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...

SideWalk

SparklingGoblin

Backdoor

loading..
loading..
loading..

Undocumented SideWalk Backdoor used by an APT group dubbed as SparklingGoblin to target US firms

New Undocumented SideWalk Backdoor attacking several US-based computer retail businesses via modular attacks …

26-Aug-2021
2 min read

No content available.

Related Articles

loading..

GitLab

Red Hat's GitLab breach exposes customer network blueprints, posing a widespread...

A cyberattack on Red Hat's consulting division stole sensitive customer documents containing network configurations and credentials, creating potential downstream security risks for thousands of organisations. ## Incident Overview Red Hat, the open-source software giant now owned by IBM, has confirmed a significant security breach. The incident involved unauthorized access to a self-managed **GitLab instance** used exclusively by its internal **Red Hat Consulting** team . Upon detecting the intrusion, Red Hat's security team took action by removing the threat actor's access, isolating the compromised instance, and launching an investigation . The company has stated that the breach is contained and does not impact its core products or software supply chain . ## Scope of the Data Breach A cybercrime group calling itself **"Crimson Collective"** has claimed responsibility for the attack. While Red Hat has confirmed data was copied, it has not verified the attackers' specific claims . The table below summarizes the key details of the stolen data based on public claims and Red Hat's statements: | Aspect | Details | | :--- | :--- | | **Claimed Data Volume** | Nearly **570 GB** of compressed data . | | **Claimed Repositories** | Approximately **28,000** internal development repositories . | | **Key Data Type** | Roughly **800 Customer Engagement Reports (CERs)** from 2020-2025 . | | **Red Hat's Confirmation** | The instance housed consulting data like project specs, code snippets, and internal communications . | ## Understanding Customer Engagement Reports (CERs) The most significant threat from this breach stems from the exposure of Customer Engagement Reports (CERs). These are not standard marketing documents but **detailed technical and architectural blueprints** created by Red Hat's consultants . According to cybersecurity advisories and analysis, these CERs can contain : - **Infrastructure details:** Comprehensive network topologies and system configurations. - **Authentication tokens and keys:** Credentials that could grant access to customer systems. - **Configuration data:** Sensitive settings for platforms and applications. The Centre for Cybersecurity Belgium (CCB) has assessed this breach as a **"high risk"** because this information could be weaponized to breach customer networks directly . The stolen data allegedly pertains to a wide range of high-profile organizations, including telecoms, financial institutions, and government agencies . ## Essential Steps for Potential Impacted Organisations If your organisation is or has been a Red Hat Consulting customer, you should take immediate proactive measures. The following checklist outlines critical actions to protect your environment. ![deepseek_mermaid_20251003_d8a99a.png](https://sb-cms.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/deepseek_mermaid_20251003_d8a99a_b41f12958c.png) ## Ongoing Investigation Key details about the breach remain unclear, leaving customers with unresolved concerns: - **Initial Access Vector:** The specific vulnerability or method the attackers used to breach the GitLab instance has not been disclosed . - **Dwell Time:** It is unknown how long the attackers had access to the system before detection. The hackers claim the intrusion occurred roughly two weeks before Red Hat's announcement . - **Extortion Demands:** Crimson Collective has stated it is an "extortion ransomware group" . Red Hat has not commented on whether it received or is negotiating with any extortion demands. ## Responsible Reporting This incident highlights the sophisticated threats facing software supply chains and the critical importance of securing development and collaboration environments. Red Hat's core product integrity remains intact, but the breach shows that **attack surfaces extend beyond code to include internal documents and communications** . It is also crucial to note that **GitLab's own platform and infrastructure were not compromised** . This incident involved Red Hat's self-managed instance of GitLab Community Edition, for which the customer is responsible for security, maintenance, and applying patches . This is a developing story. As the investigation continues, more specific guidance for affected customers is expected from Red Hat. For the latest official information, monitor the **[Red Hat security blog](https://access.redhat.com/articles/7132207)** .

loading..   03-Oct-2025
loading..   3 min read
loading..

Deepfake

Telecom

Near-monthly breaches rocked South Korea in 2025—deepfakes, rogue base stations,...

South Korea’s world-class internet and tech prowess collided with a relentless wave of near-monthly cyber incidents in 2025, exposing a reactive, fragmented defense posture unfit for a nation at the core of global digital supply chains. From telecom giants and financial institutions to government-adjacent targets, the impacts were sweeping—forcing an urgent rethink at the highest levels of power. ### Key revelations - A near-monthly drumbeat of major incidents spotlighted systemic coordination gaps and the absence of a clear cyber “first responder,” amplifying risk across critical sectors. - Experts warned that reactive governance, siloed agencies, and a deep talent shortage created a vicious cycle where quick fixes replaced durable resilience. - A late-year pivot toward interagency centralization from the presidential office aims to accelerate response—while raising new debates over oversight and accountability. ### 2025 timeline at a glance - January: GS Retail breach exposed about 90,000 customers’ personal data after sustained website attacks straddling the New Year period. - February: Wemix (Wemade) lost $6.2 million to a hack on Feb. 28, with disclosure delayed until March, fueling investor anxiety. - April–May: SK Telecom’s mega-breach compromised data for roughly 23 million customers, triggering mass SIM replacements and a protracted fallout. - June: Yes24 was crippled by ransomware on June 9, with services down for days before restoration by mid-month. - July: North Korea–linked Kimsuky used AI-generated deepfake images in spear-phishing against defense-related entities, marking a chilling escalation in tradecraft. - July: Seoul Guarantee Insurance suffered ransomware that paralyzed core guarantee services, stranding customers and markets in uncertainty. - August: Yes24 was hit again; Lotte Card lost around 200GB of data affecting roughly 3 million customers over 17 undetected days; a Welcome Financial affiliate faced Russian-linked claims of over 1TB exfiltration. - September: KT disclosed a breach via illegal “fake base stations,” exposing thousands to IMSI/IMEI capture and unauthorized micro-payments—a first-of-its-kind shock to telecom trust. ### Why the defenses cracked South Korea’s cyber governance spanned multiple ministries and regulators that too often scrambled in parallel, deferring to one another instead of operating as a single, empowered crisis unit. The result was slower containment, mixed messaging, and a pattern of incident-driven fixes rather than systemic hardening aligned to national critical infrastructure priorities. ### Expert Alarm Industry leaders argue the nation treats cybersecurity as episodic crisis management, not as a cornerstone of national resilience, starving long-term investments in architecture and skills. The chronic shortage of trained defenders compounds exposure—without skilled talent, proactive defenses and sustained threat hunting simply cannot scale. ### A government pivot Responding to the compounding shocks, the National Security Office advanced a “comprehensive” interagency cyber plan led from the presidential office to cut through silos and accelerate incident response. Regulators also signaled new legal powers to investigate at the first hint of compromise—even absent a company report—to finally close the first-responder gap. ### Oversight Debate Central control promises speed, but concentrating authority risks politicization and overreach if not paired with independent checks, experts caution. A hybrid model—central strategy and crisis coordination with technical execution by specialist agencies like KISA under clearer rules—emerges as the balanced path forward. ### Threats redefining the battlefield - AI-powered deception: Kimsuky’s deepfake military IDs supercharge spear-phishing, fusing social engineering with synthetic media to breach high-trust environments. - Telecom edge abuse: From mass data theft at SK Telecom to KT’s rogue base-station exploitation, attackers are increasingly weaponizing the seams between IT, subscriber identity, and network access. - Ransomware resiliency gaps: Repeat hits against Yes24 and disruptive attacks on financial rails like SGI reveal operational weak points and recovery shortfalls under sustained pressure. ### What must change now - Establish a single operational first responder with clear legal authority to coordinate, compel action, and communicate consistently across ministries and sectors in real time. - Fund workforce pipelines and retainers for surge capacity, ending the quick-fix cycle and enabling continuous threat hunting and architecture hardening in telecom and finance. - Mandate fast, standardized disclosure and post-incident audits to drive sector-wide learnings and public trust following large-scale breaches.

loading..   02-Oct-2025
loading..   4 min read
loading..

Aerospace

WestJet breach exposes passport and ID data; airline offers 24-month identity mo...

WestJet confirmed that the June 2025 cyber incident led to the exposure of some passengers’ sensitive personal data, including passport and government ID details, while reiterating that payment card numbers and passwords were not compromised. The airline states that containment is complete, while investigations with law enforcement continue, and impacted individuals are being notified with offers of identity protection services. ### What WestJet confirmed WestJet states that a _“sophisticated, criminal third party”_ gained unauthorized access on June 13, 2025, and subsequent forensic analysis confirmed that certain data was obtained from its systems. The company’s [notice](http://www.westjet.com/en-ca/news/2025/advisory--cybersecurity-incident- explains that, for most people, the data involved was not sensitive; however, for some, it included names, contact details, documents related to reservations and travel, and relationship data with WestJet. A separate [customer notification](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26173218-2025-09-29-westjet-data-breach-notice-to-consumers/) states that exposed elements may include full name, date of birth, mailing address, passport or government ID images, requested accommodations, filed complaints, WestJet Rewards identifiers and balances, and certain co-branded Mastercard information, although not full card numbers, expiration dates, CVVs, or passwords. ### Timeline WestJet publicly acknowledged the incident on June 13, stating internal systems and the WestJet app were affected, with intermittent errors persisting as teams worked to resolve the situation. By June 14–15, the airline reported that operations remained safe and stable, while access issues impacted some services. It was committed to providing 12-hourly transparency updates as the investigation progressed. The initial disclosure did not specify data access, but by mid-September, WestJet had completed an analysis sufficient to begin notifying impacted U.S. residents and authorities, culminating in late September with confirmations of data exposure in media reports and corporate notices. ### Scope of data exposure WestJet’s U.S. notice emphasizes variability by individual and stresses that many cases do not involve sensitive data, yet acknowledges that for certain individuals, travel documents and reservation-linked information were affected. According to the reporting lists, categories encompass identity attributes and loyalty data, underscoring that the ultimate scope is still being determined and that notifications may expand as analysis continues. The airline advised that travelers linked under the same booking reference as a notified individual may also have had their information exposed, indicating a possible multi-party impact within shared itineraries. ### Attribution While it was reported that the Scattered Spider threat group targeted aviation around the time of the WestJet incident, there is no official attribution for this breach, and WestJet has not identified a responsible actor. Early reporting also left open the question of whether ransomware was involved, noting only that access to software and services was disrupted and later restored for key customer interfaces. The pattern of operational continuity despite IT disruption aligns with WestJet’s statements that flight safety was never in question, even as investigations unfolded. ### Law enforcement and regulatory response WestJet states it cooperated closely with the FBI and the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security and notified relevant regulators, including U.S. state Attorneys General and credit bureaus, reflecting a multi-jurisdictional response. The company says containment is complete and that additional security controls have been implemented as analysis continues, aligning with standard post-incident hardening practices. According to further reports, the FBI is involved and WestJet is taking steps to prevent similar incidents in the future, reinforcing the cross-border nature of the investigation. ### Customer support Impacted individuals are being offered two years of identity theft protection and monitoring with enrollment instructions in notification letters, with a redemption deadline noted as November 30 in media reports. WestJet’s public notices urge heightened caution against social engineering during the incident and direct guests to official channels for updates as part of its risk mitigation efforts. The airline reiterates that no guest passwords, payment card numbers, expiration dates, or CVVs were obtained, thereby reducing the immediate risk of direct financial fraud via stored credentials or tokens. ### Unresolved questions WestJet indicates ongoing efforts to determine the full extent of the incident, cautioning that initial notifications reflect confirmed cases and may not encompass all affected individuals as analysis proceeds. The company has not publicly disclosed the total number of impacted customers, noting it has sought comment on scale and awaits a response, highlighting a remaining transparency gap typical during rolling notifications. Technical details, such as initial access vectors, persistence mechanisms, and exfiltration pathways, remain undisclosed, consistent with ongoing active investigations and sensitive law enforcement coordination.

loading..   01-Oct-2025
loading..   4 min read