Your Security Controls May Be Less Independent Than You Think

Posted on by
Reply

Most enterprise security programs still measure strength by counting controls.

MFA is deployed. EDR is deployed. Logging is centralized. Privileged access is monitored. Cloud guardrails are active. The dashboard shows broad framework coverage, so leadership concludes that the organization has defense in depth.

That conclusion may be wrong.

The problem is not necessarily that the controls are weak. The problem is that several supposedly independent controls may rely on the same underlying service.

An identity provider may authenticate administrators to the EDR console, SIEM, cloud environment, ticketing system, and incident-response platform. A centralized telemetry pipeline may supply detection data to multiple tools. Several controls may reside in the same cloud account, depend on the same DNS or time service, or be managed through one administrative plane.

On a control matrix, these appear to be separate layers.

In the actual system, they may be branches of the same tree.

Continue reading →

Vendor Evidence Is Now a Cyber Materiality Risk

Posted on by
Reply

A cybersecurity incident does not care where your data lives.

It does not care that the affected application is vendor-managed. It does not care that the logs are in a SaaS console your team cannot access. It does not care that the data-flow diagram is maintained by procurement, that customer-impact details live with a managed service provider, or that the outage timeline depends on a third-party support ticket.

But your materiality decision may care very much.

Public companies must disclose material cybersecurity incidents on Form 8-K within four business days after determining that the incident is material. The SEC’s rule also requires disclosure of the material aspects of the incident’s nature, scope, timing, and impact or reasonably likely impact, and the materiality determination must be made without unreasonable delay after discovery.

That creates a practical problem many organizations have not fully internalized:

The disclosure clock may be yours, but the evidence may belong to someone else.

That is not just a legal nuance.

It is an operational design problem.

It is a governance problem.

Continue reading →

AI Agents Need Autonomy Budgets, Not Just Governance Policies

Posted on by
Reply

Most organizations are granting AI agents authority faster than they are defining the limits of that authority.

That is the problem.

We have already started treating AI agents as digital workers. That is the right mental model. An agent that can access data, call tools, trigger workflows, generate artifacts, influence decisions, or alter enterprise state is not just another application. It needs identity. It needs boundaries. It needs oversight. It needs evidence. It needs a human owner. It needs a kill switch. That has been the right foundation for agent governance.

But it is not enough.

There is another question that needs to be asked much earlier:

How much damage is this agent allowed to cause before a human must approve the next action?

Not theoretically.

Not in vague risk language.

In actual economic terms.

How much money can it spend?
How many systems can it change?
How many records can it touch?
How much customer impact can it create?
How much privacy exposure can it cause?
How much reputational risk can it accumulate?

If we cannot answer those questions, we have not governed autonomy.

Continue reading →

Account Recovery Is Becoming the New Identity Attack Surface

Posted on by
Reply

As passkeys and phishing-resistant authentication reduce password risk, attackers will move pressure to the recovery plane.

The industry is moving in the right direction.

Passkeys, FIDO2/WebAuthn, hardware security keys, conditional access, better MFA policies, and risk-based sign-in controls are all meaningful improvements. They reduce entire classes of credential theft. They make phishing harder. They remove reusable passwords from many authentication ceremonies. They shift more of the security burden from user judgment to protocol design.

That is good.

But it is not the finish line.

In my recent passkeys article, I called out a point that deserves its own treatment: passkeys do not solve weak account recovery, help desk social engineering, stolen session tokens, OAuth consent abuse, unmanaged vendor access, or excessive privilege. They are a major step forward, but they do not remove the rest of the identity attack surface.

That matters because attackers adapt.

Continue reading →

Passkeys, Not Passcodes: A Practical Enterprise Guide to Moving Beyond Passwords

Posted on by
Reply

There is a small terminology problem in the identity world right now, and it matters more than it looks.

A passcode or PIN is usually a local unlock secret. It unlocks a phone, a laptop, Windows Hello, an authenticator app, or a hardware security key. A passkey is different. A passkey is the standards-based replacement for passwords, built on FIDO2/WebAuthn. The user unlocks the passkey locally with a fingerprint, face scan, device PIN, pattern, or security key, but the website or application receives cryptographic proof — not a reusable password. FIDO defines passkeys as FIDO authentication credentials based on FIDO standards, tied to an account, and used with the same process the user already uses to unlock a device.

That distinction is not pedantry. It is the difference between a local unlock method and a replacement for one of the most abused controls in the history of computing.

Passwords have had a long run. They also have had a long list of failures: reuse, phishing, spraying, stuffing, database theft, weak reset workflows, help desk abuse, and user fatigue. We have spent decades trying to compensate for those failures with complexity rules, expiration schedules, password managers, SMS codes, mobile push prompts, training campaigns, and detective controls.

Some of those helped. Some just moved the pain around.

Passkeys change the model.

Continue reading →

Rational Security in the AI Era: How Attackers Are Evolving and How We Must Respond

Posted on by
Reply

The weaponization of artificial intelligence by cybercriminals and nation-state actors has crossed a critical inflection point. We no longer live in a world where we can rely solely on traditional perimeters; the threat landscape has fundamentally shifted into what we might call “Extremistan,” where the speed and scale of attacks demand a completely new level of resilience.

SadKitty

At MicroSolved, our mission is to provide rational cybersecurity for an irrational world. To do that effectively, we must look unflinchingly at the data.

The Problem and the Metrics

The numbers tell a stark story of industrialization at machine speed. According to recent threat reports, AI-enabled adversaries increased their attack volume by 89% year-over-year. More concerning is the velocity: the average eCrime breakout time has collapsed to just 29 minutes, with the fastest recorded intrusion moving from initial access to lateral movement in a staggering 27 seconds.

The financial impact is equally severe. The FBI IC3 recorded over 22,000 AI-related complaints with adjusted losses exceeding $893 million in 2025 alone, including tens of millions lost to AI-enabled Business Email Compromise (BEC). AI is accelerating attack speeds by 4x, making human-speed incident response no longer viable.

Continue reading →

Stop Patching Solely by Severity. Start Patching by Exploitation.

Posted on by

If your patch SLAs are still solely driven by CVSS base score, i.e., Critical in 7 days, High in 30, Medium “when we get to it”; you are optimizing for the wrong variable. The math stopped working a while ago, 2025 made it obvious, and 2026 is making it painful.

Roughly 48,000 CVEs were published in 2025, up about 20% from ~40,000 in 2024. So far in 2026, there are over 15,000 (as of mid-May), and we may well see well over the number from 2025 by the end of the year. Around 39% of those were rated Critical or High in 2025, and about 45% of 2026 CVEs are.

Worse, severity is a poor predictor of what is actually attacked. Only ~2% of published CVEs are ever exploited in the wild (768 of ~40k in 2024). CISA’s KEV catalog covers ~0.5% of all CVEs. So a severity-only program spends most of its effort on vulnerabilities no attacker will ever touch, while the handful that matter sit somewhere in the queue ranked by a number that doesn’t correlate with exploitation.

Continue reading →

The Evidence Supply Chain: How CISOs Build a Cyber Materiality Data Plane Before the Incident

Posted on by
Reply

A ransomware incident does not wait for the organization chart to catch up.

At 8:17 a.m., the SOC sees encryption activity on a file server. At 8:31, operations says the plant is still running. At 8:44, finance says revenue recognition may be affected if order processing stays down past noon. At 9:02, legal asks whether customer data was accessed. At 9:18, the forensic team says it is too early to tell. At 9:23, a vendor says the outage may have started in their environment. At 9:41, communications asks whether they should prepare a holding statement.

By hour two, everyone is working hard.

But they are not necessarily working from the same reality.

That is the problem.

Cyber materiality is often discussed as a decision problem. When does a cyber event become a board-level business event? When does it become reportable? When does it become material to investors, customers, regulators, lenders, or strategic partners?

Those are important questions. Public companies, for example, must disclose material cybersecurity incidents on Form 8-K within four business days after determining materiality, including the material aspects of the incident’s nature, scope, timing, and impact or reasonably likely impact.

But underneath that decision sits a deeper problem:

Continue reading →

Cyber Materiality Engineering: How CISOs Pre-Decide When Risk Becomes a Board Event

Posted on by
Reply

A ransomware incident does not stay technical for very long.

For about the first fifteen minutes, it may look like a security operations problem. A strange alert. A locked server. A suspicious authentication chain. A vendor portal behaving badly. A handful of systems no longer responding the way they should.

Then the blast radius starts to widen.

Operations wants to know whether they can keep running. Finance wants to know whether revenue recognition, cash movement, reserves, or forecasts are exposed. Legal wants to know whether notification clocks have started. The CEO wants to know what can be said, to whom, and when. The board wants to know whether this is “material.” Investors may eventually ask the same thing, only with less patience and more lawyers.

This is where many organizations discover that their cyber incident response plan is not really an enterprise decision plan. It tells people who to call. It tells the SOC how to preserve evidence. It may even have a communications tree and a sample press statement.

But it often does not answer the question that matters most in the first few hours:

Continue reading →

AI Agents Are Already Working for You. Who’s Managing Them?

Posted on by
Reply

AI Agents Are Not Applications. They Are Digital Workers.

Most organizations are adopting AI agents faster than they are learning how to govern them.

That is the problem.

A chatbot that answers questions is one thing. An AI agent that can access business data, use tools, trigger workflows, generate artifacts, make recommendations, or alter enterprise state is something else entirely.

At that point, the organization is no longer just deploying software.

It is introducing a new kind of operational actor.

That actor needs identity.

It needs boundaries.

It needs oversight.

It needs evidence.

It needs a human owner.

It needs a kill switch.

In other words, AI agents must be managed more like digital workers than ordinary applications.

AIAgentBanner

Continue reading →