CISA urges water utilities to find and secure internet-exposed PLCs after July attacks showed how easily exposed industrial systems can be compromised. Over 100 internet-exposed systems in the US water and wastewater sector got hit by cyberattacks in July 2026, and CISA’s response wasn’t just an incident report, it was a how-to guide for making sure it doesn’t happen to you next. The agency’s exposure reduction guidance, published August 21, walks through exactly how organizations can find their own internet-facing weak points before an attacker does. The pattern behind the July attacks was surprisingly simple. Most of the affected systems were programmable logic controllers (PLCs), small industrial computers that control pumps and valves. Many connected directly to cellular modems and had no firewall or gateway between them and the internet. CISA warns that this type of setup can expose PLCs to serious security risks. “Directly connecting PLCs to the internet through cellular modems can create significant security risks. However, internet exposure reduction does not mean disabling necessary remote access; organizations should remove remote access when it is unnecessary and secure it when it is necessary.” states CISA. Hackers remotely accessed exposed PLCs, changed device IP addresses and passwords, and in some cases disabled shutdown processes and alarms, creating what CISA called unsafe conditions without notifying the operators running the actual equipment. Iran is the suspected actor behind much of this activity, likely tied to the ongoing war involving the US and Israel, though officials have stopped short of a formal attribution. CISA presents reconnaissance as an ongoing process. Organizations need to know which systems they expose to the internet and can use tools such as Shodan, Censys, or CISA’s Cyber Hygiene Vulnerability Scanning service to check their own IP ranges from the outside. The review should also cover ports used by industrial systems. Besides SSH, RDP, and HTTP, CISA highlights protocols such as Modbus, EtherNet/IP, DNP3, BACnet, and OPC UA. Finding one of these ports open does not automatically mean the system has been compromised, but it does indicate an exposure that needs to be investigated and addressed quickly. Where remote access is genuinely necessary, CISA’s advice is to route everything through a secure, centrally managed gateway rather than connecting straight to a PLC, HMI, or remote terminal unit. Pair that with phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication, unique credentials instead of shared defaults, and active monitoring of traffic in and out, and you’ve closed most of the gap that let this particular wave of attacks succeed in the first place. None of this is exotic security engineering; it’s the same basic hygiene that’s been recommended for years, just finally getting attention because attackers are actually using the gap. This isn’t an isolated incident CISA is responding to reactively, either. The water sector attacks sit inside a much larger pattern of nation-state interest in US and allied critical infrastructure, from China’s Volt Typhoon reportedly pre-positioning malware inside American infrastructure as a potential wartime disruption tool, to Russian-linked campaigns testing water and energy systems across Europe as part of broader pressure on NATO. If a foreign government is willing to spend years quietly waiting inside a power grid, an exposed PLC with a factory-default password isn’t a minor oversight, it’s an open invitation. “CISA urges all critical infrastructure organizations to route all necessary remote access through a secure gateway, firewall, VPN, or other centrally managed access solution, rather than connecting directly to a PLC, human-machine interface (HMI), or remote terminal unit (RTU).” concludes CISA. “The July 2026 malicious cyber activity targeting WWS Sector entities demonstrates the consequences of directly exposing PLCs to the internet. Threat actors remotely accessed internet-exposed PLCs, changed device IP addresses and passwords, and caused loss of monitoring and control functionality and, in some cases, operational disruptions.” If you run anything with the letters PLC, SCADA, ICS, or HMI in its job description, this guidance isn’t optional reading for next quarter. Go run the scan today, because the alternative is finding out the hard way that someone else already ran it for you. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, Water Utilities)
CISA red teams fully compromised two critical infrastructure orgs. One SOC isolated hosts in minutes; the other never detected the breach. CISA published an advisory (AA26-237A) documenting two simultaneous red team assessments at critical infrastructure organizations. Both organizations lost full domain control and had their cloud environments compromised. One of them didn’t know until CISA told them afterward. “The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) conducted simultaneous red team assessments at two organizations and observed different defensive outcomes. In both environments, the red team achieved full domain compromise and accessed sensitive business systems (SBSs) and cloud resources.” states CISA. “Organization A failed to detect or contain the activity, but Organization B rapidly identified initial compromise attempts, isolated affected systems, and forced the red team into an assume breach model.” Organization A is a Government Services and Facilities Sector entity. Organization B operates in the Water and Wastewater Systems Sector. The red team used comparable techniques against both. The difference in outcome was entirely about detection and response, not the sophistication of the attack. At Organization A, the red team found a web application that still used default credentials. They used it to send phishing emails from a trusted internal address and gained access to four workstations. From there, they exploited a misconfigured Active Directory Certificate Services template with the ESC1 flaw. This allowed a low-privileged user to request certificates for other users, including administrators. They then reached all the targeted sensitive business systems without anyone noticing. After moving into the cloud, they even read SOC staff emails to see if the attack had been detected. It hadn’t. “Without well-defined baselines and alert filtering, false positives and routine alerts overwhelm defenders, obscuring real threats.” CISA continues. “Organizations that tune alerts to highlight anomalies and filter out normal business activity enable defenders to focus on genuine incidents and respond rapidly.” Organization A’s SOC was receiving thousands of false positive alerts, many at higher severity than the actual intrusion alerts the red team was generating. Staff eventually reviewed SCCM-related alerts from real red team activity, couldn’t identify the system’s owner or function, and marked it a false positive. The red team confirmed the miss by reading SOC email. Then they used keyloggers and screenshot capture on SOC workstations to make sure nothing was coming. Nothing was. The organization had multiple separate SOCs with different EDR solutions and no cross-team visibility, which meant that even if one team noticed something, there was no mechanism to act on it across the relevant systems. “Detection tools are only as effective as the people, processes, and procedures supporting them. SOC staff should not operate in silos and should have clear authority unhindered by bureaucracy to effectively contain and resolve incidents.” add CISA. At Organization A, SOC analysts were managing systems they didn’t fully understand and had no written escalation procedures, so their default response to ambiguity was to wait. At Organization B, staff triaged, investigated, coordinated with engineering, and reimaged machines before handing them back to users. At Organization B, the red team still found important security gaps. They discovered a password stored in plain text inside an XML file on an SCCM distribution point. They used the related service account to gain powerful rights over a domain controller and then performed a DCSync attack, obtaining the krbtgt hash. This allowed them to create Golden Tickets and impersonate users across the domain. They also found a path into the OT network through RDP files pointing to a bastion host. Using FTP credentials found on a jump server, they connected to the bastion through SSH. The bastion had no outbound internet access, so their payload could not run, and the SOC quarantined the host. Still, the access path was there. Both organizations also had the same cloud security problem: neither had enabled Conditional Access for workload identities. This Microsoft feature applies access controls to applications and service accounts, not just human users. Without it, applications with broad Microsoft Graph permissions can bypass normal Conditional Access rules. CISA’s red team used this gap in both organizations to access emails across the companies. In Organization A, the team also found AWS IAM credentials stored in users’ home directories with no expiration date. Those credentials could remain valid indefinitely, creating another long-term risk. In Organization B’s cloud environment, the red team abused Seamless SSO by using Kerberos tickets obtained via DCSync to authenticate to Azure without needing any user’s cleartext password. They found a disabled AD-synced account that owned an application with permission to read, write, and send emails for every user in the tenant. They re-enabled the account, DCSynced its credentials, added a client secret to the application, and could then access the full mailbox of every employee from the public internet. Organization B’s detections flagged the AzureHound tool by user agent and caught anomalous Microsoft Graph API request volumes, but those controls arrived after the initial cloud access was already established. CISA recommends several practical steps to improve security. These include hardening ADCS by disabling CT_FLAG_ENROLLEE_SUPPLIES_SUBJECT on templates and limiting who can enroll, setting the Machine Account Quota to zero when there is no operational need, and removing cleartext credentials from workstations and network shares. Organizations should also enable Conditional Access for workload identities, create procedures to revoke tokens, and treat SCCM and similar endpoint management platforms as Tier 0 assets, giving them the same level of protection as domain controllers. The full advisory also maps each red team technique to its MITRE ATT&CK identifier and compares how well the two organizations detected the different stages of the attacks. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, CISA)
A critical vulnerability chain in the popular Avada theme for WordPress can be exploited by an unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary PHP code on the server. The exploit chains six security issues into a zero-click attack. The flaws are collectively tracked as CVE-2026-18431 and received a 9.8 critical severity score. The attack comprises exploits for authorization, input-validation, trust-boundary, and file-handling weaknesses, which must be executed in a specific order to enable arbitrary PHP code execution on a target server. Hackers who successfully exploit these vulnerabilities could fully compromise websites for malicious activities ranging from planting malware and accessing databases to redirecting visitors to malicious sites or adding rogue admin accounts. CVE-2026-18431 affects Avada versions up to 7.16 and Fusion Builder plugin versions up to 3.16, researchers at Defiant's Wordfence team say in a report on Tuesday.
Snowflake is ending password authentication for legacy service accounts, forcing organizations to migrate them to passwordless methods. Token Security explains why the harder challenge is identifying what uses each account, who owns it, and how much access it still needs.
Attackers are actively exploiting a critical-severity vulnerability in the Gitea self-hosted Git service, according to the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Like cloud-hosted GitHub or GitLab SaaS (Software as a Service) platforms, Gitea provides a full suite of DevOps tools, but it is designed to be used as a self-hosted software development platform. Tracked as CVE-2026-60004 and reported by Salesforce security researcher Shai Rod, this code injection security flaw allows an authenticated user with repository write access to repositories hosted on vulnerable servers to execute arbitrary shell commands with the privileges of the Gitea service account by submitting malicious patches via the diffpatch API endpoint. However, default-configured Gitea instances have self-registration enabled, allowing unauthenticated attackers to register an account, create a new repository, and trigger the vulnerability without prior credentials.
U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) adds Gitea flaw to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added an Oracle HTTP Server and Oracle Weblogic Server Proxy Plug-in flaw, tracked as CVE-2026-60004 (CVSS score of 9,8), to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. Gitea is an open-source platform for hosting and managing Git repositories. Think of it as a self-hosted alternative to GitHub or GitLab. CVE-2026-60004 is a critical remote code execution flaw that allows an attacker with write access to a repository to execute arbitrary shell commands as the Gitea service user. The flaw affects Gitea versions from 1.17 and was fixed in 1.27.1. The vulnerable diffpatch API can be abused to plant and execute a malicious Git hook. Because Gitea enables open registration by default, an unauthenticated attacker can create an account, create a repository, and exploit the flaw without existing credentials. A reported attack used the vulnerability to deploy a cryptocurrency-miner-like payload after an exposed Gitea instance allowed open registration and anonymous access to its web interface. According to Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 22-01: Reducing the Significant Risk of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities, FCEB agencies have to address the identified vulnerabilities by the due date to protect their networks against attacks exploiting the flaws in the catalog. Experts also recommend that private organizations review the Catalog and address the vulnerabilities in their infrastructure. CISA orders federal agencies to fix the flaw by August 28, 2026. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, CISA)
WhatsApp says 1 billion users now use passkeys, while stronger two-step verification and caller context add new layers of account protection. WhatsApp has reached a significant security milestone: more than one billion people now use passkeys to protect access to their accounts. At the same time, Meta is adding stronger two-step verification and more information about calls from people who aren’t in a user’s contacts. Passkeys let users sign back into WhatsApp with a fingerprint, Face ID or their device’s screen-lock code instead of relying on passwords, PINs or one-time codes. WhatsApp now also allows people who use both Android and iOS devices to add more than one passkey to the same account, which removes one of the practical limitations of the earlier implementation. “More than 1 billion people now use a passkey: A passkey lets you log back into WhatsApp with your fingerprint, face ID, or screen lock code. It’s the fastest and most secure way to verify it’s really you, with no codes or PINs.” reads the announcement published by WhatsApp. “More than a billion people have already set one up, and you can now add more than one passkey to your account if you use both Android and iOS devices. To get started, go to Settings > Account > Passkeys.” For people who move between platforms, the ability to register multiple passkeys should make account recovery less dependent on a single device. It is important to highlight that WhatsApp is moving account protection away from secrets that users have to remember or type. Passkeys rely on credentials stored on the device and protected by its existing biometric or screen-lock mechanism, which also makes phishing them much harder than a traditional password or verification code. WhatsApp is also changing its two-step verification system. Until now, the additional protection relied on a six-digit PIN. The company has now upgraded it to a full password that can be longer, use letters and numbers, and include special characters. “Two-step verification is an extra protection layer that helps prevent someone from taking over your account, even if they get hold of your one-time passcode.” continues the announcement. “Until now it was a six-digit PIN, we’ve now upgraded it to a full password: longer, alphanumeric, and even with special ch@racters to make it harder to guess. If you’ve been using “123456,” this is your sign to upgrade.” That’s a small interface change with a meaningful security consequence. A short numeric PIN has a limited number of possible combinations and encourages users to choose predictable values, while a longer password gives account owners a much stronger second factor. WhatsApp makes the point in unusually direct terms, even calling out the classic 123456 choice. If that’s still protecting an account, the app has just provided a fairly unambiguous hint. The change also addresses a specific account-takeover scenario. If an attacker manages to obtain a user’s one-time registration code, the additional password can still prevent the takeover from succeeding. The third change targets a different problem: social engineering. On Android, WhatsApp will now provide additional context when someone outside the user’s contacts calls. The information can include whether the number comes from another country and whether the caller shares any groups with the recipient. That gives users a little more information before they decide whether to answer. “When you get a call from someone not saved in your contacts, a little context can help you decide whether to pick up. On Android, you’ll now see more information about a non-contact caller, like whether the number is from a different country and if you have any groups in common.” concludes the announcement. “Scammers rely on urgency – now you can take a beat with some more info before answering.” It’s a simple addition, but it addresses a common weakness in fraud attempts: pressure. An unexpected call creates a sense of urgency, and attackers often use that moment to persuade someone to disclose information, click a link or continue the conversation on their terms. Giving the recipient more context doesn’t stop a scammer from calling. It gives the user a reason to pause before answering. Taken together, the three changes target different parts of the same account-security problem. Passkeys make authentication harder to steal, stronger two-step verification provides another barrier when a one-time code is compromised, and caller context gives users more information before a potentially suspicious interaction begins. The billion-user passkey figure is also worth watching beyond WhatsApp. It suggests that phishing-resistant authentication is no longer an experimental security feature limited to security-conscious users. At this scale, the challenge shifts from convincing people that passkeys are safer to making sure they understand when and how to use them. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, WhatsApp)
The CERT Coordination Center (CERT/CC) has disclosed two unpatched vulnerabilities in Kaltura's HTML5 video player library that allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to read arbitrary files from a server and execute code on it. The flaws, tracked as CVE-2026-19913 and CVE-2026-19912, both stem from the same unsafe deserialization in the mwEmbedLoader.php endpoint of the mwEmbed player
Cybersecurity researchers have disclosed details of a phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) platform built to strip Apple's Activation Lock from stolen devices, using rented AI voice agents that call theft victims posing as Apple Support and ask for their device passcode. SOCRadar Threat Research Unit (STRU) said the platform, which it tracks as AnonyMousKIT, is credit-metered and drives lures across
Two CVSS 9.8 miniOrange SAML WordPress plugin auth bypasses were exploited while paid editions never appeared in any vulnerability database. Manual patch required. Two critical authentication bypass vulnerabilities in the miniOrange SAML 2.0 Single Sign On WordPress plugin, both rated CVSS 9.8, are under active exploitation. Both CVE-2026-61979 and CVE-2026-15981 allow an unauthenticated attacker to forge a SAML authentication response and arrive in /wp-admin as any existing user, including administrators. The bugs are independent and both have been confirmed exploited in the wild. CVE-2026-61979 is an algorithm confusion flaw. The plugin trusts the incoming SAML response to declare its own signature algorithm. An attacker sets that algorithm to HMAC-SHA1, which causes the plugin to use the identity provider’s RSA public key as the HMAC secret. The RSA public key is, by definition, public. That’s the whole attack: fetch the key from the metadata endpoint, sign your own forged assertion with it, and the plugin verifies it as genuine. CVE-2026-15981 is a PHP bug caused by incorrectly handling different types of values. The openssl_verify() function can return three results: 1 when a signature is valid, 0 when it is invalid, and -1 when OpenSSL encounters an error. The plugin treated the result like a simple true-or-false value. In PHP, -1 counts as true. An attacker can send a specially crafted signature that causes an OpenSSL error, making the function return -1. The plugin then treats it as a valid signature and allows the attacker to log in. It is a basic coding mistake, but particularly serious because the plugin handles authentication for WordPress admin accounts. The technical root cause is interesting. What happened around the bugs afterward is more interesting. The miniOrange SAML plugin ships under one WordPress slug, miniorange-saml-20-single-sign-on, but that one listing actually contains seven completely separate product editions, each with its own independent version numbering. Free runs from 3.x to 5.x. Premium runs 11.x to 13.x. Standard runs 15.x to 17.x. VIP editions start at 32.x and 35.x. No two editions share a version range. When the public advisories were written, they covered only the Free edition, which is the one anyone can download from WordPress.org. The fix for the Free edition landed at 5.4.5. “While that record is correct, when you apply it to the slug, every paid install carries a higher version number than 5.4.5, so every paid install reads as already patched.” reads Patchstack analysis. “Therefore, any WordPress site that was running a vulnerable version like 16.1.9 reported it as patched, along with every other (13.x, 20.x, 26.x, 32.x, and 35.x) vulnerable version.” Every database, scanner, and dashboard in the WordPress security ecosystem was telling paid-edition administrators their sites were safe when the exploitable code was still running on their servers. The update prompt problem makes it worse. Sites running a vulnerable Standard edition 16.x see no available updates in their WordPress admin panel because the fix is on the 17.x line, and WordPress’s built-in update mechanism doesn’t offer cross-line jumps automatically. The path from vulnerable to patched requires a manual plugin upload, which site owners can’t do if they don’t know they’re affected, and every system they rely on was telling them they weren’t. “There was no advisory to read and no vulnerability database entry flagged the paid edition for these vulnerabilities. The plugin reported itself as fully up to date. In other words, every signal that normally warns of a problem suggested that everything was fine.” continues the report. “So, how did DigitalOcean catch the exploit? It had nothing to do with plugins or versions. An anomalous WordPress administrator session attempt appeared from outside their trusted network and was blocked. The attacker had already used the bypass to obtain a WordPress admin session cookie, but was stalled because the admin panel operations themselves sat restricted behind the trusted network. “ DigitalOcean, the team that found all of this, caught the exploit not through any of those systems but through a network anomaly: an authenticated WordPress administrator session arriving from outside their trusted network perimeter. The attacker had already used one of the auth bypasses to generate a valid admin session cookie. The cookie worked. The session was blocked because the admin panel itself was restricted to trusted network ranges. Defense in depth, doing exactly what it exists to do, on a system where every other detection layer had already failed. DigitalOcean then traced both bugs to specific lines of code in the plugin and its bundled XML security library, confirmed the affected version ranges across all seven paid editions (which miniOrange had not published anywhere), wrote two narrowly scoped hotfixes to buy time, and handed the full analysis to Patchstack for publication. Patchstack worked with miniOrange to get the complete edition and version matrix, then updated its database with all seven affected ranges, the first time any public database held that information. Attackers are actively scanning miniOrange SSO endpoints from six IP addresses in Belgium, Nigeria, the U.S. and Germany. The activity appears opportunistic, with attackers checking websites that use the plugin without first identifying the specific version or edition. That makes the silent patch especially concerning. Attackers can probe systems without knowing what version they run, while website owners may not realize whether their plugin has received the fix. “Vulnerability databases are only as good as the version data vendors publish publicly. When a vendor runs seven independently numbered editions under one slug and patches six of them without a public advisory, the entire ecosystem downstream of them goes blind at once: databases, scanners, dashboards, and the site admins relying on all three.” concludes the report. For anyone running this plugin, the full version table per edition is in the Patchstack article. The short version: find your edition, compare your version against the patched column, and expect to do the upgrade as a manual upload rather than through the WordPress dashboard. If you can’t update immediately, two narrowly scoped hotfixes covering both CVEs are published there alongside the IPs to check in your logs for prior exploitation attempts. Check the passkey and admin account list while you’re in there. Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon Pierluigi Paganini (SecurityAffairs – hacking, miniOrange SAML WordPress Plugin)
Confirm this action.
Leaving now will discard your changes.