company logo

Product

Our Product

We are Reshaping the way Developers find and fix vulnerabilities before they get exploited.

Solutions

By Industry

BFSI

Healthcare

Education

IT & Telecom

Government

By Role

CISO

Application Security Engineer

DevsecOps Engineer

IT Manager

Resources

Resource Library

Get actionable insight straight from our threat Intel lab to keep you informed about the ever-changing Threat landscape.

Subscribe to Our Weekly Threat Digest

Company

Contact Us

Have queries, feedback or prospects? Get in touch and we shall be with you shortly.

loading..
loading..
loading..
Loading...

Charming Kitten

Backdoor

Android

loading..
loading..
loading..

Iran-based threat group, Charming Kitten, strengthened its arsenal with a new Android Backdoor

Charming Kitten, an Iranian threat group, introduced an Android backdoor dubbed LittleLooter to exfiltrate account credentials...

06-Aug-2021
3 min read

No content available.

Related Articles

loading..

Social Engineering

Workday’s third‑party CRM breach exposed contact data, heightening social engine...

Major breaches rarely begin at the heart of a platform. More often, they creep in through the overlooked edges — the integrations, partner tools, and customer systems that orbit the core. Workday, a dominant force in enterprise HR serving thousands of companies and tens of millions of users, has now confirmed such a breach. The incident bypassed its tenant environments and instead originated in a third-party customer relationship database tied to its go-to-market operations. The stolen data was primarily contact information—names, email addresses, phone numbers—seemingly mundane, yet exactly the raw material attackers weaponize for convincing social engineering, spear‑phishing, and voice‑phishing campaigns at scale. In a telling disclosure nuance, the breach notice was initially shielded from search engines with a “noindex” directive, limiting organic discoverability even as the implications for enterprise defenders were immediate: the weakest link may not be the fortress, but the side gate. Workday stated there was no indication its customer tenants or the data within them were accessed. That assurance matters; tenant environments typically house HR master records, payroll, benefits, and sensitive PII and PHI governed under strict controls. But the attack path via an external CRM underscores a reality of modern SaaS estates: trust boundaries blur when adjacent systems—owned by vendors, partners, or integrators—hold enough identity and relationship context to bootstrap an intrusion. Contact databases, enrichment pipelines, and marketing automation stacks often sit outside the zero‑trust rigor applied to core systems, yet they are rich in signals attackers can use to convincingly impersonate support, executives, vendors, or IT. ## From contact data to compromise Contact records become attack ammunition when paired with basic tradecraft. With accurate names, roles, org hierarchies, and work emails or phone numbers, a threat actor can stage high‑fidelity pretexts that slip past human skepticism and automated filters. Voice‑phishing (vishing) can defeat MFA through real‑time relay or prompt bombing. Email phishing can land initial tokens via OAuth consent grants. SMS can drive victims to adversary‑in‑the‑middle pages that capture sessions. Even if the initial breach yields no credentials or tokens, the harvested contact graph is the social substrate required to orchestrate targeted intrusion attempts that look natural in corporate workflows. In parallel attack campaigns observed across the industry, groups have leveraged access to third‑party CRM or support platforms to enumerate high‑value targets, seed believable communications, and escalate toward administrative control in core SaaS tenants. The playbook is consistent: mine contact lists, masquerade as trusted internal or vendor personas, pressure or trick staff into handing over approval flows, and then pivot to cloud consoles, file stores, and identity providers. Once inside, attackers can create persistence through app registrations, API keys, and conditional access gaps that survive password resets. ## Why third‑party CRM systems are prime targets CRM platforms aggregate the customer and prospect universe, centralize conversations, and often integrate with identity tooling for convenience. They connect to email, calendaring, support desks, and data enrichment services. They are also widely administered by sales ops, marketing ops, or external partners with broad permissions and API automations. This makes them a high‑ROI target: compromise one privileged CRM integration or admin identity, and an adversary gains visibility and credibility across thousands or millions of relationship endpoints. Moreover, CRM data typically falls outside the strictest compliance categories, so it may not benefit from the encryption, key management, step‑up authentication, and privileged access monitoring that guard crown‑jewel HR or finance systems. The result is a dangerous asymmetry: data that appears low-sensitivity in isolation becomes high-impact when used to socially engineer access to truly sensitive systems. ## Disclosure signals towards the optics of containment The presence of a “noindex” tag on the disclosure page—effectively muting search visibility—raises questions about balancing transparent risk communication against the desire to limit reputational harm or opportunistic attacker attention. In practice, defenders at customer organizations need timely, discoverable details to tune detection rules, update allowlists and blocklists, and brief employees on specific pretext risks. Even when incident scopes are limited, maximizing clarity accelerates downstream defensive action: who is affected, what data types were involved, what pretexts are likely, and what countermeasures should be prioritized. Workday’s statement that customer tenants were not implicated is encouraging, yet the gray zone remains: any overlap between CRM contact datasets and tenant user populations creates an avenue for inbound social engineering that targets the very administrators and payroll personnel who can authorize sensitive changes. For large enterprises, even a small percentage of successful pretexting attempts can lead to material exposure. The Workday incident’s core lesson is not about a catastrophic system failure; it’s about how convenience mechanisms and adjacent data ecosystems reshape the attack surface. Identity remains the control plane of the cloud. When attackers gain the means to convincingly impersonate trusted actors, they can exploit the human interface of identity approvals. There is a discrete parallel in a separate incident involving security flaws in a major carmaker’s dealership portal, where a researcher demonstrated how two authentication bugs allowed creation of a high‑privilege admin account, user impersonation, and sweeping access across interconnected dealer systems. While the domains differ—CRM exposure versus dealership IT—the connective tissue is the failure of authentication and authorization guardrails at integration boundaries. In one, contact data fuels social entry; in the other, broken auth enables direct privilege escalation. Both show how centralized, convenience‑oriented platforms become leverage points for broad compromise when trust is misplaced or controls are lax. ## When Convenience Becomes a Single Point of Failure The Workday breach is a case study in how modern enterprise risk concentrates not only in core systems but in the connective tissue that surrounds them. Third‑party CRMs, support desks, and partner portals possess just enough identity context to prime an attack, and just enough integration reach to amplify it. The parallel from the dealership portal world—where two simple authentication flaws unlocked national‑level access—illustrates the same structural hazard: convenience layers can quietly become systemic single points of failure.

loading..   18-Aug-2025
loading..   6 min read
loading..

Radius

RCE

Cisco warns of a CVSS 10.0 flaw in Firewall Management Center—unauth RCE via RAD...

A maximum-severity remote code execution bug in Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center (FMC) lets unauthenticated attackers run shell commands with elevated privileges if **RADIUS authentication is enabled** for FMC’s web UI or SSH. Patches are available; if you can’t patch immediately, **disable RADIUS on FMC** and use an alternative authentication method. Cisco says it hasn’t seen exploitation yet. Cisco disclosed **CVE-2025-20265 (CVSS 10.0)** in FMC’s **RADIUS subsystem**. An attacker can send **crafted credentials during authentication** and get arbitrary command execution on the management appliance with high privilege. No prior auth is needed, but **FMC must be configured to use RADIUS** for the web console, SSH, or both. Why this is special: FMC is the **central brain** for Secure Firewall deployments—policy, logging, upgrades, everything. Compromise here can cascade into rule tampering, defense blind spots, or lateral movement into the rest of the network. ## What Cisco and others say (and what that means) * **Affected:** FMC **7.0.7** and **7.7.0** **when RADIUS is enabled** for web/SSH management. * **Root cause:** **Insufficient input handling** in the RADIUS authentication flow, enabling command injection. * **Discovery & exploitation status:** Found internally (credited to **Brandon Sakai**); **no known in-the-wild exploitation** as of publication. * **Fixes:** **Free software updates** are available via normal channels. * **Mitigation if you cannot patch now:** **Disable RADIUS authentication** on FMC and switch to **local accounts, LDAP, or SAML SSO**. Cisco notes this worked in testing, but you must validate in your environment. [Cisco](https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-fmc-radius-rce-TNBKf79) also bundled this disclosure into its **August 14, 2025** Secure Firewall advisory rollup (29 vulns across ASA/FTD/FMC). That event page confirms the CVSS 10.0 rating for CVE-2025-20265 and the multi-product patch drop. ## Why defenders should care (beyond “it’s a 10.0”) 1. **Pre-auth RCE on the management plane:** Attackers don’t need accounts—just a reachable management interface that uses RADIUS. Exposed management planes or jump-box pivoting become particularly risky. 2. **Policy authority:** With FMC access, an adversary could push permissive rules, drain logs, or disable inspections—quietly degrading controls before moving elsewhere. (This is the classic “turn off the cameras” move.) 3. **Rapid commoditization risk:** Bugs with deterministic input paths often attract scanning and PoC release. Third-party write-ups already flag the attractiveness of this vuln to threat actors. Patch windows should be measured in **hours/days**, not weeks. ## A prioritized playbook **Now (0–24 hours)** 1. **Identify exposure:** Inventory all FMC instances; note **version** and **whether RADIUS auth is enabled** for web/SSH. (If you don’t use RADIUS, your risk for this CVE is dramatically lower.) 2. **Patch where possible:** Apply Cisco’s fixed releases for affected tracks. 3. **If you cannot patch immediately:** **Disable RADIUS** on FMC and move to **local/LDAP/SAML**. Test admin logins and break-glass flows before and after the change. 4. **Reduce blast radius:** * Ensure FMC management **is not internet-reachable**. * Restrict access via **VPN + MFA**, **IP allowlists**, and **jump hosts**. * Review admin group memberships and **rotate credentials** shared with RADIUS backends. **Next (24–72 hours)** 5\) **Hunt & monitor:** * Look for **failed/odd FMC login attempts** with unusual username strings (payload-like characters), followed by new admin sessions or command execution. * Correlate with RADIUS server logs for **credential fields containing special characters**. (Exploit attempts may show up as authentication failures.) * Watch for **sudden rule/policy changes** or disabled inspections. 6. **Backups & integrity:** Validate FMC backups/golden configs; compare **running vs. approved** policies for drift. **Sustain (this week)** 7\) **Post-patch validation:** Confirm FMC build numbers and that RADIUS remains disabled (if used as mitigation) until you can re-enable safely. 8\) **Management-plane hygiene:** Segment FMC, require MFA, and log **every** admin action to a remote SIEM. ## Related Cisco fixes you shouldn’t ignore Alongside CVE-2025-20265, Cisco shipped fixes for **multiple high-severity issues** affecting ASA/FTD/FMC (largely **denial-of-service** and management-interface bugs). Highlights include **Snort 3 DoS (CVE-2025-20217)**, **IPv6 over IPsec DoS (CVE-2025-20222)**, **Remote Access VPN DoS (CVE-2025-20244)**, **IKEv2 DoS set (CVE-2025-20224/-20225)**, and more. Cisco notes **no workarounds** for most of these—**except** for **CVE-2025-20127**, where removing a **TLS 1.3 cipher** is advised. Patch priority should consider your features in use and exposure of web/VPN endpoints. *A non-exhaustive list from Cisco’s and community summaries:* CVE-2025-20217, -20222, -20148, -20244, -20133/-20243, -20134, -20136, -20251, -20224/-20225, -20263, -20127 (TLS 1.3), among others in the August bundle. Review Cisco’s matrix to determine which of your exact devices run on it. ## Key facts at a glance * **CVE:** 2025-20265 (CWE-74 command injection) * **Product:** Cisco **Secure FMC** (management plane) * **Versions impacted:** **7.0.7** and **7.7.0**, **when RADIUS auth is enabled** for web/SSH * **Impact:** **Pre-auth RCE** → **elevated shell commands** on FMC * **Status:** **Patches available**; **no active exploitation** reported by Cisco at disclosure * **Fallback mitigation:** **Disable RADIUS** on FMC; use **local/LDAP/SAML** (validate locally) * **First published:** **August 14, 2025** (Cisco bundle); **news coverage Aug 15, 2025**

loading..   16-Aug-2025
loading..   5 min read
loading..

Fortinet

Coordinated brute-force campaigns against Fortinet SSL VPN and FGFM services in ...

A sharp, two-stage spike in brute-force activity against Fortinet infrastructure—first battering FortiOS SSL VPNs, then pivoting to FortiManager’s FGFM service—has raised alarms across the security community about potential undisclosed flaws and an impending vulnerability disclosure window. GreyNoise, which observed over 780 unique IPs in the initial surge, notes that such vendor-focused scanning/brute-forcing historically precedes new CVEs about 80% of the time, with most disclosures occurring within six weeks. The timing overlaps with separate Fortinet advisories on other products and exploit code surfacing in the wild, increasing urgency without proving causation. ## Timeline: Two Waves, Two Signatures - August 3, 2025: A record surge in brute-force attempts targeted Fortinet SSL VPNs, with more than 780 unique IPs triggering GreyNoise’s Fortinet SSL VPN Bruteforcer tag and aligning with the FortiOS profile—indicating deliberate vendor-specific targeting rather than opportunistic scanning. - August 5, 2025: Activity pivoted to FortiManager’s FGFM service with a different TCP/client “meta signature,” while still tripping the Fortinet SSL VPN Bruteforcer tag—suggesting either the same operator/tooling shifting targets or coordinated infrastructure reuse. GreyNoise emphasizes this behavioral split: long-running brute-forcing tied to a consistent TCP signature contrasted with a sudden, concentrated burst with a distinct signature and a service pivot. ## JA4+ Fingerprints JA4+ encrypted traffic fingerprinting linked the August 3 spike to traffic seen in June that bore a client signature resolving to a FortiGate device on a residential ISP block (Pilot Fiber Inc.), hinting at tooling reuse or residential proxying; attribution remains unconfirmed. This cross-wave clustering suggests evolution rather than noise, reinforcing the assessment that this is not benign researcher activity, which tends to be broader, slower, and avoids credential brute-forcing. ## Indicators of Malicious Infrastructure GreyNoise published a set of IPs associated with the campaign’s post-August 5 meta signature, recommending defensive blocks while monitoring for ongoing evolution. The list includes: - 31.206.51.194; 23.120.100.230; 96.67.212.83; 104.129.137.162; 118.97.151.34; 180.254.147.16; 20.207.197.237; 180.254.155.227; 185.77.225.174; 45.227.254.113. Multiple outlets have echoed the imperative to restrict exposure and harden authentication while treating this as a precursor rather than failed attempts against old bugs. ## Patterns that Precede Pain GreyNoise’s longitudinal analysis shows vendor-specific surges often foreshadow vulnerability disclosures—about 80% see a CVE within six weeks—making this not just an anomaly but a statistical warning bell. In parallel, Fortinet recently disclosed a critical FortiSIEM flaw (CVE-2025-25256) with working exploit code in the wild, and separate reporting highlights long-running risks around FortiManager and FGFM exposure; however, GreyNoise cautions there’s no proven causal link between the brute-force waves and the FortiSIEM disclosure. The confluence of signals argues for immediate hardening—without assuming a single root cause. ## What’s Being Targeted and How - Primary services: FortiOS SSL VPN initially; rapid pivot to FortiManager FGFM. - TTPs: High-volume credential brute-forcing, adaptive testing, evolving TCP/client signatures, tight vendor/service focus rather than scattershot probing. - Geography and scope: Over 780 unique IPs participating; sources reported across multiple countries with targets spanning the U.S., Hong Kong, Brazil, Spain, and Japan in observed telemetry. - Researcher vs. adversary: The depth and cadence—credential abuse, meta-signature clustering, service pivot—fit adversarial intrusion attempts, not rate-limited safety-scoped research scanning. ## Defensive Actions: Do This Now - Block and restrict - Block the published malicious IPs at network perimeters and device ACLs; maintain dynamic blocks as tooling evolves. - Remove public exposure of FortiGate/FortiManager admin interfaces; allowlist trusted management IPs and gate via VPN/ZTNA. - Harden authentication - Enforce MFA on SSL VPN and admin accounts; rotate privileged credentials and eradicate weak/reused passwords. - Patch and mitigate - Apply the latest FortiOS, FortiManager, FortiProxy, and FortiSIEM updates; where patching lags, disable or strictly limit HTTP/HTTPS management and FGFM reachability. - Monitor and hunt - Alert on spikes in failed logins, Fortinet SSL VPN Bruteforcer patterns, and FGFM service hits; baseline and watch for new JA3/JA4+ anomalies and the noted meta signatures. - Review devices for unauthorized accounts, group changes, and unexpected config/policy modifications. ## Industry Signals and Adjacent Risk Coverage from major outlets and vendor advisories underscores that exploitation risk around Fortinet ecosystems is persistent, multifaceted, and often overlaps with management-plane exposure. Tech media and defenders are flagging the elevated likelihood of a Fortinet-adjacent CVE following this surge, while cautioning against conflating separate product advisories with the brute-force campaigns in the absence of direct evidence. ## Extended Excerpt: Inside the GreyNoise Assessment “Spikes like this often precede the disclosure of new vulnerabilities affecting the same vendor — most within six weeks,” GreyNoise warned, tying the August 3 SSL VPN spike and the August 5 FGFM pivot together via TCP/client meta signatures and JA4+ clustering that connected the August wave to June activity linked to a FortiGate on a residential ISP block. The firm emphasized the focused nature of the activity—targeting FortiOS and then FortiManager profiles—contrasting it with typical research scanning patterns and advising defenders to treat the waves as credible intrusion attempts requiring immediate access restriction and authentication hardening. ## Preparing for the “Six-Week Window” The most consequential detail isn’t the brute-force volume; it’s the historical correlation to disclosure cadence and the rapid service pivot that suggests adversaries are probing control planes, not just user edges. Whether or not a specific zero-day surfaces, the attacker attention signals perceived payoff in Fortinet’s management and remote access surfaces, and the cost of waiting is asymmetric: hardening now carries low operational risk compared to the potential blast radius of a management-plane compromise. ## Sensational Headline Candidates - “Two-Wave Ambush: Fortinet SSL VPNs and FortiManager Pummeled as Zero-Day Fears Surge” - “From VPN to Control Plane: Fortinet Brute-Force Blitz Triggers Six-Week Zero-Day Watch” - “JA4+ Trail to a Residential FortiGate: Inside the Fortinet Brute-Force Spikes Rattling Defenders” ## At-a-Glance: The Critical Touch Pointers - Two distinct waves: Aug 3 (FortiOS SSL VPN) and Aug 5 (FortiManager FGFM), different TCP/client signatures. - 780+ unique IPs in the initial wave; all classified malicious. - JA4+ fingerprints link August activity to June traffic tied to a residential ISP FortiGate; attribution remains unconfirmed. - Historical pattern: ~80% of such vendor-focused spikes precede a CVE disclosure within six weeks. - Immediate actions: block listed IPs, restrict management exposure, enforce MFA, patch broadly, monitor for FGFM hits and brute-force patterns. - Context: Parallel Fortinet advisories (e.g., FortiSIEM CVE-2025-25256 with exploit code) heighten urgency but do not establish direct causation with the brute-force campaigns. Treat this as a pre-incident phase: restrict surfaces, raise authentication bars, and watch for service-specific anomalies while preparing for a probable disclosure window that historically follows such surges. > “This was not opportunistic — it was focused activity,” GreyNoise said, urging defenders to block malicious IPs and harden external access rather than assuming these are failed attempts against patched, legacy flaws.

loading..   14-Aug-2025
loading..   6 min read