Browser Isolation | Breaking Cybersecurity News | The Hacker News

The landscape of browser security has undergone significant changes over the past decade. While Browser Isolation was once considered the gold standard for protecting against browser exploits and malware downloads, it has become increasingly inadequate and insecure in today's SaaS-centric world. The limitations of Browser Isolation, such as degraded browser performance and inability to tackle modern web-borne threats like phishing and malicious extensions, necessitate a shift towards more advanced solutions. These are the findings of a new report, titled " The Next Generation of RBI (Remote Browser Isolation) " ( Download here ). The Roots of Browser Isolation In the past, traditional signature-based antiviruses were commonly used to protect against on-device malware infections. However, they failed to block two main types of threats. The first, browser exploit, especially in Microsoft's Internet Explorer. The second, drive-by malware downloads, i.e using social e...

The landscape of browser security has undergone significant changes over the past decade. While Browser Isolation was once considered the gold standard for protecting against browser exploits and malware downloads, it has become increasingly inadequate and insecure in today's SaaS-centric world. The limitations of Browser Isolation, such as degraded browser performance and inability to tackle modern web-borne threats like phishing and malicious extensions, necessitate a shift towards more advanced solutions. These are the findings of a new report, titled " The Dark Side of Browser Isolation and the Next Generation of Browser Security " ( Download here ). The Roots of Browser Isolation In the past, traditional signature-based antiviruses were commonly used to protect against on-device malware infections. However, they failed to block two main types of threats. The first, browser exploit, especially in Microsoft's Internet Explorer. The second, drive-by malware down...

IT leaders know the drill—regulators and cyber insurers demand regular network penetration testing to keep the bad guys out. But here's the thing: hackers don't wait around for compliance schedules. Most companies approach network penetration testing on a set schedule, with the most common frequency being twice a year (29%), followed by three to four times per year (23%) and once per year (20%), according to the Kaseya Cybersecurity Survey Report 2024 . Compliance-focused testing can catch vulnerabilities that exist at the exact time of testing, but it's not enough to stay ahead of attackers in a meaningful way. Why More Frequent Testing Makes Sense When companies test more often, they're not just checking a box for compliance—they're actually protecting their networks. The Kaseya survey also points out that the top drivers for network penetration testing are: Cybersecurity Control and Validation (34%) – ensuring the security controls work and vulnerabilities are minimized. Re...