Greg F.

Two newly disclosed N-able vulnerabilities, CVE-2025-8875 and CVE-2025-8876, have been added to CISA’s KEV Catalog. They affect N-able’s N-central remote monitoring and management (RMM) platform. These flaws allow local code execution and command injection but require authentication to exploit, meaning they are unlikely to be used at the beginning of an exploit chain. Alexander Culafi at Dark Reading covers the details, noting the vulnerabilities impact versions prior to 2025.3.1. The article also features insight from Rapid7's Seth Lazarus: “They require authentication to achieve exploitation, which is much less severe than what we’ve recently seen, and likely why exploitation in the wild doesn’t appear to be widespread.” Read the full breakdown here: https://lnkd.in/eiukB6HM

77

CISOs fear the breach. IT fears the breakdown. Neither wants to let the door to disruption swing open on their watch. But they're guarding different doors. And they each see the other's agenda as a potentially costly distraction from their own. I get it. At different points in my career, I've worn both those hats. Sometimes even at the same time. I lived the sleepless nights, torn between two bad choices: Pushing security changes that risk breaking something and throttling productivity. Or preserving business continuity right now while leaving the attack surface open. Most choose the path of least resistance: doing nothing. But nothing is not neutral. Nothing compounds. Each accepted risks becomes another crack in your armor. And attackers know exactly where to jab their spears. But... What if that tradeoff between operations and security could be altogether avoided? What if you didn't need to choose? You could simultaneously sidestep the risk of disruption from both sides! I created GYTPOL, to turn that 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘧 into a reality. Instead of working at loggerheads, our platform ensures that security and productivity are mutually inclusive. We're able to do that by: • Mapping dependencies so operators see the full picture. • Identifying configuration gaps before attackers exploit them. • Enabling zero-disruption remediation with rollback safety. 👉 If you’re tired of facing lose-lose predicaments in IT and security, let’s talk. Message me directly or visit I've seen it a thousands times and can tell you with complete certainty that when it comes questions of system availability and digital resilience, the cost of hoping & foot-dragging is always higher than the cost of acting. So what are you waiting for?

37

3 Comments

Modern defenses are smarter than ever, and relying on public tools is a recipe for detection. We teach your team how to move beyond basic scripts to understand how security software actually monitors behavior. By learning these "under-the-hood" mechanics, your operators can build custom solutions that remain silent and effective in high-stakes environments. Master the art of professional offensive engineering in our ODPC course at https://lnkd.in/esxxuu2V #OffensiveDev #CyberSecurity #WKL #ProfessionalDevelopment #Tradecraft

5

1 Comment

The Argo CD project has disclosed and patched a critical vulnerability (CVE-2025-55190, CVSS 10) affecting its popular GitOps continuous delivery platform for Kubernetes. The flaw, found in the Project API, allowed tokens with basic project-level permissions to retrieve sensitive repository credentials, including usernames and passwords.

2

Your security model is built to lose. Not because of your team. Because reactive security, by definition, always arrives after the damage is done. Your adversaries run fully automated, AI-driven attacks at machine speed. Your defense still waits for a human to read an alert. The evolution is clear: → SIEM: "Help me find the threat." → TDIR: "Help me find it faster." → Autonomous SecOps: "The machine finds it, analyzes it, and neutralizes it, before your analyst reads the first alert." The new KPI isn't "How many alerts did we close?" It's "What % of our threat response is fully autonomous?" Full strategic brief, built for C-Suite and Government leaders. Read the full article: https://lnkd.in/dtQBziUU   #CyberSecurity #CISO #AutonomousDefense #AutonomousSOC #SecOps #CyberResilience

78

2 Comments

One of the most common comments I hear from security leaders: “We can’t justify spending on another platform.” Fair. Budgets are tight. Every dollar is scrutinized. Security rarely gets excess funding. But here’s the tension. The same teams that hesitate to invest in better visibility are often operating without clear insight into: Analytics based procurement decisions Duplicate vendor spend Inconsistent purchasing Low-impact risks consuming high-impact dollars Remediation that never gets verified In other words, they’re trying to protect the budget… Without full visibility into how the budget is performing. That’s not a criticism. It’s structural. When risk data is fragmented across spreadsheets, PDFs, and local processes, you can’t see patterns. And if you can’t see patterns, you can’t optimize spend. So money leaks quietly. Not because the team is careless. Because the system doesn’t surface inefficiencies. What’s interesting is this: The cost of consolidation feels visible and immediate. The cost of fragmentation feels invisible and ongoing. Most leaders only see one of those line items. The best security programs I’ve seen don’t just reduce risk. They make every dollar traceable to a prioritized outcome. If you’re overseeing a multi-site environment, it’s worth asking: Do you truly know where your security dollars are working hardest? Or are you defending a budget you can’t fully see?

6

2 Comments

Here’s a pattern I’m seeing more often: More sites. More assessments. More reporting expectations. Same headcount. Security teams are being asked to scale output without scaling structure. So what happens? Assessments become episodic. Reporting takes too long. Prioritization becomes subjective. And leaders spend more time translating risk than reducing it. This isn’t a capability issue. It’s an architecture issue. At some point, physical security has to operate with the same operational discipline as finance and IT. Otherwise it stays in permanent catch-up mode. For security people overseeing medium to large portfolios (20+ sites): What’s currently your biggest bottleneck volume, visibility, or validation? And why do you think this is?

5

1 Comment