always-on monitoring, either performed internally or delegated to an external managed security service, can turn weeks-old compromises into minutes-old alerts by correlating events, hunting for anomalous use of penetration testing or hacking tools, and escalating suspicious activity.

Incident response action statistics

An analysis of historical compromise assessment projects reveals a persistent discrepancy between the best practices described in incident response playbooks and the operational realities of executing them in unprepared, often legacy-affected environments. The figure below shows how frequently each response action was required during the initial response phase of a compromise assessment.

Incident response actions required after compromise assessment (download)

The distribution highlights three frequently observed patterns:

• Forensic analysis accounts for the majority of cases, with around 59% requiring at least one forensic package collection and analysis.
• Remote eradication, i.e., file or registry key removal, was reported in 39% of cases.
• Plans evolve as the investigation proceeds; 39% of engagements required a mid-engagement plan update, reflecting the iterative nature of incident response.

Why forensic collection is the default entry point

Forensic package collection and analysis was the most frequent response action, occurring in 59% of cases. The prevalence of forensic package collection can be explained by two observable factors in CA engagements: (1) the targeted organization’s limited historical visibility and (2) the fact that a substantial proportion of incidents were older than 90 days at the start of the assessment. In many cases, native logs had already been rotated or purged, forcing investigators to rely on residual artifacts (e.g., MFT entries, registry hives, filesystem timestamps) to reconstruct timelines.

Our observations suggest that remote forensic package collection is effectively a prerequisite rather than an optional convenience. The graph below summarizes the reported ability to collect forensic packages, categorized by incident severity level. It highlights that, in a significant proportion of high-severity cases, the affected organization lacked this capability.

The organization’s ability to collect forensic data by incident severity (download)

Containment: The remove files/registry keys paradox

Response execution and eradication actions, such as file or registry key removal (reported in 39% of cases), were also common. However, they highlighted a notable gap in execution practices. While many organizations reported having EDR capabilities for remote removal, execution was often delegated to IT teams or MSPs via ticketing systems. This can introduce delays and reduce the precision of the removal process. Malware removal is a surgical process, particularly in multi-stage, fileless, or persistence-heavy scenarios. Capability alone is insufficient without expertise, sequencing, and planning, especially when artifacts may exist in shadow copies, backups, hidden paths, or downloader chains.

Communication failures: An additional operational overhead

A notable organizational finding emerged regarding communication. In 32% of projects, internal communication issues at the assessed organization materially impacted response execution. Below are the typical blockers:

• Unclear action confirmation – system administrators could not quickly confirm whether a suspicious file was legitimate.
• Delayed owner validation – ticket escalations stalled while waiting for system owners to respond.
• Compromised communication channels – email accounts or ticketing portals may already be under the attacker’s control in the event of a suspected domain compromise.
• Staff turnover – loss of knowledge about historical configuration baselines.

These findings suggest that regular tabletop exercises are required to test not only technical playbooks, but also human and communication workflows, as well as operational level agreements that govern and facilitate communication between different teams, and standard operating procedures for proper documentation.

The iterative nature of response plan updates

The need to update response plans based on new analytical input arose in 39% of cases, emphasizing the inherently iterative nature of incident response. Early-stage plans cannot realistically account for all variables. Examples of the most commonly observed causes for updating the response plan are listed below:

• Reverse engineering results that reveal previously unknown command-and-control (C2) servers or behaviors.
• Forensic discoveries, such as hidden scheduled tasks, shadow-copy artifacts, or dormant DLLs.
• Traffic analysis outcomes that expose additional lateral movement paths.
• Human constraints – unavailable system owners, changes in management processes, or supervisor approval.

Based on our experience, teams that treat the IR plan as a living document – incorporating each new artifact, reprioritizing actions, and reissuing the playbook before the next containment step – reduce the risk of missed eradication steps. Conversely, strict adherence to an initial, evidence-limited plan can increase the risk of overlooking persistent footholds.

Distinguishing real attacker artifacts from penetration testing leftovers

Finally, distinguishing attacker activity from penetration testing artifacts remained a recurring challenge (12% of cases). Compromise assessments frequently uncover remnants of legitimate testing tools, which can create uncertainty about whether a detected artifact originated from a malicious intrusion or a legitimate penetration test. Contributing factors:

• Poorly documented penetration test report and artifact cleanup.
• Overlapping toolsets (e.g., SharpHound) used by both red team operators and adversaries.
• Running compromise assessments and active penetration testing projects simultaneously, which degrades analyst focus and increases false positive rates. Although correlating findings with penetration testing reports is essential, compromise assessments are human-driven investigative processes, and confusing analysts with overlapping “legitimate” attack signals leads to misinterpretation and weaker outcomes.

Incident response maturity and its effect on severity

Our data show a correlation between the presence of internal digital forensics or malware reverse engineering capabilities and the distribution of incident severity categories. Across the 2025 compromise assessment engagements, the distribution of low-, medium- and high-severity findings differed markedly between organizations that possessed these capabilities and those that did not. The data below illustrate this correlation and provide a basis for assessing the business value of expanding internal response skill sets.

Incident severity split for cases requiring digital forensics, based on an organization’s capabilities (download)

Organizations capable of analyzing digital forensic artifacts independently experienced half as many high-severity incidents and a higher proportion of low- and medium-severity cases.

Incident severity split for cases requiring malware analysis, based on an organization’s capabilities (download)

The presence of a dedicated reverse engineering resource correlates with a total absence of high-severity cases in our sample set; the majority of incidents were rated as medium severity, with a significant proportion of low-severity outcomes.

The analysis of this correlation indicates, with medium confidence, that the observed shifts are unlikely to be caused solely by sample size effects. Rather, they are more likely to reflect a genuine operational phenomenon: internal digital forensics and malware analysis capabilities contribute not only to SOC processes, but also to cyber-resilience in general.

Case study: In-memory LionTail infection on critical Windows servers

During a compromise assessment, a persistent in-memory threat was identified on several critical servers. The activity was attributed to the LionTail framework, a sophisticated set of custom loaders and memory-resident shellcode implants. LionTail takes advantage of undocumented Windows HTTP.sys driver behaviors to covertly deliver and retrieve payloads via inbound HTTP traffic, effectively blending malicious activity into legitimate network flows.

Several observed variants are attributed to the Scarred Manticore actor, which generates a unique implant per compromised host and performs data exfiltration while carefully masking command-and-control communications within normal-looking traffic.

Detection was achieved through static memory signatures discovered within the scrcons.exe process. Although scrcons.exe is a legitimate WMI host binary located under C:\Windows\System32\wbem, it is frequently abused to host injected payloads, making it an attractive target for stealthy in-memory operations.

The response plan comprised a number of actions, the most critical of which are highlighted below:

• Collection of volatile memory dumps for in-depth analysis.
• Acquisition of full forensic disk images from affected systems.
• Detailed analysis of the collected artifacts and subsequent updates to the incident response plan.

Executing these actions proved challenging for the organization because of its limited digital forensics and reverse engineering capabilities. In incidents dominated by fileless memory-resident threats, these capabilities are not optional – they are essential. Without them, organizations risk losing critical evidence, misjudging the scope of the compromise, or failing to fully eradicate advanced implants that leave minimal traces on disk.

While our specialists were able to complete the investigation and contain the breach, the case revealed a readiness gap. It demonstrated the operational risk of depending on external assistance during high‑impact incidents and reinforced the necessity of in‑house forensic and reverse‑engineering maturity to achieve timely, confident and comprehensive incident handling.

Solving the root cause problems

Upon completion of a compromise assessment engagement, the focus shifts from incident response to a consulting phase. The final workshop focuses on preventing recurrence of incidents by identifying underlying deficiencies that allowed them to go unnoticed. The recommendations are actionable and tailored to the environment. For the purpose of this report, they have been grouped into a limited set of high-level categories.

Common observations on root causes

The detection health check was the most frequent corrective action. In more than half of the cases where alerts were missing, a simple verification of sensor health and rule relevance was recommended to fill the gap. Without such validation, immediate attribution of the failure to the product capability could not be made.
Human analysis is still essential for low-confidence alerts. Automated pipelines alone cannot compensate for rules prone to false positives (e.g., generic web shell heuristics). Embedding a manual triage step was recommended to reduce the dwell time for incidents.

Process hygiene (vulnerability management, threat hunting, security policies) accounts for a substantial proportion of the root causes. Even mature organizations exhibited gaps in routine activities that could be mitigated with disciplined workflows. The absence of documented policies/processes was the root cause of 23.9% of cases.

A modern example of a policy gap is the use of generative AI development tools that operate without clear data handling rules. During one project, we identified a macOS workstation that executed the Claude Code (Anthropic) command-line assistant as a VS Code extension. The tool automatically captured filesystem snapshots to enrich its language model prompts. These snapshots included full directory listings and absolute paths to several Excel workbooks containing internal confidential data:

The organization was advised to conduct awareness sessions for employees on the risk of exposing confidential internal data to generative AI tools, and to develop a policy governing the use of such tools with confidential information.

Lack of detections: Causes and impacts

Compromise assessment engagements repeatedly show that insufficient detection fidelity is a significant contributing factor to high-severity incidents. In cases where the target organization’s detection coverage was rated low, 52% of incidents were classified as high severity and 15% as low severity. This suggests a correlation: limited visibility appears to increase the proportion of incidents that evolve into high-severity compromises.

Incident severity distribution when detection coverage was insufficient (download)

A common assumption is that engaging a managed security service provider (MSSP) improves detection maturity. The data, however, show a more nuanced picture. Even when an MSSP is engaged, 26.5% of incidents related to low detection coverage remain unidentified, and roughly 50% of MSSP-supported projects have basic Windows audit gaps (e.g., missing event log collection or disabled audit policies).
These findings suggest that outsourcing alone does not guarantee effective detection; active governance and continuous validation are required. Detection should be treated as an evolving capability that requires continuous testing, measurement, and refinement, irrespective of whether it is managed internally or by a third party.

Statistics of missed incidents due to lack of detection capability with or without MSSP (download)

The analysis of root causes of missed detections reveals several recurring themes. In many environments, the technology is present but poorly operationalized. The main issues are:

• Absence of endpoint protection platform (EPP) health check – nearly 50% of incidents escalated to high severity in engagements where the EPP health check was weak or absent. This reflects the classic “installed-but-not-enforced” risk, where agents are present but not tuned, updated, or validated.
• Threat intelligence gaps – when there was no functional threat intelligence feed or platform, about half of the incidents reached high severity. Without curated indicators of compromise and contextual enrichment, analysts rely on generic alerts and may overlook known malicious behaviors.

The underlying issue is an alert-driven, set-and-forget mindset: organizations assume that deployed tools will automatically protect them, even though the tools are not continuously tuned, validated, or enriched with threat intelligence.

Detection failures are rarely caused by a single missing control; they emerge from weak configuration, insufficient telemetry, and an absence of regular checks of controls and processes to ensure they are functional, especially in outsourced models. A hybrid monitoring approach that combines internal ownership with external MDR or MSSP support consistently proves to be the most resilient model when roles, expectations, and performance metrics are clearly defined. Detection must be treated as a living function, not a procurement outcome.

The following example illustrates the real-world consequences of control gaps by walking through a severe incident that persisted undetected for months simply because the organization lacked the necessary detection capabilities and security tools.

Case study: In-memory PurpleFox infection evades conventional endpoint protection

During a compromise assessment engagement, memory was scanned on the target hosts using the threat hunting rule set. Two hidden objects were identified:

• PurpleFox rootkit code injected into legitimate svchost.exe processes on several critical servers.
• XMRig cryptocurrency miner signatures residing inside the same compromised svchost.exe instances.

PurpleFox drops specially crafted DLLs and forces svchost.exe to load them. From there, it installs a kernel-mode driver that gives the attacker persistent and stealthy execution capabilities, as well as the ability to pull additional payloads. This results in the loading of the XMRig miner.

The deployed EPP solution monitored file creation, registry modifications and network connections. However, its memory inspection module was disabled. Additionally, the signature set applied at the time of the assessment was not up to date. As a result, no alerts were generated for the injected DLLs or the miner’s shellcode. The compromise assessment team identified this detection gap during the memory analysis phase and documented the missing in-memory inspection capability in the final report.

The organization’s security operations were outsourced to an MSSP, which collected the logs and forwarded them to the SIEM solution. Because the logs never contained alerts for in-memory activity, PurpleFox activity was not identified.

Insufficient vulnerability management: A catalyst for high-severity compromises

In the 2025 compromise assessment engagements, more than half of the threats identified and linked to insufficient vulnerability management practices or missing patches were classified as high severity. The most frequently observed consequences were the deployment of web shells that enabled persistent remote code execution and the exploitation of misconfigured Active Directory instances.

Severity distribution of incidents due to improper vulnerability management (download)

The root causes of missing patches are multifaceted. They include inadequate asset inventory management (25% of projects) and the absence of formal vulnerability management processes (41% of projects). Moreover, 86% of organizations that claimed to have a vulnerability management program still exhibited exploited misconfigurations during compromise assessment engagements. These findings suggest that robust patch management, comprehensive asset inventory practices, and structured vulnerability management processes are critical for preventing high-severity incidents.

Case study: How overly permissive GPO-based software distribution goes wrong

During multiple compromise assessment engagements, a high-impact misconfiguration was consistently observed: a Group Policy Object (GPO) was used to point to an executable in a shared folder and run it on every workstation via a scheduled task. The access control list (ACL) on the share was set to “Everyone – Full Control”.

Given that any authenticated domain user can write to the share, an attacker who compromises a single low-privilege account can replace the legitimate binary with a malicious payload. The next scheduled task run propagates the payload automatically to all endpoints that receive the GPO. This provides:

• Elevated execution context: the scheduled task typically runs under the SYSTEM or local administrator account.
• Automatic lateral movement: the malicious binary propagates without requiring additional network exploitation.
• Privilege escalation: a compromised low-privilege account can lead to domain administrator code execution.

Vulnerability management procedures that include systematic GPO and share permission audits would have flagged the writeable ACL as a high-severity finding, enabling remediation before exploitation. Remediation typically involves restricting the share permissions to “Authenticated Users” with read-only access and limiting modifications to certain privileged accounts. Incorporating these checks into the baseline security controls reduces the attack surface, demonstrating the tangible risk reduction achievable through disciplined vulnerability assessment and penetration testing (VAPT) practices.

Conclusion

In 2025, Kaspersky Compromise Assessment helped organizations reveal a persistent detection gap: 30.8% of all incidents and 52% of high-severity compromises had historical activity spanning over three months. Of all the incidents discovered, 20% were found manually, while 60% were missed by enterprises because of the absence of high-confidence alerts from existing tools. The oldest missed incident identified by the Kaspersky Compromise Assessment team in 2025 was four years old.

Post-incident checkups produced the highest percentage of high-severity findings, while regular proactive audits, compliance-driven audits, and audits performed before merging two networks tended to reveal issues earlier. This indicates that purely reactive investigations often miss hidden persistence. The top high-level recommendations for immediate improvement in 2025 for all projects were:

• Run a comprehensive detection engine health check within 30 days of project closure, prioritizing telemetry integrity and rule relevance.
• Introduce a Tier 1 alert validation team that reviews all low-confidence events on a defined schedule.
• Ensure robust 24/7 monitoring augmented with threat hunting capabilities focused on baselining, low-fidelity alerts, and emerging adversary techniques.
• Reevaluate the vulnerability management pipeline to ensure continuous patching and audit log activation across all critical assets.
• Update security awareness curricula to address credential leakage from personal devices and reinforce secure BYOD practices.
• Ensure periodic tabletop exercises are run to test technical playbooks and sharpen the team’s skills and communication workflows.
• Establish operational-level agreements to govern and facilitate communication between different teams and standard operating procedures used for proper documentation.

Addressing the root cause categories systematically will reduce the likelihood of future blind spots and improve the overall security posture of the engaged organizations.

Unit 42 highlights the need for a comprehensive security strategy that spans every IT zone. Explore the full details here.

The post Essential Data Sources for Detection Beyond the Endpoint appeared first on Unit 42.

In 2026, hybrid warfare is no longer a theoretical construct discussed in policy circles; it is shaping geopolitical conflict in real time. The convergence of cyber warfare and kinetic attacks has transformed how nations project power, blending missiles, malware, and misinformation into unified campaigns. What distinguishes modern hybrid warfare from earlier conflicts is not just the presence of digital operations, but their synchronization with physical strikes to produce layered, systemic disruption. 

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East, where escalating tensions have turned the region into a proving ground for cyber-physical warfare. Governments, energy systems, financial networks, and communication infrastructures are being targeted simultaneously, exposing vulnerabilities that extend far beyond national borders. The result is a battlespace where the frontlines are both physical and invisible, and where disruption can ripple globally within hours. 

From Conflict to Convergence: The Rise of Cyber Physical Warfare 

The turning point came on February 28, 2026, when coordinated military and cyber campaigns marked a new phase in hybrid war strategy. Joint operations combined airstrikes with cyberattacks, information warfare, and psychological operations, targeting nuclear facilities, military assets, and digital infrastructure in parallel. Internet connectivity in targeted regions dropped to as low as 1–4% of normal levels during the initial assault, demonstrating the effectiveness of integrated cyber warfare and kinetic attacks. 

These operations were not designed for immediate destruction alone. Instead, they aimed to disorient command structures, disrupt civilian communication, and weaken public trust. Digital interference extended to media channels and widely used mobile applications, some of which were compromised to spread false information and induce panic. 

The response was equally multifaceted. Within 72 hours, missile and drone strikes were accompanied by a surge in cyber activity, including spear-phishing campaigns, ransomware-style attacks, and coordinated data exfiltration efforts targeting energy grids, airports, and financial institutions. 

Hacktivists as Force Multipliers in Modern Hybrid Warfare 

One of the defining characteristics of modern hybrid warfare is the role of non-state actors. More than 70 hacktivist groups became active participants in the 2026 conflict, blurring the lines between state-sponsored operations and independent cyber activism. These groups executed distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, website defacements, and credential harvesting campaigns across multiple countries. 

Their involvement amplifies the scale and unpredictability of cyber warfare and kinetic attacks. While some groups operate with ideological motivations, others appear loosely aligned with state objectives, acting as force multipliers without formal attribution. This ambiguity complicates response strategies and increases the risk of escalation. 

Cyber campaigns emerged during this period, including fake missile alert applications designed to harvest sensitive user data such as contacts, messages, and device identifiers. These tools demonstrated a level of technical refinement typically associated with advanced persistent threat (APT) groups. 

Iranian Cyber Capabilities and Strategic Depth 

Despite early disruptions to its infrastructure, Iran maintained a good cyber posture throughout the conflict. Established threat groups continued to conduct espionage, infrastructure attacks, and credential theft operations targeting sectors such as energy, aviation, and telecommunications. 

Parallel to these efforts, Iran-aligned hacktivist groups escalated disruptive campaigns, including industrial control system intrusions and data leaks. Some reports suggest coordination with Russia-linked actors. 

A notable example is the emergence of hybrid threat actors employing destructive malware. Tools designed to overwrite system data, disable operating systems, and erase critical infrastructure highlight a shift toward more aggressive cyber physical warfare tactics. These operations are often executed in stages: initial access through phishing or exposed services, lateral movement using legitimate system tools, and eventual payload deployment designed for maximum disruption. 

Infrastructure Disruption and Global Spillover Effects 

The consequences of hybrid warfare are not confined to the immediate conflict zone. Early incidents in 2026 disrupted fuel distribution in Jordan and interfered with navigation systems, affecting over 1,100 vessels near the Strait of Hormuz. These disruptions pose significant risks to global oil and gas supply chains, illustrating how localized cyber warfare and kinetic attacks can have worldwide economic implications. 

Countries like India are experiencing indirect exposure due to interconnected digital ecosystems. Supply chain dependencies, shared technologies, and cloud-based services create pathways for cyber threats to propagate across borders. Vulnerabilities in widely used platforms, including VPNs and enterprise communication systems, are actively exploited. 

Attackers are also leveraging AI-driven techniques to enhance their effectiveness. Phishing campaigns now use highly personalized messaging, while automated reconnaissance tools map organizational structures to identify high-value targets. These capabilities reduce the time required to execute complex attacks and increase their success rates. 

Cybercrime Exploitation in a Hybrid War Environment 

Geopolitical instability has created fertile ground for cybercriminal activity. More than 8,000 domains linked to the 2026 conflict have been registered, many serving as platforms for scams, malware distribution, and misinformation campaigns. 

Examples include fake donation websites, fraudulent e-commerce platforms, and cryptocurrency schemes designed to exploit public sentiment. Conflict-themed malware, often disguised as alert systems or news updates, has been used to deploy backdoors and establish persistent access to compromised systems. 

This convergence of cybercrime and state-aligned activity reflects a broader trend: the industrialization of cyber threats. Ransomware-as-a-service platforms now provide end-to-end attack capabilities, lowering the barrier to entry for less experienced actors. With subscription costs as low as $500 per month, cyberattacks are becoming accessible. 

India’s Evolving Role in the Hybrid Warfare Landscape 

India’s cybersecurity environment in 2026 reflects many of the same dynamics observed in the Middle East. State-sponsored actors are focusing on long-term access and intelligence gathering, targeting government networks, defense systems, and critical industries. These operations often remain undetected for extended periods, leveraging advanced persistent techniques to maintain access. 

At the same time, hacktivist groups in India are becoming more organized and technically capable. Their activities now include coordinated data leaks, disruption campaigns, and the use of advanced tools traditionally associated with nation-state actors. 

Supply chain attacks are a growing concern, particularly in sectors undergoing rapid digital transformation. Healthcare, manufacturing, and financial services are vulnerable due to their reliance on interconnected systems. These vulnerabilities highlight the importance of continuous monitoring, vendor risk management, and layered security architectures. 

Intelligence-Driven Defense in the Age of Hybrid War Strategy 

As hybrid warfare evolves, traditional reactive security models are proving insufficient. Organizations are shifting toward intelligence-driven approaches that integrate tactical, operational, strategic, and technical insights. 

This shift is critical in a landscape where attackers exploit legitimate platforms, use “living off the land” techniques, and maintain persistence for extended periods. Behavioral analytics, anomaly detection, and contextual authentication are becoming essential tools for identifying threats that bypass conventional defenses. 

Equally important is the adoption of proactive measures such as multi-factor authentication, network segmentation, and robust incident response frameworks. Information sharing between organizations and governments is also emerging as a key component of resilience in the face of coordinated cyber warfare and kinetic attacks. 

Conclusion 

Hybrid warfare in 2026 is an operational reality. Cyber warfare and kinetic attacks now work in tandem, creating rapid, high-impact disruptions across both digital and physical systems. This is the core of modern hybrid warfare: fast, coordinated, and difficult to contain. 

Defending against this requires a shift to intelligence-led security. In a landscape shaped by cyber physical warfare, organizations need real-time visibility, faster response, and the ability to anticipate threats, not just react to them. Cyble enables this shift with its AI-native platform, Cyble Blaze AI, designed to predict and stop threats before they escalate. 

Strengthen your hybrid war strategy, explore Cyble’s threat intelligence capabilities or schedule a demo to see proactive security in action. 

References:

• https://thecyberexpress.com/middle-east-cyber-warfare-escalates-rapidly/ 

• https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/energy/2026/03/01/strait-of-hormuz-in-focus-as-iran-attacks-expose-gulf-energy-transport-risks/ 

• https://cyble.com/resources/research-reports/iran-israel-us-conflict-cyber-threat-monitor-edition-2/ 

The post Hybrid Warfare 2026: When Cyber Operations and Kinetic Attacks Converge appeared first on Cyble.

Kaspersky Security Services provide a comprehensive cybersecurity ecosystem, taking enterprise threat protection to another level. Services like Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response and Compromise Assessment allow for timely detection of threats and cyberattacks. SOC Consulting provides a practical approach ensuring the corporate infrastructure stays secured, while Incident Response is suited for timely remediation with a maximized recovery rate.

High-level overview of the MDR, IR and CA connection

This new report brings together statistics across regions and industries from our Managed Detection and Response and Incident Response services, and for the first time, it also includes insights from our Compromise Assessment and SOC Consulting services — all to provide you with more comprehensive view of different aspects of corporate information security worldwide.

The scope of MDR and IR services

Provision of Kaspersky’s MDR and IR services follows a global approach. The majority of customers accounted for the CIS (34.7%), the Middle East (20.1%), and Europe (18.6%).

Distribution of customers by geographical region, 2025

MDR telemetry

Following the previous year’s numbers, in 2025, the MDR infrastructure received and processed an average of 15,000 telemetry events per host every day, generating security alerts as a result. These alerts are first processed by AI-powered detection logic, after which Kaspersky SOC analysts handle them as required. Overall, a total of approximately 400,000 alerts were generated in 2025. After counting out false positives, 39,000 alerts were further investigated.

MDR telemetry statistics, 2025

Incident statistics

The distribution of remediation requests by industry has slightly changed as compared to previous years’ pattern. Government (18.5%) and industrial (16.6%) organizations are still the most targeted industries in regards to cyberattacks that require incident response activities. However, this year, the IT sector saw a growth in the number of IR requests, eventually being placed third in the overall industry distribution rankings and thus replacing financial organizations, which were targeted less often than in 2024. This is equally true for smaller-scale attacks that can be contained and remediated through automated means — the only difference is that medium- and low-severity incidents are more often experienced by financial organizations.

Distribution of all incidents by industry sector, 2025

Key trends and statistics

This section presents key findings and trends in cyberattacks in 2025:

• The number of high-severity incidents decreased, following a downward trend that we’ve been observing since 2021. The majority of those incidents account for APT attacks and red teaming exercises, which indicates two landscape trends. On the one hand, skilled adversaries make efforts to increase impact, while on the other, organizations spend more resources on probing their defense systems.
• The most common vulnerabilities exploited in the wild were related to Microsoft products. Half of all identified CVEs led to remote code execution, notably without authentication in some cases.
• Exploitation of public-facing applications, valid accounts, and trusted relationships remain the most popular initial vectors, and their overall share has increased, accounting to over 80% of all attacks in 2025. In particular, attacks through trusted relationships are evolving: their share has increased to 15.5% from 12.8% in 2024. They are also becoming more complex: for instance, we witnessed a case where adversaries had compromised more than two organizations in sequence to ultimately gain access to a third target.
• Standard Windows utilities remain a popular LotL tool. Adversaries use those to minimize the risk of detection during delivery to a compromised system. The most popular LOLBins we observed in high-severity incidents were powershell.exe (14.4%), rundll32.exe (5.9%), and mshta.exe (3.8%). Among the most popular legitimate tools used in incidents we flag Mimikatz (14.3%), PowerShell (8.1%), PsExec (7.5%), and AnyDesk (7.5%).

The full 2026 Global Report provides additional information about cyberattacks, including real-world cases discovered by Kaspersky experts. We also describe SOC Consulting projects and Compromise Assessment requests. The report includes comprehensive analysis of initial attack vectors in correlation with the MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques and the full list of vulnerabilities that we detected during Incident Response engagements.

2024 continued the trend of ransomware attacks in the education sector making headlines. The year opened with Freehold Township School District in New Jersey canceling classes due to a ransomware attack. Students at New Mexico Highlands University missed classes for several days while employees experienced disruption of their paychecks after a ransomware attack. The attack on the Alabama Department of Education served as a reminder that all school systems are vulnerable.

Ransomware attacks in education decreasing

The year closes with some positive news about ransomware in the education sector. Sophos State of Ransomware in Education 2024 found that ransomware attacks on educational institutions decreased in 2024. Attacks on higher-education institutions dropped from 79% reporting attacks in 2023 to 66% in 2024. Lower education saw a similar decrease, from 80% in 2023 to 63% in 2024. However, the attack rates for both are still higher than the global cross-sector average of 59%.

Ransomware affects education quality

Not surprisingly, a recent study also found that students are impacted by ransomware attacks on the education sector. A study from Action1 found that the majority (64%) of education IT workers report that ransomware impacts education quality. Researchers found the reasons for the attacks are multifold, including that 44% devote only 10% of their IT budget to cybersecurity and the majority of schools (78%) do not employ cybersecurity specialists.

In an NPR article, Noelle Ellerson Ng with the School Superintendents Association said that the reason for targeting the education sector is that schools are often low-hanging fruit. Additionally, she points to the fact that school systems, which collect a lot of valuable data from both students and employees, often are the largest employers in a community.

“That makes it very, very ripe,” says Ng. “And then you layer on the fact that [the data] is so sensitive and so longitudinal and so personal, and there’s a huge vulnerability.”

Reducing cyber risks in the education sector

Even with the decline, schools should continue to focus on reducing their vulnerabilities.

Here are some ways schools can reduce ransomware risk:

• Install antivirus and anti-malware software on all devices. Be sure to also include tablets and phones. Make sure that updates and patches are installed on a timely basis.
• Provide training to all employees and students. Teach good cybersecurity practices, including choosing strong passwords and how to avoid being a victim of phishing. Continually send reminders on not clicking on unknown links or downloading suspicious files.
• Install filtering software. By filtering out potentially malicious links and files, you can reduce the chance of students or employees falling victim to a phishing scheme.
• Use multi-factor authentication (MFA). Because ransomware attacks can start with unauthorized access, educational organizations should take extra steps to ensure that every user who logs in is who they claim to be. With MFA, users must use email, text or token in addition to a password, adding an extra layer of security.

Recovery costs have increased

While the decrease in attacks was positive, Sophos’ report found a troubling trend — the recovery costs have more than doubled for ransomware attacks in education. Lower-education organizations reported a mean cost of $3.76 million to recover from a ransomware attack in 2024, compared to $1.59 million. Researchers found the increase even higher in higher education, more than four times higher from 2023 to 2024 ($1.06 million to $4.02 million).

Here are ways to reduce recovery costs:

• Back up your data. In addition to backing up data in real-time, educational institutions should take precautions to secure the backups, such as by using air-gapped backups as well as immutable backups that cannot be erased. Sophos found that costs for lower-education institutions whose backups were compromised were five times higher ($3 million versus $562,500) than those who had a backup to revert to.
• Segment the network. When a ransomware attack happens on a segmented network, cyber criminals can encrypt only the portion of the network that they accessed. By reducing the amount of data breached and the systems impacted, schools can significantly reduce recovery time and costs.
• Create an incident response plan. Often, the recovery is extended due to schools not containing the ransomware quickly enough. Additionally, business disruption also adds to the recovery time. With an incident response plan, employees know exactly what to do when a ransomware attack occurs by including the four fundamentals of a response plan — planning, detection, recovery and post-incident actions.

Propensity for paying ransom has increased

Recovery costs are also increasing due to the changes in the ransom payment patterns and amounts. When an educational organization pays the ransom to gain access to their data, that exponentially increases the recovery costs.

The Sophos Report found that the decision to pay the ransom has increased in both higher and lower education. In 2023, 56% of educational organizations attacked by ransomware paid the ransom, compared with 67% in 2024. The number of higher-education institutions paying the ransom also increased from 47% to 62%.

Additionally, the amount of the ransom has increased, which also adds to the rising recovery costs. The average ransom in lower education was $3.9 million, with 44% of demands of more than $5 million. Higher education demands also increased to $4.4 million. Ransoms in critical infrastructure sectors, such as education, tend to be higher due to the urgency of restoring operations as well as the sensitive nature of the data. Additionally, cyber criminals increasingly use double extortion, demanding a ransom to unencrypt the data and then a second ransom to not make the data public, which increases recovery costs.

The future of ransomware attacks in education

While the decrease in attacks is positive, educational organizations must pay attention to the rising recovery costs. Because every dollar spent in education towards recovering from an attack means money is not available for learning, the costs of ransomware recovery are even more impactful than other sectors. By proactively taking steps to both reduce risks and reduce recovery costs, educational organizations can keep their focus on what matters most — educating students.

The post Reducing ransomware recovery costs in education appeared first on Security Intelligence.

On August 29, 2024, CISA announced the launch of a new cyber-incident Reporting Portal, part of the new CISA Services Portal.

“The Incident Reporting Portal enables entities and individuals reporting cyber incidents to create unique accounts, save reports and return to submit later, and eliminate the repetitive nature of inputting routine information such as contact information,” says Lauren Boas Hayes, Senior Advisor for Technology & Innovation, at CISA.

Shortly after the announcement, Security Intelligence reported on how the portal was designed and how it differs from other cyber incident reporting structures. We noted that CISA’s biggest advantage was its ability to assist the reporting organization with response and remediation.

“Any organization experiencing a cyberattack or incident should report it — for its own benefit and to help the broader community. CISA and our government partners have unique resources and tools to aid with response and recovery, but we can’t help if we don’t know about an incident,” said CISA Executive Assistant Director for Cybersecurity Jeff Greene in a formal statement covering the portal’s announcement.

Four months later

Since the announcement in August, a lot has happened. There was a presidential election, and a new administration will take charge on January 20. The current CISA director and other political appointees will step down. The agency’s future is uncertain as of this writing, particularly regarding who will oversee it and whether its functions will be divided across different federal departments. Still, it is expected that its work will continue.

Before these changes occur, we wanted to check in with CISA to follow up on the portal’s progress and what the future might look like.

Long history of collecting cyber incident reports

CISA was first created in 2018, but federal agencies have collected cyber incident reports for decades.

“The launch of the Incident Reporting Portal is a significant step forward for CISA’s ability to collect operationally relevant data from reporters in a system which is more usable for reporters,” says Hayes. “The vision for the Incident Reporting Portal is for CISA’s Incident Reporting Portal to continue to enhance the functionality of the system to enable entities to share submitted reports with colleagues or clients to facilitate more effective third-party reporting, communicate directly with CISA, and access information and services relevant to the reporter.”

The portal is expected to make compliance with the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 easier. This act will “require CISA to coordinate with Federal partners and others on various cyber incident reporting and ransomware-related activities” across the 16 sectors, agencies and industries deemed “vital to the health, economy and security of the community or region.”

Hayes adds that while reporting under the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 will not be required until the Final Rule goes into effect, the agency encourages critical infrastructure owners and operators to voluntarily share information on cyber incidents prior to that date to help prevent other organizations from becoming victims of similar incidents.

“Sharing information allows us to work with our full breadth of partners to help prevent attackers from compromising other victims using the same techniques,” says Hayes.  “Sharing information can provide insight into the scale of an adversary’s campaign.”

Why reporting is vital to overall cybersecurity

While reporting cyber incidents to the portal is voluntary at the moment, all organizations are encouraged to share the information. If they feel the need, they can do so anonymously. As cyberattacks and nation-state threats become more sophisticated and increasingly target critical infrastructure industries, sharing this information with CISA allows the agency to help other organizations prepare for emerging threats and implement preventive measures before the damage is done.

“Isolating cyberattacks and preventing them in the future requires the coordination of many groups and organizations,” CISA explained. “By rapidly sharing critical information about attacks and vulnerabilities, the scope and magnitude of cyber events can be greatly decreased.”

And it isn’t just CISA that uses this information. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), 14 federal agencies are responsible for protecting critical infrastructure from cyberattacks, many in unexpected ways. For example, TSA, which handles airport security screening, is also responsible for safeguarding the country’s gasoline pipelines.

“Entities representing critical infrastructure owners and operators told us there are great benefits in getting information about threats from federal agencies,” the GAO reported.

What comes next

Despite a changing presidential administration, CISA is moving forward. It is planning a future designed to keep the critical infrastructure safe from cyber threats, which, in turn, will provide a layer of protection for the nation’s citizens and businesses.

“Sharing information allows us to work with our full breadth of partners so that the attackers can’t use the same techniques on other victims and can provide insight into the scale of an adversary’s campaign,” Jeff Greene was quoted in Federal News Network. “CISA is excited to make available our new portal with improved functionality and features for cyber reporting.”

As for the Incident Reporting Portal’s future, Hayes says, “In the future, we are planning to implement additional features that will take time to develop and incorporate user feedback. Our user experience team is actively working to get feedback on how we can improve the system over time.”

The post CISA’s cyber incident reporting portal: Progress and future plans appeared first on Security Intelligence.