In the arms race to secure environments, codifying permissions often becomes an afterthought in the wake of setting up a new access tool. I often speak with organizations that either don’t know who has permission to what, or have no permission definitions at all. I once onboarded an enterprise level digital communications company that was losing productivity trying to keep track of who had access to their Kubernetes resources.

Following the Sysdig Threat Research Team’s (TRT) discovery of LLMjacking — the illicit use of an LLM through compromised credentials — the number of attackers and their methods have proliferated.

To allay dependence on oil revenue and expand the private sector, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has committed, in recent years, to establishing a knowledge-based economy. Consequently, they have become a formidable competitor in Information Communication Technology (ICT). As the ICT industry has grown, so have government agencies to regulate it, namely the Signals Intelligence Agency, formerly known as (and often still referred to as) the National Electronic Security Authority (NESA).

Securing virtual identities and entry points has become a critical priority as cyber threats grow more sophisticated. A Single Sign-On (SSO) system offers ease and allows multi-functionality with a single set of identity verification, but they are enticing targets for cyber attackers. Organizations need Zero Trust Architecture to alleviate this risk. Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) is a protection framework that is designed on the principle of never trust and always verify.

‍In response to the growing number of disparate cyber regulations across its member states, resulting in inconsistent cybersecurity practices, the EU drafted Directive 2022/2555, more commonly known as NIS 2. This sweeping directive, officially in effect in October 2024, aims to ensure a more uniform, proactive approach to cyber risk management across the union in the face of an interdependent market and increasingly costly risk landscape.

Today’s threat landscape is defined by adversaries’ increasing speed and quickly evolving tactics. Now more than ever, it is imperative organizations unify and accelerate their security operations to detect, identify and respond to threats at the rapid pace of the adversary. This isn’t always straightforward.

Are your legacy technologies slowing down your security operations? You’re not alone. Seventy percent of critical incidents take over 12 hours to resolve. Legacy SIEMs burden security teams with endless manual processes and agonizingly slow search speeds, delaying investigation and response while increasing the risk of a breach. The future of security requires next-gen SIEM technology built for scale and speed, powered by automation and AI.

In the critical and constantly evolving identity security space, organizations are focused on three essential needs: While identity security disciplines like identity security posture management (ISPM), identity threat detection and response (ITDR) and privileged access management (PAM) address various aspects of these needs, none offer a complete solution.

Email systems are vulnerable to a multitude of risks that can interfere with business operations. It’s impossible to embrace continuity without being fully aware of these risks, what they entail, and the repercussions that may follow. Here are the most common threats that organizations should be prepared for before and after they master BCP: There are many crisis types that can undermine your business continuity unless it’s enhanced with advanced solutions and protocols.