Security | Threat Detection | Cyberattacks | DevSecOps | Compliance

This post is based on ongoing security research – and will continue to be updated as we get additional information…

Attack surface analysis and mapping are a crucial first step in the attack surface management (ASM) process. Before an organization can effectively manage its attack surface, it needs to have a complete understanding of what that attack surface is. Attack surface analysis and mapping provides this initial understanding by inventorying an organization’s assets, their vulnerabilities, and the potential threats that they may face.

CUPS is a suite of programs and daemons that provide local and network printing capabilities on Unix-like systems such as Linux and macOS. Versions before and including 2.0.1 are vulnerable to CVE-2024-47076 (libcupsfilters), CVE-2024-47175 (libppd), CVE-2024-47176 (cups-browsed) and CVE-2024-47177 (cups-filters), all of which can be chained together to allow remote unauthenticated code execution. At this time there is no updated version available.

Legacy attack surfaces were small and simple. There were fewer servers and endpoints to protect. The tooling required to secure it was basic – perimeter firewalls, antivirus software, and server/network/application monitoring tools. When organizations migrate to the cloud, things change and become complex. For starters, on-premise infrastructure and applications can’t be left out in favor of the cloud. Most organizations run hybrid setups.

Vulnerability management is a major component of any cybersecurity strategy, simply because every vulnerability represents another potential vector through which an organization can be attacked.

When managing an organization’s attack surface, the focus often falls on broad categories like firewalls, endpoints, or software vulnerabilities. Yet, one obvious blind spot is login pages. Login pages are not just entry points for users but potential gateways for attackers. From an EASM point of view, login pages pose important security concerns because of their exposure to the Internet.

Penetration testing, dynamic application security testing (DAST), and attack surface management (ASM) are all strategies designed to manage an organization’s digital attack surface. However, while each aids in identifying and closing vulnerabilities, they have significant differences and play complementary roles within a corporate cybersecurity strategy. Let’s take a quick look at the definition of each of these strategies.

In June 2024, the digital world was rocked by a significant supply chain attack involving Polyfill.io, a JavaScript library that had been a staple in web development for over a decade. Originally designed to ensure compatibility between older browsers and modern web APIs, Polyfill.io became a silent vulnerability when a Chinese company named “Fun Null” acquired the domain in February 2024.

This post is based on ongoing security research – the post will continue to be updated as we get additional information… A critical vulnerability has just been announced in Ivanti’s Virtual Traffic Manager (vTM) that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to create administrator users.

Non-human identities (NHIs) dominate the era of cloud services and SaaS applications. They are the identities that authenticate between different servers, APIs and third party integrations to provide programmatic access to data and services. Non-human identities utilize different protocols, such as OAuth, REST and SSH.