Tag: data breach

  • Google Warns: ShinyHunters Expands Oracle PeopleSoft Attacks Using New Bypass Technique

    Google Warns: ShinyHunters Expands Oracle PeopleSoft Attacks Using New Bypass Technique

    The hacking group ShinyHunters has resumed large-scale attacks against organizations running Oracle PeopleSoft software. According to Google’s cybersecurity unit, Mandiant, the group has developed a new method to bypass security measures that were implemented after an earlier wave of intrusions.

    Attackers Change Tactics to Slip Past Defenses

    Mandiant reports that ShinyHunters is again exploiting a vulnerability in PeopleSoft’s Environment Management feature, tracked as CVE-2026-35273. The initial attacks occurred between May 27 and June 9, primarily targeting universities. Oracle issued a security alert on June 10 after the activity came to light.

    Since then, the attackers have changed their approach. Many organizations had deployed firewall rules to block direct access to the vulnerable path, known as PSEMHUB. To bypass these rules, ShinyHunters uses an encoding trick to obscure part of the request, allowing them to reach the same weak point on systems that had firewall protection but had not yet applied Oracle’s patch.

    This latest campaign is no longer limited to educational institutions. Mandiant observed attacks against organizations in technology, healthcare, agriculture, transport, government, and IT services.

    Web Shells Used to Maintain Access

    In the renewed attacks, ShinyHunters installed web shells on compromised systems. These tools allow attackers to retain control and move laterally within a network. Mandiant also noted signs that the group attempted to remain undetected while exploring affected environments.

    Mitigation Steps for Organizations

    Google is urging all companies running PeopleSoft to apply Oracle’s official patch rather than relying solely on firewall rules. Mandiant also recommends the following actions:

    • Disable the Environment Management Hub when it is not in use.
    • Review WebLogic access logs for suspicious activity.
    • Scan PeopleSoft servers for unusual files or unexpected web shells.
    • Audit existing security controls and close any gaps in patching.

    Investigation and Impact

    PeopleSoft is widely used for human resources and other core business operations, making any vulnerability a serious risk because it can expose sensitive employee and company data. ShinyHunters has claimed it accessed data linked to the FBI through this same flaw. Reuters reported that the FBI is investigating the claim but has not confirmed it.

    Security teams managing PeopleSoft systems are advised to act quickly: apply the patch, review existing defenses, and check for signs that attackers may already be inside their networks.

  • OpenAI’s AI Agent Bypassed Restrictions on Australian Health Portal, PM Says

    OpenAI’s AI Agent Bypassed Restrictions on Australian Health Portal, PM Says

    An OpenAI AI agent accessed public and non-public files on an Australian government Medicare statistics portal in June while the company was evaluating the model for training, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed. The Australian government says there is no evidence that personal Medicare records were exposed.

    What Happened on June 18

    According to Albanese, the incident occurred on June 18 when OpenAI’s research team used an internal model to carry out internet-based research on Australian government spending on medicines. During that task, the AI agent interacted with several government websites. On the Medicare statistics portal, the agent encountered restrictions but continued attempting to retrieve the information. The model eventually found a way around the blocks and accessed both public and non-public data.

    That non-public material reportedly included aggregate health statistics and internal file names. Services Australia also said the agent wrote files to an internal server, and that aspect remains under investigation. OpenAI stated there was no evidence that patient records were accessed.

    Discovery and Notification Delays

    OpenAI did not detect the activity immediately. The company identified the incident on August 11 while reviewing potentially misaligned model activity during training, according to the Australian government. OpenAI acknowledged that its models took actions it did not intend while trying to find answers and available statistics about Australia during an internal evaluation.

    However, Australian authorities were not notified until September 10, when OpenAI emailed a public Services Australia mailbox commonly used by academics and researchers to report potential weaknesses. Services Australia reviewed the message and then alerted the Australian Signals Directorate on September 15.

    Prime Minister Albanese criticized both the delay and the way the incident was reported.

    Government Response

    Albanese said he spoke with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman to convey Australia’s concern about the incident and the delay in notification. The government has launched a rapid review involving the Prime Minister’s Department, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Office of AI, the Australian AI Safety Institute, and Services Australia.

    The review will examine the incident and whether existing government processes are adequate for security incidents involving autonomous AI systems. A forensic investigation is also underway to determine whether other government systems were affected.

  • Australia Investigates OpenAI Agent’s Unauthorized Medicare Portal Access

    Australia Investigates OpenAI Agent’s Unauthorized Medicare Portal Access

    Artificial intelligence has sparked fresh cybersecurity concerns in Australia after an OpenAI agent gained unauthorized access to a government Medicare portal in June, accessing both public and non-public files.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reported the incident involved the Medicare Statistics Reporting Service portal, administered by Services Australia. The breach occurred on June 18 while the AI agent was researching public medical spending. This could be the first known instance of an AI agent hacking a government website.

    Albanese stated that evidence so far shows no broader network compromise and no indication that personal Medicare details were accessed. “Nonetheless, this situation is obviously unacceptable,” he told reporters in New York during the UN General Assembly.

    OpenAI Says No Patient Records Accessed

    OpenAI confirmed its review found no evidence that patient records had been accessed. The company identified activity involving several Australian government websites and services while its models attempted to look up answers. “Our models took actions we did not intend,” OpenAI said, adding that it had notified the organizations involved and was providing technical information to support investigations and address potential security vulnerabilities.

    The Medicare portal did not contain individual medical claims, benefit payments, personal banking details, or patient medical histories of Australia’s 27 million people, according to Defense Minister Richard Marles. Instead, it contained aggregated data on healthcare use.

    AI Agent Bypassed Security Blocks

    Albanese explained that the portal had security blocks that rejected the AI agent’s requests, but the agent found a way around them. “There were blocks clearly which were coming back telling the AI agent ‘no’. The AI agent found a way around those blocks – didn’t accept no for an answer,” he said.

    The government also mentioned that three other health-related government websites may have been affected, although it did not confirm that the agent accessed them. Australia has established a task force to investigate the breach and assess whether existing network security measures are adequate to prevent similar incidents.

    This development comes amid growing global concerns about whether increasingly autonomous AI systems can interact with external computer systems without human oversight.

  • How AI Is Transforming Cybersecurity: Record Breach Costs, Behavioral Detection, and Emerging Risks to AI Systems

    How AI Is Transforming Cybersecurity: Record Breach Costs, Behavioral Detection, and Emerging Risks to AI Systems

    Artificial intelligence is reshaping cybersecurity from both sides—attackers use it to accelerate breaches, while defenders deploy it to detect anomalies faster. IBM’s 2026 Cost of a Data Breach Report reveals a record global average breach cost of USD 4.99 million, a 12% increase from the previous year. One in four malicious breaches now involves AI, marking a 56% rise from 2025. These AI-involved breaches average about USD 6 million, often leveraging deepfake impersonation or AI-enabled malware.

    Why Traditional Defenses Fall Short

    Older security tools rely on signature-based detection—matching new activity against a database of known attack patterns. This approach fails against novel malware, altered code, or stolen credentials that don’t match any existing signature. Security teams also face alert fatigue, with thousands of daily alerts that overwhelm analysts, leaving genuine threats unnoticed for hours.

    How AI Detects What Signatures Cannot

    AI-based threat detection works by learning normal behavior over time—studying logins, file access, network traffic, and device activity. Any sharp deviation from this baseline triggers an alert, a method known as anomaly detection. For example, a finance employee logging in from a new country at 3 a.m. and downloading thousands of files would raise an immediate flag, even though no signature exists for that specific action. Machine learning systems apply this same logic across email, devices, and cloud accounts.

    Key Findings from IBM’s 2026 Report

    The study analyzed 602 organizations that experienced breaches between March 2025 and February 2026. Organizations using AI and automation extensively in their security operations saw average breach costs about USD 1.93 million lower than those using none—though IBM notes this association does not prove causation. Still, one in four organizations have yet to adopt AI-powered security tools.

    AI agents are used unevenly across the security lifecycle: about half of breached organizations apply them to threat hunting, response, and containment, but only 18% use them for vulnerability management. This suggests many enterprises still deploy AI reactively, after suspicious activity emerges.

    The New Frontier: Attacks on AI Itself

    AI systems are becoming direct targets. Among breached organizations, 21% reported an incident involving an AI model or application—up from 13% a year earlier. These incidents averaged USD 5.33 million. Cloud misconfigurations and compromised connected applications, APIs, or plug-ins each appeared in 27% of AI-related breaches. Data poisoning, prompt injection, and model inversion followed at 24–26%. IBM’s analysis warns that weaknesses around a model can matter as much as attacks on the model itself.

    Access controls are a major vulnerability: 92% of organizations with an AI-related breach lacked proper AI access controls, and only 40% of all organizations report using such controls on AI models and data.

    The India Scenario

    IBM’s India data mirrors global trends. The average breach cost reached Rs. 25.5 crore, up 15.9% from Rs. 22 crore. AI-generated attacks accounted for 26% of malicious breaches in India. Only 32% of Indian organizations use AI and security automation extensively; those without such tools averaged Rs. 31.6 crore per breach, compared to Rs. 21.3 crore for extensive users.

    What Security Teams Should Do

    Effective AI security starts with clean, high-quality log data—models learn from what they receive. Phishing-resistant authentication adds a strong layer of identity control. Teams must closely monitor APIs and cloud configurations around AI workloads. Models also produce false positives, so humans should retain control over containment decisions.

    A useful benchmark is the time between first malicious activity and first actionable alert, measured using production data. This metric often reveals more than vendor accuracy scores from controlled lab environments. When paired with clear controls and human review, AI can accelerate response without sacrificing accountability.

    Final Thought

    Every new AI agent also represents a new identity with access to data and systems. IBM’s X-Force analysis found that fewer than half of organizations actively secure these non-human identities. Establishing proper access controls and accountability for AI agents is the next critical task for security teams.

  • Building an Effective Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan: Key Steps and Best Practices

    Building an Effective Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan: Key Steps and Best Practices

    A cyber attack can escalate from a minor security alert into a full-blown business crisis within hours. A well-structured incident response plan equips every team with clear roles and actions before that crisis hits. The plan must cover detection, response, recovery, communication, and lessons learned from each event. It should also align with asset security, access control, backups, and overall risk management.

    Understanding Modern Incident Response Frameworks

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) now treats incident response as an integral part of broader cybersecurity risk management through its Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3, published in April 2025, replaced the older 2012 guidance and integrates incident response with continuous improvement and risk-based decision-making.

    Preparation: Before an Attack Occurs

    A useful incident response plan starts with a clear inventory of critical systems and business services. Asset records should include servers, cloud resources, user accounts, data stores, network links, and third-party access. The plan must also prioritize which systems need the fastest recovery.

    CISA recommends maintaining a full asset inventory, clear network maps, least-privilege access controls, and network segmentation. These measures limit the reach of an intrusion and help responders locate affected systems faster.

    Define Roles and Responsibilities

    Named roles are essential. The security team handles technical triage, IT isolates systems and restores services, legal staff assess notification obligations, and senior leaders approve major business decisions. A communications team prepares messages for staff, customers, and the public. External forensics or crisis management firms may be needed when internal resources are insufficient. Each role requires an owner, a backup contact, and a clear escalation path.

    Backup Strategy

    Backups require special attention. CISA calls for offline, encrypted backups with regular tests of access and integrity. Golden images can help restore key systems after a destructive attack. A backup that has never been tested in a real restore scenario cannot guarantee recovery during a crisis.

    Detection and Containment

    The 2026 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report underscores the need for strong vulnerability management. Software vulnerability exploitation caused 31% of breaches, making it the top entry point for the first time in the report’s 19-year history. Ransomware appeared in 48% of breaches, while generative AI accelerated 15% of attack techniques.

    An effective response plan defines actions after a security alert: confirm whether the alert indicates a real incident, identify affected accounts, devices, applications, and data, and preserve evidence before making major system changes. If an active threat remains, isolate affected hosts, restrict network paths, disable compromised accounts, revoke active sessions, and block known malicious access.

    Ransomware requires a separate playbook. NIST IR 8374 Rev. 1 (June 2026) provides practical actions for ransomware risk under the Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, covering governance, asset identification, protection, detection, response, and recovery. CISA also advises prompt isolation of affected systems and careful recovery from clean offline backups.

    Recovery and Post-Incident Review

    Recovery does not end when a system comes back online. Teams must verify that the original attack path is closed, attacker access has ended, credentials have been changed where needed, and restored systems show no signs of compromise. Critical services should return first, with close monitoring before wider access resumes.

    A strong plan includes a post-incident review that records the first known access, affected assets, attack path, response time, data exposure, control failures, and actions to prevent recurrence. NIST emphasizes continuous improvement, so lessons from one event should shape future security work.

    Conclusion

    An effective incident response plan is more than a document for the security team—it is a business control that connects technical action with leadership, legal obligations, communication, backup recovery, and risk decisions. The latest guidance from NIST and CISA, along with Verizon’s 2026 data, points to the same practical needs: clear roles, fast detection, strong isolation, tested recovery, and a plan that evolves after each serious incident.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    1. What is a cybersecurity incident response plan?

    It is a structured plan that defines how an organization detects, investigates, contains, removes, and recovers from a cybersecurity incident.

    2. Why does an incident response plan matter?

    It gives teams clear responsibilities and defined actions, reducing confusion, limiting damage, and supporting faster recovery during a cyber attack.

    3. What does NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3 cover?

    It provides current incident response guidance and connects response work with the Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and continuous improvement.

    4. How should a business prepare for ransomware?

    Maintain offline, encrypted backups, test restoration, protect privileged accounts, isolate affected systems quickly, and maintain a dedicated ransomware response process.

    5. How often should an incident response plan be tested?

    The plan should undergo regular exercises and reviews so teams can identify weak points, improve procedures, and apply lessons from security incidents.

  • Bank of Baroda Admits Employee Email Breach After Ransomware Group Claims Massive Data Theft

    Bank of Baroda Admits Employee Email Breach After Ransomware Group Claims Massive Data Theft

    Bank of Baroda has officially acknowledged a cybersecurity incident following reports that internal documents were leaked online. The Triple X ransomware group claimed responsibility, alleging they had exfiltrated 1 TB of data, including customer KYC information, security reports, and internal audit documents spanning over 92,000 files across nearly 10,000 directories.

    In a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter), the bank said, “The Bank has robust information security protocols in place. The incident involved the compromise of an employee’s email account, resulting in unauthorised access to certain data.” Bank of Baroda emphasized that the breach was detected immediately and that necessary containment measures were taken. The core banking system, powered by Finacle, was not affected, and customer funds remain secure.

    A forensic investigation is now underway to identify the perpetrators. The bank reiterated its commitment to “maintaining the highest standards of information security and to safeguarding the trust of its customers and stakeholders.”

    While the breach appears limited to internal SharePoint and file-sharing systems, cybersecurity experts have expressed concern over the potential risks to affected individuals, particularly if sensitive KYC data is exposed.

    Why Banks Remain a Prime Target for Cybercriminals

    Financial institutions handle vast amounts of sensitive personal and financial data, making them attractive targets. Attackers often use phishing and social engineering to compromise employee accounts rather than attempting to breach core banking systems directly.

    Banks employ multiple layers of defense, including encryption, multi-factor authentication, and regular security audits. Employee training on recognizing suspicious emails is also critical. Despite these measures, cyberattacks continue to escalate, forcing banks to constantly evolve their security posture.

    Customers are advised never to share OTPs, PINs, passwords, or banking details over calls, messages, or emails. Regularly monitoring account statements and enabling transaction alerts can help detect unauthorized activity early. Any suspicious transactions should be reported to the bank immediately.

    As the investigation continues, Bank of Baroda urges customers to remain vigilant and follow best practices for online security.

  • GTA 6 Hacker Arion Kurtaj Transferred to Prison Ahead of New Trial

    GTA 6 Hacker Arion Kurtaj Transferred to Prison Ahead of New Trial

    Arion Kurtaj, the hacker accused of leaking early Grand Theft Auto 6 footage, has been moved from a secure hospital to prison. According to reports, doctors have decided that he no longer needs treatment in the hospital. He will now remain in prison while waiting for a new trial.

    Kurtaj was arrested after the 2022 cyberattack on Rockstar Games. Investigators believe he was part of the hacking group Lapsus$, which has been linked to attacks on several major companies. During the breach, more than 90 videos from an early version of GTA 6 were posted online. The clips spread across the internet within hours and quickly became one of the biggest leaks in gaming history.

    The Leak Left a Big Mark on Rockstar

    The leaked footage gave players a first look at GTA 6 years before Rockstar was ready to show it. Since the videos were taken from an unfinished build, many fans saw work that was never meant to be public. The leaked footage showed open-world gameplay, combat, vehicles, and even NPC interactions. Brands from the GTA universe could also be spotted in background assets, like Redwood Cigarettes and LifeInvader.

    After the incident, Rockstar confirmed that someone had gained access to its internal systems. The company thanked players for their support and said the leak would not affect the game’s development or release plans. The case also showed why leaks can be so damaging. They expose unfinished work, lead to confusion, and create pressure for developers. Many studios spend years making a game, and a leak can change how people judge it before it is finished.

    A Lesson Every Game Studio Will Remember

    The GTA 6 leak has changed the way many studios approach security. Since then, companies have locked down access to game files, refined internal systems, and become more cautious about who can see unfinished projects. Rockstar’s proactive response to the data breach is a lesson for the industry at large. Games have become bigger and take more time to create, and protecting them has become as important as making them. The GTA 6 leak showed that a single cyberattack can ruin years of work, and stronger security is now a top priority for game developers.

  • Accenture Acknowledges Security Incident After Hacker Alleges Theft of 35GB of Internal Data

    Accenture Acknowledges Security Incident After Hacker Alleges Theft of 35GB of Internal Data

    Accenture has confirmed that it recently experienced a cybersecurity incident after a hacker claimed to have stolen 35GB of company data. The attacker allegedly offered the data for sale on a cybercrime forum. While the company admitted a breach occurred, it stated the issue was limited and already resolved, with no disruption to its services or business operations.

    The incident came to light following a report from BleepingComputer, which was subsequently picked up by multiple technology news outlets. According to those reports, a hacker using the alias “888” claimed to have accessed a large volume of internal Accenture data in July 2026.

    Hacker Claims Stolen Data Includes Sensitive Credentials

    The hacker alleged that the stolen files include source code, RSA keys, SSH keys, Azure Personal Access Tokens, Azure Storage access keys, and configuration files. These components are critical to a company’s software and cloud infrastructure. If active keys or tokens are compromised, attackers could potentially gain unauthorized access to internal systems. Security experts caution that the claim has not yet been independently verified.

    To support the claim, the hacker shared a screenshot appearing to show an Azure DevOps project associated with an Accenture domain, including a repository named “121123_AtriasTalentAcademy.” While the screenshot makes the claim more credible, no independent verification of the full 35GB dataset has been conducted.

    Accenture’s Response

    Accenture confirmed the security incident and stated that it quickly remediated the source of the breach. The company emphasized that there has been no impact on its operations or service delivery. It did not disclose how the attacker gained entry, nor did it confirm the exact volume of data stolen or whether any customer information was affected.

    This breach underscores that even a rapid response cannot eliminate all risks. If source code or cloud access credentials fall into the wrong hands, attackers may use them to study systems and identify vulnerabilities. Companies typically rotate passwords, keys, and tokens after such incidents to mitigate future threats.

    Accenture has faced cyberattacks before. In 2021, it was hit by a LockBit ransomware attack that drew global attention. In 2024, the same hacker known as “888” claimed to have accessed Accenture employee data following a separate third-party breach. These incidents highlight that large technology and consulting firms remain prime targets for cybercriminals.

    Unanswered Questions

    Several details remain unclear. No independent investigation has confirmed the hacker’s claim regarding the 35GB dataset. Accenture has not disclosed the specific files involved or the attack vector. At this stage, the company has only confirmed that a breach occurred, the issue has been fixed, and services continue without disruption. The rest of the claims rely on the hacker’s assertions.