politico.eu
January 28, 2026 4:16 pm CET
By Sam Clark
Europe is investing heavily in security but not enough in cyber, bloc’s cyber agency chief says.
BRUSSELS — The European Union urgently needs to rethink its cyber defenses as it faces an unprecedented volume and pace of attacks, the head of the bloc's cyber agency told POLITICO.
“We are losing this game,” said Juhan Lepassaar, the executive director of the EU's Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). “We are not catching up, we're losing this game, and we're losing massively.”
Europe has been pummeled with damaging cyberattacks in recent years, which have shut down major airports, disrupted elections and crippled hospitals. Just in the past week, cyber experts pinned an attempted attack on Poland’s power grid on Russia, and the president of Germany's Bundesbank said in an interview that the central bank faced over 5,000 cyberattacks every minute.
The cyber threats come as Europe deals with war on its eastern border, China's growing power over the global technology market and an increasingly unfriendly United States. In the past year, European countries have pledged to boost defense spending and the EU has shaped many of its policies around security and self-reliance.
Investing in security services but not in cybersecurity creates a “loophole,” Lepassaar warned.
The agency chief's warnings come one week after the European Commission presented a proposal to overhaul its Cybersecurity Act legislation. The bill would allow the EU's cyber agency, based in Athens, to expand its personnel by 118 full-time staff and to spend more on operational costs. The agency now has approximately 150 staff.
But Lepassaar lamented that wasn't nearly enough. He drew a comparison to EU police agency Europol and EU border agency Frontex, which have more than 1,400 and more than 2,500 staff respectively, with more resources on the way.
“We just don't need an upgrade. We need a rethink," he said. “Doubling the capacity is the absolute minimum."
The European Union has fallen short in cyber investment for years and it needs to build an entire new EU-level cyber infrastructure, the agency chief said.
Europe needs to 'step up'
When Lepassaar took charge of the agency in 2019, Europe was in a “totally different environment," he said.
In 2019, approximately 17,000 software flaws were added to a global database logging such vulnerabilities; in 2025, more than 41,000 were added, he said. And in 2019, it took hackers approximately two months on average to use those flaws in an attack, but now it took only one day on average, he said, citing industry and government data.
The cybersecurity industry has warned it now takes hackers far less time to exploit glitches, in part because of AI.
Just as Europe has pledged to take greater responsibility for its physical security, it must do the same in cyberspace, said Lepassaar — an Estonian who previously headed the office of European Commissioner for Digital Affairs Andrus Ansip.
In areas such as cataloging and managing cyber vulnerabilities — an obscure but critical area of cybersecurity — the only organizations systematically working on the problem have long been U.S.-based, Lepassaar said. “We all reap the benefits for free … it's needed that we now step up and take our fair share of this.”
MITRE, a U.S.-based nonprofit group, manages a global database of cyber flaws on which the entire industry relies. It nearly lost funding last year before being bailed out by the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
European startups and small businesses benefit from a system whose security is “backed up only by MITRE and CISA,” Lepassaar said.
ENISA has started operating a database of cyber flaws — though this was planned before MITRE nearly lost its funding — and recently took on a key technical role that further embeds it at the core of global cybersecurity infrastructure.
“It's part of our obligation as Europe to take our fair share from this,” Lepassaar said.
politico.com
By John Sakellariadis
01/27/2026 03:30 PM EST
The interim director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency triggered an internal cybersecurity warning with the uploads — and a DHS-level damage assessment.
The interim head of the country’s cyber defense agency uploaded sensitive contracting documents into a public version of ChatGPT last summer, triggering multiple automated security warnings that are meant to stop the theft or unintentional disclosure of government material from federal networks, according to four Department of Homeland Security officials with knowledge of the incident.
The apparent misstep from Madhu Gottumukkala was especially noteworthy because the acting director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency had requested special permission from CISA’s Office of the Chief Information Officer to use the popular AI tool soon after arriving at the agency this May, three of the officials said. The app was blocked for other DHS employees at the time.
None of the files Gottumukkala plugged into ChatGPT were classified, according to the four officials, each of whom was granted anonymity for fear of retribution. But the material included CISA contracting documents marked “for official use only,” a government designation for information that is considered sensitive and not for public release.
Cybersecurity sensors at CISA flagged the uploads this past August, said the four officials. One official specified there were multiple such warnings in the first week of August alone. Senior officials at DHS subsequently led an internal review to assess if there had been any harm to government security from the exposures, according to two of the four officials.
It is not clear what the review concluded.
In an emailed statement, CISA’s Director of Public Affairs Marci McCarthy said Gottumukkala “was granted permission to use ChatGPT with DHS controls in place,” and that “this use was short-term and limited.” McCarthy added that the agency was committed to “harnessing AI and other cutting-edge technologies to drive government modernization and deliver on” Trump’s executive order removing barriers to America’s leadership in AI.
The email also appeared to dispute the timeline of POLITICO’s reporting: “Acting Director Dr. Madhu Gottumukkala last used ChatGPT in mid-July 2025 under an authorized temporary exception granted to some employees. CISA’s security posture remains to block access to ChatGPT by default unless granted an exception.”
Gottumukkala is currently the senior-most political official at CISA, an agency tasked with securing federal networks against sophisticated, state-backed hackers from adversarial nations, including Russia and China.
Any material uploaded into the public version of ChatGPT that Gottumukkala was using is shared with ChatGPT-owner OpenAI, meaning it can be used to help answer prompts from other users of the app. OpenAI has said the app has more than 700 million total active users.
Other AI tools now approved for use by DHS employees — such as DHS’s self-built AI-powered chatbot, DHSChat — are configured to prevent queries or documents input into them from leaving federal networks.
Gottumukkala “forced CISA’s hand into making them give him ChatGPT, and then he abused it,” said the first official.
All federal officials are trained on the proper handling of sensitive documents. According to DHS policy, security officials are also supposed to investigate the “cause and affect” of any exposure of official use documents, and determine the “appropriateness” of any administrative or disciplinary action. Depending on the circumstances, those could range from things like mandatory retraining or a formal warning, to more serious measures, like the suspension or revocation of a security clearance, said one of the four officials.
After DHS detected the activity, Gottumukkala spoke with senior officials at DHS to review what he uploaded into ChatGPT, said two of the four officials. DHS’s then-acting general counsel, Joseph Mazzara, was involved in the effort to assess any potential harm to the department, according to the first official. Antoine McCord, DHS’s chief information officer, was also involved, according to a second official.
Gottumukkala also had meetings this August with CISA’s chief information officer, Robert Costello, and its chief counsel, Spencer Fisher, about the incident and the proper handling of for official use only material, the four people said.
Mazzara and Costello did not respond to requests for comment. McCord and Fisher could not be reached for comment.
Gottumukkala has helmed the agency in an acting capacity since May, when he was appointed by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem as its deputy director. Donald Trump’s nominee to head CISA, DHS special adviser Sean Plankey, was blocked last year by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) over a Coast Guard shipbuilding contract. A date for his new confirmation hearing has not been set.
Gottumukkala’s tenure atop the agency has not been smooth — and this would not be his first security-related incident.
At least six career staff were placed on leave this summer after Gottumukkala failed a counterintelligence polygraph exam that he pushed to take, as POLITICO first reported. DHS has called the polygraph “unsanctioned.” Asked during Congressional testimony last week if he was “aware” of the failed test, Gottumukkala twice told Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) that he did not “accept the premise of that characterization.”
And last week, Gottumukkala tried to oust Costello, CISA’s CIO, before other political appointees at the agency intervened to block the move.
bleepingcomputer.com
By Bill Toulas
October 15, 2025
U.S. cybersecurity company F5 disclosed that nation-state hackers breached its systems and stole undisclosed BIG-IP security vulnerabilities and source code.
The company states that it first became aware of the breach on August 9, 2025, with its investigations revealing that the attackers had gained long-term access to its system, including the company's BIG-IP product development environment and engineering knowledge management platform.
F5 is a Fortune 500 tech giant specializing in cybersecurity, cloud management, and application delivery networking (ADN) applications. The company has 23,000 customers in 170 countries, and 48 of the Fortune 50 entities use its products.
BIG-IP is the firm's flagship product used for application delivery and traffic management by many large enterprises worldwide.
No supply-chain risk
It’s unclear how long the hackers maintained access, but the company confirmed that they stole source code, vulnerability data, and some configuration and implementation details for a limited number of customers.
"Through this access, certain files were exfiltrated, some of which contained certain portions of the Company's BIG-IP source code and information about undisclosed vulnerabilities that it was working on in BIG-IP," the company states.
Despite this critical exposure of undisclosed flaws, F5 says there's no evidence that the attackers leveraged the information in actual attacks, such as exploiting the undisclosed flaw against systems. The company also states that it has not seen evidence that the private information has been disclosed.
F5 claims that the threat actors' access to the BIG-IP environment did not compromise its software supply chain or result in any suspicious code modifications.
This includes its platforms that contain customer data, such as its CRM, financial, support case management, or iHealth systems. Furthermore, other products and platforms managed by the company are not compromised, including NGINX, F5 Distributed Cloud Services, or Silverline systems' source code.
Response to the breach
After discovering the intrusion, F5 took remediation action by tightening access to its systems, and improving its overall threat monitoring, detection, and response capabilities:
Rotated credentials and strengthened access controls across our systems.
Deployed improved inventory and patch management automation, as well as additional tooling to better monitor, detect, and respond to threats.
Implemented enhancements to our network security architecture.
Hardened our product development environment, including strengthening security controls and monitoring of all software development platforms.
Additionally, the company also focuses on the security of its products through source code reviews and security assessements with support from NCC Group and IOActive.
NCC Group's assessment covered security reviews of critical software components in BIG-IP and portions of the development pipeline in an effort that involved 76 consultants.
IOActive's expertise was called in after the security breach and the engagement is still in progress. The results so far show no evidence of the threat actor introducing vulnerablities in critical F5 software source code or the software development build pipeline.
Customers should take action
F5 is still reviewing which customers had their configuration or implementation details stolen and will contact them with guidance.
To help customers secure their F5 environments against risks stemming from the breach, the company released updates for BIG-IP, F5OS, BIG-IP Next for Kubernetes, BIG-IQ, and APM clients.
Despite any evidence "of undisclosed critical or remote code execution vulnerabilities," the company urges customers to prioritize installing the new BIG-IP software updates.
F5 confirmed that today's updates address the potential impact stemming from the stolen undisclosed vulnerabilities.
Furthermore, F5 support makes available a threat hunting guide for customers to improve detection and monitoring in their environment.
New best practices for hardening F5 systems now include automated checks to the F5 iHealth Diagnostic Tool, which can now flag security risks, vulnerabilities, prioritize actions, and provide remediation guidance.
Another recommendation is to enable BIG-IP event streaming to SIEM and configure the systems to log to a remote syslog server and monitor for login attempts.
"Our global support team is available to assist. You can open a MyF5 support case or contact F5 support directly for help updating your BIG-IP software, implementing any of these steps, or to address any questions you may have" - F5
The company added that it has validated the safety of BIG-IP releases through multiple independent reviews by leading cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike and Mandiant.
On Monday, F5 announced that it rotated the cryptographic certcertificates and keys used for signing its digital products. The change affects installing BIG-IP and BIG-IQ TMOS software images while ISO image signature verification is enabled, and installing BIG-IP F5OS tenant images on host systems running F5OS.
Additional guidance for F5 customers comes from UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
Both agencies recommmend identifying all F5 products (hardware, software, and virtualized) and making sure that no management interface is exposed on the public web. If an exposed interface is discovered, companies should make compromise assessment.
F5 notes that it delayed the public disclosure of the incident at the U.S. government's request, presumably to allow enough time to secure critical systems.
"On September 12, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice determined that a delay in public disclosure was warranted pursuant to Item 1.05(c) of Form 8-K. F5 is now filing this report in a timely manner," explains F5.
F5 states that the incident has no material impact on its operations. All services remain available and are considered safe, based on the latest available evidence.
BleepingComputer has contacted F5 to request more details about the incident, and we will update this post when we receive a response.
Picus Blue Report 2025
today.ucsd.edu UC San Diego
September 17, 2025
Story by:
Ioana Patringenaru - ipatrin@ucsd.edu
Study involving 19,500 UC San Diego Health employees evaluated the effectiveness of two different types of cybersecurity training
Cybersecurity training programs as implemented today by most large companies do little to reduce the risk that employees will fall for phishing scams–the practice of sending malicious emails posing as legitimate to get victims to share personal information, such as their social security numbers.
That’s the conclusion of a study evaluating the effectiveness of two different types of cybersecurity training during an eight-month, randomized controlled experiment. The experiment involved 10 different phishing email campaigns developed by the research team and sent to more than 19,500 employees at UC San Diego Health.
The team presented their research at the Blackhat conference Aug. 2 to 7 in Las Vegas. The team originally shared their work at the 46th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy in May in San Francisco.
Researchers found that there was no significant relationship between whether users had recently completed an annual, mandated cybersecurity training and the likelihood of falling for phishing emails. The team also examined the efficacy of embedded phishing training – the practice of sharing anti-phishing information after a user engages with a phishing email sent by their organization as a test. For this type of training, researchers found that the difference in failure rates between employees who had completed the training and those who did not was extremely low.
“Taken together, our results suggest that anti-phishing training programs, in their current and commonly deployed forms, are unlikely to offer significant practical value in reducing phishing risks,” the researchers write.
Why is it important to combat phishing?
Whether phishing training is effective is an important question. In spite of 20 years of research and development into malicious email filtering techniques, a 2023 IBM study identifies phishing as the single largest source of successful cybersecurity breaches–16% overall, researchers write.
This threat is particularly challenging in the healthcare sector, where targeted data breaches have reached record highs. In 2023 alone, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported over 725 large data breach events, covering over 133 million health records, and 460 associated ransomware incidents.
As a result, it has become standard in many sectors to mandate both formal security training annually and to engage in unscheduled phishing exercises, in which employees are sent simulated phishing emails and then provided “embedded” training if they mistakenly click on the email’s links.
Researchers were trying to understand which of these types of training are most effective. It turns out, as currently administered, that none of them are.
Why are cybersecurity trainings not effective?
One reason the trainings are not effective is that the majority of people do not engage with the embedded training materials, said Grant Ho, study co-author and a faculty member at the University of Chicago, who did some of this work as a postdoctoral researcher at UC San Diego. Overall, 75% of users engaged with the embedded training materials for a minute or less. One-third immediately closed the embedded training page without engaging with the material at all.
“This does lend some suggestion that these trainings, in their current form, are not effective,” said Ariana Mirian, another paper co-author, who did the work as a Ph.D. student in the research group of UC San Diego computer science professors Stefan Savage and Geoff Voelker.
study of 19,500 employees over eight months
To date, this is the largest study of the effectiveness of anti-phishing training, covering 19,500 employees at UC San Diego Health. In addition, it’s one of only two studies that used a randomized control trial method to determine whether employees would receive training, and what kind of phishing emails–or lures–they would receive.
After sending 10 different types of phishing emails over the course of eight months, the researchers found that embedded phishing training only reduced the likelihood of clicking on a phishing link by 2%. This is particularly striking given the expense in time and effort that these trainings require, the researchers note.
Researchers also found that more employees fell for the phishing emails as time went on. In the first month of the study, only 10% of employees clicked on a phishing link. By the eighth month, more than half had clicked on at least one phishing link.
In addition, researchers found that some phishing emails were considerably more effective than others. For example, only 1.82% of recipients clicked on a phishing link to update their Outlook password. But 30.8% clicked on a link that purported to be an update to UC San Diego Health’s vacation policy.
Given the results of the study, researchers recommend that organizations refocus their efforts to combat phishing on technical countermeasures. Specifically, two measures would have better return on investment: two-factor authentication for hardware and applications, as well as password managers that only work on correct domains, the researchers write.
This work was supported in part by funding from the University of California Office of the President “Be Smart About Safety” program–an effort focused on identifying best practices for reducing the frequency and severity of systemwide insurance losses. It was also supported in part by U.S. National Science Foundation grant CNS-2152644, the UCSD CSE Postdoctoral Fellows program, the Irwin Mark and Joan Klein Jacobs Chair in Information and Computer Science, the CSE Professorship in Internet Privacy and/or Internet Data Security, a generous gift from Google, and operational support from the UCSD Center for Networked Systems.
In the summer of 2005, Tan Dailin was a 20-year-old grad student at Sichuan University of Science and Engineering when he came to the attention of the People’s Liberation Army of China.
Tan was part of a burgeoning hacker community known as the Honkers—teens and twentysomethings in late-’90s and early-’00s China who formed groups like the Green Army and Evil Octal and launched patriotic cyberattacks against Western targets they deemed disrespectful to China. The attacks were low-sophistication—mostly website defacements and denial-of-service operations targeting entities in the US, Taiwan, and Japan—but the Honkers advanced their skills over time, and Tan documented his escapades in blog posts. After publishing about hacking targets in Japan, the PLA came calling.
The subsequent timeline of events is unclear, but Tan, who went by the hacker handles Wicked Rose and Withered Rose, then launched his own hacking group—the Network Crack Program Hacker (NCPH). The group quickly gained notoriety for winning hacking contests and developing hacking tools. They created the GinWui rootkit, one of China’s first homegrown remote-access backdoors and then, experts believe, used it and dozens of zero-day exploits they wrote in a series of “unprecedented” hacks against US companies and government entities over the spring and summer of 2006. They did this on behalf of the PLA, according to Adam Kozy, who tracked Tan and other Chinese hackers for years as a former FBI analyst who now heads the SinaCyber consulting firm, focused on China.
Tan revealed online at the time that he and his team were being paid about $250 a month for their hacking, though he didn’t say who paid or what they hacked. The pay increased to $1,000 a month after their summer hacking spree, according to a 2007 report by former threat intelligence firm VeriSign iDefense.
At some point, Tan switched teams and began contracting for the Ministry of State Security (MSS), China’s civilian intelligence agency, as part of its notorious hacking group known as APT 41. And in 2020, when Tan was 36, the US Justice Department announced indictments against him and other alleged APT 41 members for hacking more than 100 targets, including US government systems, health care organizations, and telecoms.
Tan’s path to APT 41 isn’t unique. He’s just one of many former Honkers who began their careers as self-directed patriotic hackers before being absorbed by the state into its massive spying apparatus.
Not a lot has been written about the Honkers and their critical role in China’s APT operations, outside of congressional testimony Kozy gave in 2022. But a new report, published this month by Eugenio Benincasa, senior cyberdefense researcher at the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zürich university in Switzerland, expands on Kozy’s work to track the Honkers’ early days and how this group of skilled youths became some of China’s most prolific cyberspies.
“This is not just about [Honkers] creating a hacker culture that was implicitly aligned with national security goals,” Benincasa says, “but also the personal relations they created [that] we still see reflected in the APTs today.”
Early Days
The Honker community largely began when China joined the internet in 1994, and a network connecting universities and research centers across the country for knowledge-sharing put Chinese students online before the rest of the country. Like US hackers, the Honkers were self-taught tech enthusiasts who flocked to electronic bulletin boards (dial-up forums) to share programming and computer hacking tips. They soon formed groups like Xfocus, China Eagle Union, and The Honker Union of China and came to be known as Red Hackers or Honkers, a name derived from the Mandarin word “hong,” for red, and “heike,” for dark visitor—the Chinese term for hacker.
The European Commission is making available €145.5 million to empower small and medium-sized enterprises and public administrations in deploying cybersecurity solutions and adopting the results of cybersecurity research.
For this purpose, the European Cybersecurity Competence has launched two calls for proposals.
The first call is part of the Digital Europe Programme, with a budget of €55 million. €30 million of this amount will enhance the cybersecurity of hospitals and healthcare providers, helping them detect, monitor, and respond to cyber threats, particularly ransomware. This will boost the resilience of the European healthcare system, especially in the current geopolitical context, aligning with the EU action plan on cybersecurity in hospitals and healthcare.
The second call, under Horizon Europe Programme, has a budget of around €90.5 million. It will support the use and development of generative AI for cybersecurity applications, new advanced tools and processes for operational cybersecurity, and privacy-enhancing technologies as well as post-quantum cryptography.
The deadline for applications to the first call is 7 October, and for the second, it is 12 November. Both calls for proposals are managed by the European Cybersecurity Competence. The eligibility criteria and all relevant call documents are available on the Funding and Tenders portal.
Related topics
Cybersecurity Artificial intelligence Digital Europe Programme Funding for Digital Horizon Europe
Today, we’re announcing Sec-Gemini v1, a new experimental AI model focused on advancing cybersecurity AI frontiers.
As outlined a year ago, defenders face the daunting task of securing against all cyber threats, while attackers need to successfully find and exploit only a single vulnerability. This fundamental asymmetry has made securing systems extremely difficult, time consuming and error prone. AI-powered cybersecurity workflows have the potential to help shift the balance back to the defenders by force multiplying cybersecurity professionals like never before.
Are you willing to hack and take control of Chinese websites for a random person for up to $100,000 a month?
Someone is making precisely that tantalizing, bizarre, and clearly sketchy job offer. The person is using what looks like a series of fake accounts with avatars displaying photos of attractive women and sliding into the direct messages of several cybersecurity professionals and researchers on X in the last couple of weeks.
Switzerland's National Cybersecurity Centre (NCSC) has announced a new reporting obligation for critical infrastructure organizations in the country, requiring them to report cyberattacks to the agency within 24 hours of their discovery.
The Commission has presented a proposal to ensure an effective and efficient response to large-scale cyber incidents.
The Commission has presented an EU Action Plan to strengthen the cybersecurity of hospitals and healthcare providers. This initiative is a key priority within the first 100 days of the new mandate, aiming to create a safer and more secure environment for patients.
In 2023 alone, EU countries reported 309 significant cybersecurity incidents targeting the healthcare sector – more than any other critical sector. As healthcare providers increasingly use digital health records, the risk of data-related threats continues to rise. Many systems can be affected, including electronic health records, hospital workflow systems, and medical devices. Such threats can compromise patient care and even put lives at risk.
Sophos went so far as to plant surveillance “implants” on its own devices to catch the hackers at work—and in doing so, revealed a glimpse into China's R&D pipeline of intrusion techniques.
Ukrainian hackers carried out a cyberattack that took down online broadcasts of Russian state television and radio channels on Monday, according to an official in Kyiv with knowledge of the operation.
#A #Dmitry #Emerging #Europe #Infrastructure #Markets #Media #Peskov #Putin #Radio #Russia #Ukraine #Vladimir #business #cybersecni #cybersecurity #politics #technology
Overview While investigating CVE-2024-5932, a code injection vulnerability in the GiveWP WordPress plugin, our team encountered a malicious Proof of Concept (POC) targeting cybersecurity professionals. This has become a growing threat to cybersecurity professionals from […]
APT42, which is believed to work for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, targeted about a dozen people associated with both Trump’s and Biden’s campaigns this spring, according to Google’s Threat Analysis Group.
Please don’t, actually. But do update your Shimano Di2 shifters’ software to prevent a new radio-based form of cycling sabotage.
#bicycles #cyberattacks #cybersecurity #cycling #fitness #hacks #security
EU Member States, with the support of the European Commission and ENISA, the EU Agency for Cybersecurity, published the first report on the cybersecurity and resilience of Europe’s telecommunications and electricity sectors.
A cohort of Russian-speaking hackers is demanding $50 million from a UK lab-services provider to end a ransomware attack that has paralyzed services at London hospitals for weeks, according to a representative for the group.
#Britain #Cancer #Ciaran #Europe #Government #Great #HEALTH #Kingdom #London #Martin #NATIONAL #Regulation #SERVICE #United #business #cybersecni #cybersecurity #technology
The report shares statistics and observations from incident response practice in 2023, analyzes trends and gives cybersecurity recommendations.
#Cybersecurity #Incident #Internal #LockBit #Ransomware #Security #Statistics #Threats #response #services
