Security | Threat Detection | Cyberattacks | DevSecOps | Compliance

Organizations are facing a complicated and unwieldy cybersecurity perimeter due to the sprawling web of third-party dependencies that now account for 30% of all data breaches. This network of interconnected applications and infrastructure gives threat actors an opportunity through an extended attack surface to exploit organizations. Attackers are also moving faster by leveraging AI to weaponize zero-day vulnerabilities in days rather than weeks, and most organizations remain dangerously behind the curve.

Cyber threat intelligence is often presented as a catalog of named threat actors, past incidents, and attribution labels that promise clarity. For defenders trying to understand risk, this structure feels reassuring. It suggests that threats can be identified, tracked, and anticipated based on observed behaviors. In practice, that confidence is often overstated.

Actions have consequences. In cybersecurity, we often only see actions at the surface level: a suspicious IP, a new domain, or a single mention on a dark web forum. For threat hunters, the consequences of treating these actions as isolated incidents are significant. These signals are rarely "one-offs." They are the visible tips of coordinated campaigns built on months of planning, spanning multiple tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). Today’s adversaries are organized.

Patching cadence is a critical component of maintaining an organization’s cybersecurity posture. It refers not just to whether patches are applied, but how quickly and consistently vulnerabilities are addressed across systems and software. A regular, timely patching process reduces the window of exposure to known vulnerabilities, limiting opportunities for exploitation and strengthening overall vulnerability management.

Valentine’s Day runs on emotion. Surprise, urgency, curiosity, trust, love. For threat actors, that combination is hard to beat. Every year in mid-February, security teams see the same pattern. Phishing campaigns pick up. Brand impersonation increases. Fraud attempts follow close behind. It is not because attackers suddenly developed new techniques.

Modern cyberattacks rarely start where defenders are looking. Instead of targeting the enterprise head-on, attackers increasingly move through sprawling ecosystems of vendors, suppliers, and partners, exploiting trust relationships, weak controls, and delayed visibility.

Apologies for the nested parentheses. This isn’t a joke. The project really has gone through this many names already! Check out why in their Naming Journey.

Security governance was never meant to be this manual. Yet for most security and third-party risk teams, governance work still means reviewing documents line by line, mapping controls by hand, interpreting evidence subjectively, and repeating the same processes across internal teams, subsidiaries, and vendors. These activities are critical, but they’re also slow, inconsistent, and difficult to scale. At Bitsight, we believe cybersecurity governance should move at the speed of risk.

As we enter 2026, security and risk leaders are navigating a landscape that is both increasingly complex and strikingly familiar. At Bitsight, we have spent the last year listening to our customers, synthesizing insights from the field, and preparing for what lies ahead. In a recent webinar with my colleague Vanessa Jankowski, we explored the forces shaping cyber risk in the year to come.

A critical vulnerability (CVE-2025-40551) has been identified in SolarWinds Web Help Desk, a widely used IT service management platform deployed across enterprise and public sector environments to manage support tickets, assets, and internal workflows. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying host system.