Enterprise Security | Breaking Cybersecurity News | The Hacker News

Penetration testing is intended to help organizations identify weaknesses before attackers can exploit them. Once testing ends, findings must be documented, reviewed, formatted, delivered, assigned, tracked, remediated, and eventually retested. In many organizations, each of those steps happens in a different system and depends on a manual handoff. Testers work in one set of tools. Reports are assembled in Word or spreadsheets. Findings are delivered through PDFs. Security teams recreate them in ticketing systems. Engineering teams update remediation status somewhere else. Retesting is coordinated through email or meetings. By the time the right owner receives the information needed to act, days or weeks may have passed. At PlexTrac , we see this as one of the largest operational gaps in modern offensive security: organizations have invested in finding vulnerabilities, but the process surrounding the pentest has not kept pace. The next phase of pentest modernization is removin...

Identity is the attack surface now. Most identity governance and administration (IGA) programs still run on manual certifications, static role models, and quarterly reviews that go stale the day someone signs off on them. That's not a compliance inconvenience for a CISO. It's a structural gap. Attackers don't wait for the next recertification cycle, so identity risk detection can't either. Autonomous identity governance turns IGA from a periodic, human-driven exercise into something that runs continuously, watching real usage, learning what normal looks like, and acting on deviations before they turn into incidents. That autonomy applies across every identity and entitlement placed under governance, continuously reassessing access as usage, roles, and risk signals change. Three things are colliding to force this shift. Identity sprawl across cloud and SaaS environments has grown past what manual reviews can realistically handle, service accounts and non-human identi...

A security leader at a global finance company told us recently that his team discovered three times more AI tools running in their environment than IT had approved. Nobody had smuggled them in. Employees had simply pointed agents at their work, and the agents brought their own tools with them. That conversation is not unusual. It is the conversation. Over the past year, in customer discussions across finance, healthcare, manufacturing, and government, the same four struggles come up so consistently that we have started treating them as the shape of the problem itself. Every company effectively hired a second workforce this year, human workers and agentic workers side by side, and the agentic workers never went through onboarding. No handbook, no scoped credentials, no acceptable-use policy they can actually read. Here is what teams are struggling with, what our research says about why, and what closing each gap actually requires. Struggle one: "I can't tell you what age...

Somewhere right now, malware running on a compromised machine is checking in with an AI model, asking it for a new version of itself. Google's Threat Intelligence Group caught this happening in late 2025. The malware, nicknamed PROMPTFLUX, does this every hour it runs, and each version comes back looking different from the last. By the time a security tool learns to recognize it, it has already changed shape again. This isn't a rare glitch or a lab experiment. It's a preview of how a growing share of attacks work today and why legacy SIEM platforms built to detect known patterns are starting to fall behind. Legacy security tools were built to detect, not to adapt A SIEM is a system that collects logs from every part of a company's network and looks for signs of an attack. For years, it worked like a security guard with a very long memory. The guard learns what a break-in looks like - a certain kind of file, a pattern of behavior, a code signature, and watches fo...

We had an enterprise customer tell us their entire AI footprint was Copilot. That was the whole answer. One tool, one line item, done. We ran the first scan. Copilot wasn't even close to number one. Claude was. OpenAI came in second. Copilot was third. Nobody on the security team knew because Claude doesn't show up the way a SaaS app used to show up. There's no single login screen, no single admin console, no one place to look. That's the part most security teams miss. Claude isn't one surface. It's six. The six places Claude actually runs Claude Enterprise and Connected Apps. This is the surface everyone pictures: employees typing into Claude, OAuth'd into Google Drive, GitHub, Slack, and Jira, asking Claude to act on what's inside. The audit log shows that a connection happened. It does not show what got pulled into the prompt or what came back out. A finance analyst can drop a quarter of board materials into a conversation in ten second...

When I work on an incident, the first question I ask is almost never "what malware ran." It's "whose credentials did it use, and what was that account allowed to touch." Nine times out of ten, the interesting part of the story isn't the exploit. It's the access. The exploit gets you in the door. The privilege is what lets you walk through the building. For thirty years, that question had a human-shaped answer. A person clicked something, a person got phished, a person reused a password, an admin left a service account sitting on a domain controller with a password from 2014. The identity at the center of the incident belonged to somebody with a badge and a manager. That assumption is quietly dying, and most enterprises have not adjusted their controls to match. The actor on your network is increasingly not a person at all. It is a workload, a script, a bot, an API (application programming interface) client, and now an AI agent that can reason, plan...

Why Authentication Context Matters Most people think logging in is a small act. Type your password, type your code, tap a screen, scan a face, and move on. But to the systems on the other side, the method behind that moment can matter just as much as the fact that it happened at all. That is where two strangely named but surprisingly important identity concepts enter the story: OIDC's AMR and SAML 2.0's AuthnContext. They sound like the kind of acronyms that only standards committees could love, yet both were created to answer a deeply human question in digital form: How sure a system has to be before it trusts someone? The backstory starts with the internet growing up. Early online services often treated authentication as a light switch: either the user was in, or the user was out. But as online systems began handling payroll, health records, taxes, academic data, contracts, and financial approvals, that simple model started to crack. A login backed by a reused password is not ...

Cybersecurity is entering a new phase. It's one where the gap between awareness and operational execution is becoming the industry's biggest challenge. That's what stood out to me most after reviewing the results of the 2026 Bitdefender Cybersecurity Assessment , which found that organizations have never had greater insight into the risks they face, yet turning that understanding into meaningful action remains a persistent challenge. Nowhere is that gap more visible, in my view, than in how organizations handle breach transparency. We surveyed 1,200 IT and cybersecurity professionals across six countries: France, Germany, Italy, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Respondents ranged from frontline employees to IT managers to CISOs, all working within organizations with 500 or more employees. A Governance Problem, Not an Attacker Problem One of the most troubling findings in our report is not about attacker behavior. It's about internal respons...

We recently worked with an organization that had invested heavily in advanced security tooling, including AI-driven detection and monitoring capabilities. From a technical perspective, the environment appeared mature: alerts were firing, dashboards were populated, and risks were clearly identified.  Yet progress had stalled.  The security team and IT disagreed on ownership. Business leadership perceived cyber risk as "under control," while the security team felt increasingly exposed and unheard. AI surfaced the signals, but no one could agree on what to do with them.  The turning point did not come from additional tooling or deeper analysis. It came from reframing the conversation.  By aligning stakeholders around clear business impact, contextualizing the findings against industry peers, and translating technical gaps into credible, board-level risk narratives that reinforced the internal security team's concerns rather than questioning their judgment, decisions were finally ma...