Picus Security | Breaking Cybersecurity News | The Hacker News

For thirty years, vulnerability management ran on a buffer: the months between when a vulnerability was found and when someone could figure out how to weaponize it. The solution was straightforward enough; triage by severity, schedule the fix, validate, and move on. The buffer was what made that work. Today, that buffer is gone. AI didn't make your team slower. It changed the other side of the equation, compressing discovery-to-exploit from months to hours . And the sad truth for defenders is that a process built for breathing room can't survive without it. AI Turned Vulnerability Discovery Into a Volume Game In its May 2026 update, Anthropic reported that it and approximately 50 partners used Claude Mythos Preview to find more than 10,000 high- or critical-severity vulnerabilities in systemically important software in a single month. Earlier figures were just as stark. Pointed at Firefox, the gated Mythos model wrote 181 working exploits , against just 2 from t...

Your pentest report looks clean. That might be the problem. Run automated pentesting long enough, and the new findings start to dry up. By the third or fourth run, fewer issues appear. The report looks stable. Leadership reads "stable" as "secure." It usually isn't. The work slows down. The risk does not. That gap is what a The Hacker News webinar with Picus Security sets out to close. Autumn Stambaugh and Can Yüceel, with host James Azar, show what your tool validates, where it stops, and how to close what it leaves open. Register for the webinar. Start with the core problem. A flat report can mean the obvious holes were fixed. It can also mean the tool has reached the edge of what it can see. Automated pentesting is often treated as full security validation. It is not. Picus frames validation as six surfaces and puts automated pentesting on one of them, the attack path: whether an attacker can move through an environment. That leaves the other five ...

If you run security at any reasonably complex organization, your validation stack probably looks something like this: a BAS tool in one corner. A pentest engagement, or maybe an automated pentesting product, in another. A vulnerability scanner feeding an attack surface management platform somewhere else. Each tool gives you a slice of the picture. None of them talks to each other in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, adversaries do not attack in silos. A real intrusion might chain together an exposed identity, a cloud misconfiguration, a missed detection opportunity, and an unpatched vulnerability in a single operation. Attackers understand that your environment is an interconnected system. Unfortunately, most validation programs are still treating it as a set of disparate, disconnected parts. This isn't a minor inefficiency. It's a structural blind spot. And it's lasted for years because the market has treated every validation discipline as a separate category, with its own...

Car makers don’t trust blueprints. They smash prototypes into walls. Again and again. In controlled conditions. Because design specs don’t prove survival. Crash tests do. They separate theory from reality. Cybersecurity is no different. Dashboards overflow with “critical” exposure alerts. Compliance reports tick every box.  But none of that proves what matters most to a CISO: The ransomware crew targeting your sector can’t move laterally once inside. That a newly published exploit of a CVE won’t bypass your defenses tomorrow morning. That sensitive data can’t be siphoned through a stealthy exfiltration channel, exposing the business to fines, lawsuits, and reputational damage. That’s why Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) matters.  BAS is the crash test for your security stack. It safely simulates real adversarial behaviors to prove which attacks your defenses can stop, and which would break through. It exposes those gaps before attackers exploit them or regulators d...

As security professionals, it's easy to get caught up in a race to counter the latest advanced adversary techniques. Yet the most impactful attacks often aren't from cutting-edge exploits, but from cracked credentials and compromised accounts . Despite widespread awareness of this threat vector, Picus Security's Blue Report 2025 shows that organizations continue to struggle with preventing password cracking attacks and detecting the malicious use of compromised accounts . With the first half of 2025 behind us, compromised valid accounts remain the most underprevented attack vector , highlighting the urgent need for a proactive approach focused on the threats that are evading organizations' defenses. A Wake-Up Call: The Alarming Rise in Password Cracking Success The Picus Blue Report is an annual research publication that analyzes how well organizations are preventing and detecting real-world cyber threats. Unlike traditional reports that focus solely on threat t...