Insights

For a long time, cybersecurity had a simple story. Build the wall. Harden the servers. Patch the endpoints. Run the pen test. Pass the audit. Feel better. That story is not useless. It's just incomplete. The wall still matters, but the breach rarely comes through the wall anymore. It comes through the doors we built ourselves. The ones we forgot we installed. The ones we handed to vendors, integrations, and "helpful" apps that promised to make work easier. That's delegated trust. And in 2026, it is the new perimeter. What delegated trust really looks like Most organizations have a mental picture of risk that still looks like a network diagram. Subnets. Firewalls. "Inside" and "outside." That picture is comforting because it's familiar. But business does not run inside the network anymore. Your data lives in SaaS platforms.Your workflows live in cloud services.Your files live in shared drives and collaboration tools.Your…

Typosquatting is not new, nor is it sophisticated. Yet it remains one of the most effective methods attackers use to compromise users, credentials, and entire enterprises. The attack exploits a single, very human behavior: the habit of typing quickly and trusting what looks familiar. What Is Typosquatting? Typosquatting occurs when an attacker registers a domain that closely resembles a legitimate one, usually differing by just one character. Example: Legitimate: sharepoint.com Typosquatted: sharepointi.com To a human eye-especially in an email, chat message, or shortened URL-the difference is often invisible. The attacker gains a doorway. Typical characteristics of a typosquatted domain: Hosted outside trusted infrastructure Uses third‑party name servers Registered with low‑friction providers to avoid rapid takedown Why These Links Are So Dangerous Credential Harvesting - Typosquatted sites mimic real login pages. Users enter credentials, which are immediately captured. The page may redirect to the legitimate site afterward, masking the theft. MFA…

Fortinet has issued a critical advisory on December 9, 2025 concerning two severe authentication‑bypass vulnerabilities that affect a broad spectrum of Fortinet devices, from FortiOS and FortiProxy to FortiWeb and FortiSwitchManager. The flaws-CVE‑2025‑59718 and CVE‑2025‑59719-enable attackers to sidestep FortiCloud Single‑Sign‑On (SSO) authentication by submitting a malicious SAML message that exploits a weakness in cryptographic signature verification. Below is a concise breakdown of the threat, its impact, and the steps you can take to protect your environment. 1. What the Vulnerabilities Are Fortinet's FortiCloud SSO feature, when enabled, relies on SAML tokens to authenticate administrators. The vulnerabilities arise because the devices improperly verify the signature of those tokens. If an attacker can craft a forged SAML assertion that the device accepts as valid, they can gain administrative access without knowing any legitimate credentials. CVE‑2025‑59718 affects FortiOS, FortiProxy, and FortiSwitchManager. CVE‑2025‑59719 targets FortiWeb's SSO implementation. Both issues can be exploited only when the FortiCloud…

On December 3, 2025, the React team publicly disclosed a critical security vulnerability affecting React Server Components. The flaw has been assigned the identifier CVE-2025-55182 and carries a maximum severity rating. This issue enables unauthenticated remote code execution under certain conditions, making it one of the most serious web-framework vulnerabilities disclosed in recent years. The timing and severity of this disclosure matter. React, along with frameworks like Next.js, powers a significant percentage of modern web applications, including enterprise portals, SaaS platforms, e-commerce systems, and internal business applications. The presence of a remotely exploitable vulnerability in a default configuration elevates the risk far beyond niche developer scenarios. What Caused the Vulnerability The vulnerability originates within the implementation of the React Server Components protocol, often referred to as the Flight protocol. Specifically, the server logic responsible for interpreting RSC payloads fails to adequately validate and constrain the data received from remote clients.…