Security | Threat Detection | Cyberattacks | DevSecOps | Compliance

FIPS 140-3 is the current standard for validating cryptographic modules, which are the specific hardware or software components that implement encryption and manage keys inside a defined boundary. FIPS 140-3 was approved on March 22, 2019, became effective on September 22, 2019, and supersedes FIPS 140-2, which dates back to 2001. Most FIPS 140-3 security requirements come from ISO/IEC 19790:2012, with test requirements drawn from ISO/IEC 24759:2025.

OT ransomware is not IT ransomware with an industrial label. An encrypted HMI, engineering workstation, SCADA server or virtualization host can remove operator visibility and force a controlled shutdown even when PLCs continue running. Recovery ends only when operations, engineering, safety and security agree that restored systems and the physical process are trustworthy.

A single telecom login is one of the most dangerous keys in existence. Behind it sit subscriber identities, billing systems, and the network backbone every other industry depends on. In April 2025, SK Telecom admitted attackers had stolen authentication records tied to its USIM cards, affecting 27 million subscribers, with malware present for years before discovery. Weeks earlier, the FBI warned of a campaign using AI-generated voice and text to trick targets into handing over account access.

Traditional Identity and Access Management (IAM) relies on authentication methods, predefined roles, and access policies to control who can access business applications and data. These controls remain essential, but they do not always provide enough context to identify unusual behavior or changing access risks. AI in Identity and Access Management (IAM) adds another layer of intelligence by analyzing login context, user behavior, device information, access patterns, and identity activity.

GRC transformation is the organizational change from running governance, risk, and compliance as periodic, check-the-box paperwork to running it as continuous, AI-native cyber risk assurance measured in business outcomes. It is not a tooling upgrade. It is a change in what you are asked to prove. The old question was whether the work got done by audit time. The new question is whether risk is understood and the controls meant to manage it are working right now.

An AI agent runs as a process under whatever account launched it, and it inherits that account's access token. If the account has local admin rights, so does the agent, along with every helper process and script it spawns, an example would be Claude Desktop running under an admin account, spawning PowerShell helpers. What makes agents different from a typical privileged app is that their next action often comes from content parsed at runtime, including untrusted input.

Most cyber loss models are shaped around a breach. Records exposed, notification cost per record, regulatory penalty, credit monitoring, litigation. The arithmetic is well established and the inputs are reasonably well evidenced. ‍ Apply that model to an outage where nothing left and nothing was taken and every one of those categories returns zero. The organization was down for four days and the model reports almost no loss, which is not a calibration problem but the wrong model. ‍

An AI assistant reads four hundred documents across a tenant. Every read is logged. The application is named, the file is named, the timestamp is exact, and the access is attributed to an account that belongs to nobody. ‍ The audit trail is complete and it cannot answer the question an auditor asks. Nobody asks whether an access was recorded. They ask who reached the data and whether that person was authorized, and a shared service account answers neither. ‍

Companies rush to utilise the potential of large language models; however, every new use case of generative AI introduces attack vectors previously unknown in traditional web security. The present guide provides an overview of the official OWASP GenAI LLM Top 10 2026 list and explains the appearance of each vulnerability in practice along with mitigation recommendations.

For MSPs supporting industrial clients, business leaders responsible for operational risk and OT engineers implementing the standard, IEC 62443 is ultimately about securing OT and ICS environments without undermining availability or safety. Unplanned downtime, legacy systems that cannot be patched, air-gapped facilities with limited or no local IT support, and the need for predictable recovery are the day-to-day realities behind requests to demonstrate IEC 62443 alignment.