CVE-2017-11882 Will Never Die, (Wed, Aug 13th)

This post was originally published on this site

One of the key messages broadcasted by security professionals is: "Patch, patch and patch again!". But they are nasty vulnerabilities that remain exploited by attackers even if they are pretty old. %%cve:2017-11882%% is one of them: this remote code execution affects Microsoft Office and, more precisely, the good old "Equation Editor". This tool was even killed by Microsoft due to numerous security issues[1]. But it still remains used by attackers to spread modern malware. 

Microsoft August 2025 Patch Tuesday, (Tue, Aug 12th)

This post was originally published on this site

This month's Microsoft patch update addresses a total of 111 vulnerabilities, with 17 classified as critical. Among these, one vulnerability was disclosed prior to the patch release, marking it as a zero-day. While none of the vulnerabilities have been exploited in the wild, the critical ones pose significant risks, including remote code execution and elevation of privilege. Users are strongly advised to apply the updates promptly to safeguard their systems against potential threats.

Google Paid Ads for Fake Tesla Websites, (Sun, Aug 10th)

This post was originally published on this site

In recent media events, Tesla has demoed progressively more sophisticated versions of its Optimus robots. The sales pitch is pretty simple: "Current AI" is fun, but what we really need is not something to create more funny kitten pictures. We need AI to load and empty dishwashers, fold laundry, and mow lawns. But the robot has not been for sale yet, and there is no firm release date.

Do sextortion scams still work in 2025?, (Wed, Aug 6th)

This post was originally published on this site

Sextortion e-mails have been with us for quite a while, and these days, most security professionals tend to think of them more in terms of an “e-mail background noise” rather than as if they posed any serious threat. Given that their existence is reasonably well-known even among general public, this viewpoint would seem to be justified… But are sextortion messages really irrelevant as a threat at this point, and can we therefore safely omit this topic during security awareness trainings?

Introducing MCP Support in AI Shell Preview 6

This post was originally published on this site

AI Shell Preview 6 is here!

We are super excited to announce the latest preview release of AI Shell. This release focuses on
enhancing the user experience with new features, improved error handling, and better integration
with Model Context Protocol (MCP) tools.

What’s new at a glance

  • MCP client integration
  • Built-in tools
  • Resolve-Error command improvements
  • Aliases and flows for staying in your terminal

MCP Integration

AI Shell now acts as an MCP client, which allows you to add any MCP server to your AI Shell
experience. Connecting to an MCP server massively improves the capability of your AI Shell giving
you the tools that provide more relevant data or carry out actions!

AI Shell MCP Client

Adding MCP Servers

To add an MCP server, create an mcp.json file in $HOME.aish folder. The following example
shows two MCP servers: everything and filesystem. You can add any MCP servers you want.

{
    "servers": {
      "everything":{
        "type":"stdio",
        "command":"npx",
        "args":["-y", "@modelcontextprotocol/server-everything"]
      },
      "filesystem": {
        "type": "stdio",
        "command": "npx",
        "args": [
          "-y",
          "@modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem",
          "C:/Users/username/"
        ]
      }
    }
  }

If it’s a remote MCP server, change the type to https. You know that you have successfully added
an MCP server when you see it in the AI Shell UI. You can confirm that it’s running by checking the
status of the server through the /mcp command. Using /mcp also lists each MCP Server and the
tools available.

Screenshot of MCP servers registered in AI Shell

NOTE

You must have Node.js or uv installed to use MCP servers that
use those command lines tools.

Standalone experience with AI Shell and MCP Servers

MCP servers enhance your standalone experience with AI Shell, allowing your command line to use MCP
servers and AI to perform tasks. For example, @simonb97/server-win-cli is an MCP server that
allows you to run commands on your Windows machine, whether it be PowerShell, CMD, Git Bash, or any
configured shell you use! It also provides configuration settings to define which commands and
operations are allowed to run.

CAUTION

Please note this is a community MCP server and not an
official Microsoft MCP Server. We encourage you to do your own research and testing before using
it.

AI Shell with MCP Server

Additional MCP servers:

Built-in Tools for AI Shell

This release introduces built-in tools that are now accessible to agents within AI Shell. These
commands are similar to MCP Server tools, but are exclusive to the AI Shell experience. These tools
are designed to enhance the AI Shell experience by providing context-aware capabilities and
automation features. They can be used in conjunction with the MCP servers to create a powerful
AI-driven shell environment.

Tool Name Description
get_working_directory Get the current working directory of the connected PowerShell session, including the provider name (e.g., FileSystem, Certificate) and the path (e.g., C:\, cert:\).
get_command_history Get up to 5 of the most recent commands executed in the connected PowerShell session.
get_terminal_content Get all output currently displayed in the terminal window of the connected PowerShell session.
get_environment_variables Get environment variables and their values from the connected PowerShell session. Values of potentially sensitive variables are redacted.
copy_text_to_clipboard Copy the provided text or code to the system clipboard, making it available for pasting elsewhere.
post_code_to_terminal Insert code into the prompt of the connected PowerShell session without executing it. The user can review and choose to run it manually by pressing Enter.
run_command_in_terminal This tool allows you to execute shell commands in a persistent PowerShell session, preserving environment variables, working directory, and other context across multiple commands.
get_command_output Get the output of a command previously started with run_command_in_terminal.

Note

The built-in tools rely on the side-car experience with a
connected PowerShell session and provide enhanced context awareness and automation capabilities.

Here is a simple demo showing how you can have AI Shell run commands on your behalf using the
run_command_in_terminal tool:

Run command in terminal tool

This example shows how additional context is provided to AI Shell to improve results:

Getting more context with built-in tools

You can also use the get_terminal_content tool to get the content from the connected terminal and
provide it to AI Shell to help it understand what you are trying to do:

Getting content from the screen ran before AI Shell starts to get assistance

Resolve-Error Command Improvements

Previously the Resolve-Error command was only able to run after an error occurred in the previous
command. Now, Resolve-Error identifies which command the user wants to troubleshoot:

  • If the last error’s command matches the most recent command in history, it’s assumed to be the one
    the user is interested in.
  • If the last error’s command isn’t the most recent and $LastErrorCode is null or zero, the error
    likely comes from an earlier command, not the very last one.
  • If $LastErrorCode is non-zero and $? is false, the last command was a failing native command.
  • If $LastErrorCode is non-zero but $? is true, it’s unclear which command or failure the user
    is focused on, so the agent analyzes the terminal content to determine the relevant context.

This logic allows AI Shell to better understand what the error the user is trying to resolve is
rather than requiring you to ask for AI’s help immediately after an error occurs.

Staying in your shell

The Invoke-AIShell and Resolve-Error commands allow you to stay in your working terminal to
interact with the AI Shell agent. To learn more about the parameters added, see the
previous blog post that details these features. For your convenience, these commands have
aliases that make them quicker to use.

Command Name Alias
Invoke-AIShell askai
Resolve-Error fixit

Fixing an error and utilizing fixit and askai commands

Conclusion

We hope that these enhancements make your experience with AI Shell more powerful! We are always
looking for feedback and suggestions, so please submit issues or feature requests in our
GitHub repository.

Thank you so much!

AI Shell Team

Steven Bucher & Dongbo Wang

The post Introducing MCP Support in AI Shell Preview 6 appeared first on PowerShell Team.

CISA and USCG Identify Areas for Cyber Hygiene Improvement After Conducting Proactive Threat Hunt at US Critical Infrastructure Organization

This post was originally published on this site

Summary

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) are issuing this Cybersecurity Advisory to present findings from a recent CISA and USCG hunt engagement. The purpose of this advisory is to highlight identified cybersecurity issues, thereby informing security defenders in other organizations of potential similar issues and encouraging them to take proactive measures to enhance their cybersecurity posture. This advisory has been coordinated with the organization involved in the hunt engagement.

In 2024, CISA led a proactive hunt engagement at a U.S. critical infrastructure organization with the support of USCG analysts. During hunts, CISA proactively searches for evidence of malicious activity or malicious cyber actor presence on customer networks. The organization invited CISA to conduct a proactive hunt to determine if an actor had been present in the organization’s environment. (Note: Henceforth, unless otherwise defined, “CISA” is used in this advisory to refer to the hunt team as an umbrella for both CISA and USCG analysts).

During this engagement, CISA did not identify evidence of malicious cyber activity or actor presence on the organization’s network, but did identify cybersecurity risks, including:

  • Insufficient logging;
  • Insecurely stored credentials;
  • Shared local administrator (admin) credentials across many workstations;
  • Unrestricted remote access for local admin accounts;
  • Insufficient network segmentation configuration between IT and operational technology (OT) assets; and
  • Several device misconfigurations.

In coordination with the organization where the hunt was conducted, CISA and USCG are sharing cybersecurity risk findings and associated mitigations to assist other critical infrastructure organizations with improving their cybersecurity posture. Recommendations are listed for each of CISA’s findings, as well as general practices to strengthen cybersecurity for OT environments. These mitigations align with CISA and the National Institute for Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs), and with mitigations provided in the USCG Cyber Command’s (CGCYBER) 2024 Cyber Trends and Insights in the Marine Environment (CTIME) Report.

Although no malicious activity was identified during this engagement, critical infrastructure organizations are advised to review and implement the mitigations listed in this advisory to prevent potential compromises and better protect our national infrastructure. These mitigations include the following (listed in order of importance):

  • Do not store passwords or credentials in plaintext. Instead, use secure password and credential management solutions such as encrypted password vaults, managed service accounts, or built-in secure features of deployment tools.
    • Ensure that all credentials are encrypted both at rest and in transit. Implement strict access controls and regular audits to securely manage scripts or tools accessing credentials.
    • Use code reviews and automated scanning tools to detect and eliminate any instances of plaintext credentials on hosts or workstations.
    • Enforce the principle of least privilege, only granting users and processes the access necessary to perform their functions.
  • Avoid sharing local administrator account credentials. Instead, provision unique, complex passwords for each account using tools like Microsoft’s Local Administrator Password Solution (LAPS) that automate password management and rotation.
  • Enforce multifactor authentication (MFA) for all administrative access, including local and domain accounts, and for remote access methods such as Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) and virtual private network (VPN) connections.
  • Implement and enforce strict policies to only use hardened bastion hosts isolated from IT networks equipped with phishing-resistant MFA to access industrial control systems (ICS)/OT networks, and ensure regular workstations (i.e., workstations used for accessing IT networks and applications) cannot be used to access ICS/OT networks.
  • Implement comprehensive (i.e., large coverage) and detailed logging across all systems, including workstations, servers, network devices, and security appliances.
    • Ensure logs capture information such as authentication attempts, command-line executions with arguments, and network connections.
    • Retain logs for an appropriate period to enable thorough historical analysis (adhering to organizational policies and compliance requirements) and aggregate logs in an out-of-band, centralized location, such as a security information event management (SIEM) tool, to protect them from tampering and facilitate efficient analysis.

For more detailed mitigations addressing the identified cybersecurity risks, see the Mitigations section of this advisory.

Technical Details

Note: This advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK® Matrix for Enterprise framework, version 17. See Appendix: MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques for a table of potential activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.

Overview

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and United States Coast Guard (USCG) analysts (collectively referred to as CISA in this report) conducted a threat hunt engagement at a critical infrastructure organization in 2024. During this hunt, CISA proactively searched for evidence of malicious activity or the presence of a malicious cyber actor on the customer’s network using host, network, industrial control system (ICS), and commercial cloud and open-source analysis tools. CISA searched for evidence of activity by looking for specific exploitation tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and associated artifacts.

While CISA did not find evidence of threat actor presence on the organization’s network, the team did identify several cybersecurity risks. These findings are listed below in order of risk. Technical details of each identified cyber risk are included, along with the potential impact from threat actor exploitation of each risk (recommendations for mitigating each risk are listed in the Mitigations section below).

Several of these findings align with those observed during similar engagements conducted by US Coast Guard Cyber Command (CGCYBER), which are documented in their 2024 Cyber Trends and Insights in the Marine Environment (CTIME) report. The authoring agencies encourage critical infrastructure organizations to review the CTIME report to understand trends in the techniques/attack paths threat actors are using to compromise at-risk organizations, and what mitigations organizations should implement to prevent a successful attack.

Key Findings

Shared Local Admin Accounts with Non-Unique Passwords Stored as Plaintext

Details: CISA identified a few local admin accounts with non-unique passwords; these accounts were shared across many hosts. The credentials for each account were stored plaintext in batch scripts. CISA discovered these authorized scripts were configured to create user accounts with local admin privileges and then set identical, non-expiring passwords—these passwords were stored in plaintext in the script. One script was configured to create an admin account (set with a password stored in the script in plaintext) and automatically add to the admin group. The account was set as the local admin account on many other hosts.

Potential Impact: The storage of local admin credentials in plaintext scripts across numerous hosts increases the risk of widespread unauthorized access, and the usage of non-unique passwords facilitates lateral movement throughout the network. Malicious actors with access to workstations with either of these batch scripts could obtain the passwords for these local admin accounts by searching the filesystem for strings like net user /add, identifying scripts containing usernames and passwords [T1552.001], and accessing these accounts to move laterally.

For example, during a controlled security validation exercise (with explicit permission from the customer), CISA used the credentials found in one of the scripts to log into its associated admin account locally on a workstation [T1078.003], and then establish a Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) connection to another workstation [T1021.001]. This demonstrated that the credentials allowed local login to an admin account and enabled lateral movement to any workstation with the account. While using this account, the user had local admin privileges on many workstations. Upon initiating the RDP session, the system issued out a notification that another user was currently logged in and that continuing the session would disconnect the existing user, confirming that the account can be accessed remotely via RDP.

The uniform use of local admin accounts with identical, non-expiring passwords across numerous hosts, coupled with the storage of these credentials in plaintext within accessible scripts, elevates the risk of unauthorized access and lateral movement throughout the network.

With local admin access, malicious cyber actors can:

  • Modify existing accounts or create new accounts [T1098], potentially escalating privileges or maintaining persistent access.
  • Install malicious browser extensions on compromised systems [T1112].
  • Communicate with compromised systems using standard application layer protocols [T1071], which may bypass certain security monitoring tools.
  • Modify local policies to escalate privileges or disable security features [T1484].
  • Alter system configurations or install software that executes at startup [T1547], ensuring continued access and persistence.
  • Hijack the execution flow of applications to inject malicious code [T1574].

The widespread distribution of plaintext credentials and the use of identical passwords across hosts increases the risk of unauthorized access throughout the network. This vulnerability heightens the potential for attackers to conduct unauthorized activities, which may impact the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the organization’s assets.

Note: This finding was associated with workstations only; servers and other devices were not affected.

Insufficient Network Segmentation Configuration Between IT and Operational Technology Environments

Details: While assessing interconnectivity between the customer’s IT and operational technology (OT) environments, CISA identified that the OT environment was not properly configured. Specifically, standard user accounts could directly access the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) virtual local area network (VLAN) directly from IT hosts.

First, CISA determined it was possible to establish a connection via port 21 from a user workstation in the IT network to a system within the SCADA VLAN. The test established that a network path was available, the remote host was reachable, the port was open and listening for connections, and that the port was directly accessible between the IT and SCADA VLANs, with misconfigured network-level restrictions—for example, firewalls or access control lists (ACLs)—blocking the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection on the port. This test was conducted using a standard user account on a regular IT workstation without administrative privileges [T1078].

Second, CISA discovered that the customer did not have sufficient secured bastion hosts dedicated for accessing SCADA and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. A bastion host­—sometimes referred to as a jump box or jump server—is a specialized, highly secured system (often a server or dedicated workstation) that serves as the sole access point between a network segment (such as an internal IT network) and a protected internal network (like an OT or ICS environment). By inspecting and filtering all inbound and outbound traffic, a bastion host is designed to prevent unauthorized access and lateral movement, ensuring that only authenticated and authorized users can interact with internal systems. Though several hosts were designated as bastion hosts for remote access to SCADA and HVAC systems, they lacked the enhanced security configuration, dedicated monitoring, and specialized scrutiny expected of bastion hosts.

Potential Impact: Insufficient OT network segmentation configuration, network access control (NAC), and the ability of a non-privileged user within the IT network to use their credentials to access the critical SCADA VLAN [T1078] presents a security and safety risk. Given that SCADA and HVAC systems control physical processes, compromises of these systems can have real-world consequences, including risks to personnel safety, infrastructure integrity, and equipment functionality.

Malicious actors could further exploit potentially unsecured workstations with access to OT systems, and insufficient network segmentation configuration between IT and OT systems, in the following ways:

  • Use RDP or Secure Shell (SSH) protocols to move laterally from compromised IT workstations to OT systems [T1021.001] [T1021.004].
  • Execute commands and scripts using scripting languages like PowerShell to attack OT systems [T1059].
  • Map network connections to identify paths to OT systems [T1049].
  • Gather information about network configurations to plan attacks on OT systems [T1016].

By exploiting these weaknesses, attackers can potentially gain unauthorized access to critical OT systems, manipulate physical processes, disrupt operations, and cause harm.

Insufficient Log Retention and Implementation

Details: CISA was unable to hunt for every MITRE ATT&CK® procedure in the scoped hunt plan partly because the organization’s event logging system was insufficient for this analysis. For example, Windows event logs from workstations were not being forwarded to the organization’s security information event management (SIEM), verbose command line auditing was not enabled (meaning command line arguments were not being captured in Event ID 4688), logging in the SIEM was not as comprehensive as required for the analysis, and log retention did not allow for a thorough analysis of historical activity.

Potential Impact: The absence of comprehensive and detailed logs, along with a lack of an established baseline for normal network behavior, prevented CISA from performing thorough behavior and anomaly-based detection. This limitation hindered the ability to hunt for certain TTPs, such as living-off-the-land techniques, the use of valid accounts [T1078], and other TTPs used by sophisticated threat actors. Such techniques often do not produce discrete indicators of compromise or trigger alerts from antivirus software, intrusion detection systems (IDS), or endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions. Further, the lack of workstation logs in the organization’s SIEM meant CISA could not analyze authentication events to identify anomalous activities, such as unauthorized access using local administrator credentials. This gap exposes networks to undetected lateral movement and unauthorized access.

Insufficient logging can prevent the detection of malicious activity by hindering investigations, which makes detection of threat actors more challenging and leaves the network susceptible to undetected threats.

Additional Findings

Misconfigured sslFlags on a Production Server

Details: CISA used PowerShell to examine the ApplicationHost.config file[1]—a central configuration file for Internet Information Services (IIS) that governs the behavior of the web server and its applications and websites—on a production IIS server. CISA observed an HTTPS binding configured with sslFlags==“0”, which keeps IIS in its legacy “one-certificate-per-IP” mode. This mode disables modern certificate-management features, and because mutual Transport Layer Security (TLS) (client-certificate authentication) must be enabled separately in “SSL Settings” or by adding <access sslFlags=“Ssl, SslRequireCert” />, the binding leaves the client-certificate enforcement off by default, allowing any TLS client to complete the handshake anonymously. Moreover, sslFlags does not control protocol or cipher selection, so outdated protocols or weak cipher suites (e.g., SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0/1.1) may still be accepted unless Secure Channel (Schannel)[2] has been explicitly hardened.

Potential Impact: The misconfigured sslFlags could enable threat actors to attempt an adversary-in-the-middle attack [T1557] to intercept credentials and data transmitted between clients and the IIS server. Malicious actors could also exploit vulnerabilities in older Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)/TLS protocols, as well as weak cipher suites, increasing the risk for protocol downgrade attacks in which an attacker forces the server and client to negotiate the use of weaker encryption standards [T1562.010]. This compromises the confidentiality and integrity of data transmitted over this channel. Furthermore, the absence of client certificate enforcement meant the server did not validate the identity of the connecting clients beyond the basic SSL/TLS handshake. This deficiency exposed the server to risks where unauthorized or malicious clients could impersonate legitimate users, potentially gaining access to sensitive resources without proper verification.

Misconfigured Structured Query Language Connections on a Production Server

Details: CISA reviewed machine.config file on a production server and identified that it was configured with a centralized database connection string, LocalSqlServer, for both profile and role providers. This configuration implies that, unless overridden in each application’s web.config files, every ASP.NET site on the server connects to the same Structured Query Language (SQL) Express or aspnetdb database and shares the same credentials context.

Additionally, CISA identified that the machine.config file set the minRequiredPasswordLength to be less than 15 characters, which is CISA’s recommended password length.

Potential Impact: Using a centralized database approach increases risk, as a single breach or misconfiguration in this central SQL database server can compromise all applications dependent on the server. This creates a single point of failure and could be exploited by attackers aiming to gain broad access to the system.

Additionally, setting the minimum password length to any password under 15 characters is more vulnerable to various forms of brute-force attacks, such as password guessing [T1110.001], cracking [T1110.002], spraying [T1110.003], and credential stuffing [T1110.004]. If a threat actor successfully cracked these weak passwords, they could gain unauthorized access to user or application accounts and leverage vulnerabilities within applications to further escalate privileges, potentially leading to unauthorized access to the backend SQL Server databases. This could result in data breaches, data manipulation, or a loss of database integrity.

Mitigations

CISA and USCG recommend that critical infrastructure organizations implement the mitigations below to improve their organization’s cybersecurity posture. Recommendations to reduce cyber risk are listed for each of CISA’s findings during this engagement and are ordered starting from the highest to lowest importance for organizations to implement. CISA and USCG also include general practices to strengthen cybersecurity for OT environments that are not tied to specific findings.

These mitigations align with the Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals jointly developed by CISA and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). The Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful TTPs. Visit CISA’s CPGs webpage for more information.

Many of these mitigations also align with recommendations made by CGCYBER in their 2024 CTIME report. The report provides relevant information and lessons learned about cybersecurity risks gathered through operations similar to this threat hunt engagement, and best practices to mitigate these risks. Please see the 2024 CTIME report for additional recommendations for critical infrastructure organizations to implement to harden their environments against malicious activity.

Implement Unique Credentials and Access Control Measures for Administrator Accounts

  • Provision unique and complex credentials for local administrator accounts [CPG 2.C] on all systems. Do not use shared or identical administrative credentials across systems. Ensure service accounts/machine accounts have passwords unique from all member user accounts.
    • For example, organizations can deploy Microsoft LAPS (see Microsoft Learn’s Windows LAPS Overview for more information) to ensure each machine has a unique, complex local administrator password; passwords are rotated automatically within Microsoft Active Directory, reducing the window of vulnerability; and that password retrieval is limited to authorized personnel only.
  • Require phishing-resistant multifactor authentication (MFA) [CPG 2.H] in addition to unique passwords for all administrative access, including local- and domain-level administrator accounts, RDP sessions, and VPN connections.
  • Use privileged access workstations (PAWs) dedicated solely for administrative tasks and isolate them from the internet and general network to reduce exposure to threats and lateral movement.
    • Harden PAWs by applying CIS Benchmarks: limit software to essential administrative functions, disable unnecessary services and ports, and ensure regular updates and patches.
    • Enforce strict access controls to restrict PAW access to authorized administrators only.
  • Conduct continuous auditing of privileged accounts by regularly collecting and analyzing logs of administrative activities, such as login attempts, command executions, and configuration changes [CPG 2.T].
    • Configure automated alerts for anomalous behaviors, including logins outside standard hours, access from unauthorized locations, and repeated failed logins.
    • Periodically review all administrator accounts to confirm the necessity and appropriateness of access levels; align these auditing practices with NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 Controls AU-2 (Auditable Events) and AU-12 (Audit Record Generation).
  • Apply the principle of least privilege by limiting administrative privileges to the minimum required for users to perform their roles [CPG 2.E].
    • Create individual administrative accounts with unique credentials and role-specific permissions and disable or rename built-in local administrator accounts to reduce common attack vectors.
    • Avoid using shared administrator accounts to improve accountability and auditability, and ensure administrators use standard accounts for non-administrative tasks to minimize credential exposure.
    • Implement Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) to assign permissions based on job functions, as aligned with NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 Control AC-5 (Separation of Duties).
  • Identify and remove unauthorized or unnecessary local administrator accounts, maintain oversight by documenting and tracking all authorized accounts, and enforce strict account management policies by restricting account creation privileges and implementing approval workflows for new administrator accounts.

Securely Store and Manage Credentials

  • Purge credentials from the System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM). Review SCCM packages, task sequences, and scripts to ensure that no plaintext credentials are embedded, and update or remove any configurations that deploy scripts with plaintext credentials.
  • Do not store plaintext credentials in scripts. Instead, store credentials in a secure manner, such as with a credential/password manager or vault, or other privileged account management solution [CPG 2.L].
  • Use encrypted communication. If scripts must retrieve credentials at runtime, use encrypted channels and protocols (e.g., TLS 1.3) to communicate with secure credential stores. Ensure that credentials are not written to disk or exposed in logs.
  • Use unique local administrator passwords, such as by deploying Microsoft LAPS. Set appropriate permissions on Active Directory attributes used by LAPS (ms-MCS-AdmPwd and ms-MCS-AdmPwdExpirationTime) per Microsoft’s security recommendations.

Establish Network Segmentation Between IT and OT Environments

  • Assess the existing network architecture to ensure effective segmentation between the IT and OT networks [CPG 2.F]—this process should evaluate both logical and physical segmentation, ensuring clear boundaries between IT and OT assets.
    • Use NIST SP 800-82 Rev. 3 (Guide to OT Security) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62443 standards as guides for network segmentation best practices.
    • Network segmentation is essential for containing breaches within isolated segments and preventing them from spreading across networks. Depending on your environment, consider implementing the following segmentation:
      • Implement VLAN segmentation with inter-VLAN access controls.
      • Create separate VLANs for IT and OT systems, specifically isolating OT components such as SCADA systems from IT network VLANs.
      • Configure inter-VLAN access controls, including Layer 3 ACLs, to restrict traffic between IT and SCADA VLANs.
      • Deploy firewalls with application-layer filtering capabilities to monitor and control data flow between the VLANs, ensuring that only authorized protocols and devices can communicate across segments.
  • Implement a demilitarized zone (DMZ) between IT and OT environments to provide an additional security layer.
    • Position firewalls at both the IT-DMZ and OT-DMZ boundaries to filter traffic and enforce strict communication policies.
    • Configure the DMZ to act as an intermediary, with only essential communications permitted between IT and OT networks.
    • Ensure the DMZ hosts shared services (e.g., bastion hosts, jump servers, or data historians) that require limited interaction with both environments, with access controls and monitoring in place.
  • Consider a full network re-architecture if current segmentation methods cannot effectively separate IT and OT networks.
    • Collaborate with cybersecurity and network experts to design an architecture that meets ICS-specific security requirements—this redesign may involve transitioning to a micro-segmented or zero trust architecture, which includes strict identity verification for all users and devices attempting to access OT assets.[3]
  • Implement unidirectional gateways (data diodes) where appropriate to prevent bidirectional communication.
  • Keep network diagrams, configuration files, and asset inventories up to date.
  • Regularly test segmentation controls to validate their effectiveness in restricting unauthorized access by conducting penetration testing and security assessments.
    • Include simulated breach scenarios to confirm that segmentation contains threats within isolated zones.
    • Ensure compliance with NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 Control AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) to align segmentation measures with best practices for controlled information flow.

Prevent Unauthorized Access via Port 21

  • Disable File Transfer Protocol (FTP) services on SCADA devices and servers if they are not required. Replace FTP with secure alternatives, such as SSH FTP (SFTP) or FTP over TLS/SSL (FTPS).
  • Block inbound and outbound FTP traffic on port 21 using firewalls and ACLs.
    • Implement restrictive ACL policies at network boundaries to control FTP access across all network layers.
    • As outlined in CIS Control 9.2 (Limit Unnecessary Ports, Protocols, and Services), close any unused ports to strengthen network defenses.
  • Implement IDS/Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) technologies to monitor traffic between the IT network and SCADA VLAN, use signature and anomaly detection, and integrate IDS/IPS with a SIEM system for centralized monitoring.
  • Enhance authentication and encryption mechanisms. Require MFA for SCADA access, use secure remote access technologies when necessary, securely encrypt communications (using protocols such as TLS 1.2 or higher, preferably TLS 1.3), and establish VPN tunnels to communicate between IT networks and SCADA systems.
  • Perform network traffic filtering and deep packet inspection.
    • Use SCADA-aware firewalls capable of understanding SCADA protocols and inspecting and filtering traffic at the application layer.
    • Only allowlist authorized protocols and command structures to SCADA operations. Use one-way communication devices to prevent data from flowing back into the SCADA network.

Establish Secure Bastion Hosts for OT Network Access

  • Ensure bastion hosts are dedicated secure access points exclusively used to access the OT network and deployed as exclusive management gateways for all devices within a network.
    • Make bastion hosts the single access points for conducting all administrative tasks, system management, and configuration changes; this centralizes access control and ensures any interaction with the OT system passes through a rigorously monitored and secure environment, minimizing the potential for unauthorized access.
  • Do not allow staff to use bastion hosts as regular workstations.
    • Provide staff with separate workstations for accessing email, internet browsing, etc., on the IT network.
    • Establish and enforce policies that prohibit non-administrative activities on bastion hosts, ensuring they remain dedicated to OT network access.
  • Regularly audit and monitor bastion hosts to maintain security integrity, prevent unauthorized use, and quickly address any vulnerabilities or policy non-compliance.
  • Configure comprehensive logging of all activities on bastion hosts, including authentication attempts, command executions, configuration changes, and file transfers. Aggregate logs into a SIEM.
  • Isolate bastion hosts from the IT network; bastion hosts should reside in a separate security zone with restricted communication pathways (see CISA’s infographic on Layering Network Security Through Segmentation).
    • Deploy bastion hosts in a DMZ, imposing physical and logical isolation from other networks.
    • Configure firewalls between the IT network, bastion hosts, and the OT network, enforcing strict access control policies to allow only necessary traffic.
  • Ensure secure configuration and hardening of bastion hosts: Comply with NIST SP 800-123 and CIS Benchmarks and CNSSI 4009-2015, remove nonessential applications and services to reduce the attack surface, configure system settings to be secure, conduct effective patch management, enforce the principle of least functionality, and disable unused ports and protocols.
  • Implement access control policies: remove any access permissions to the OT network from IT workstations and ensure only bastion hosts have access to the OT network.
    • Implement NAC solutions to enforce policy-driven access control decisions based on device compliance and user authentication to provide dynamic access control and real-time visibility into the devices on the network.
  • Equip each bastion host with robust authentication mechanisms, including phishing resistant MFA [CPG 2.H], to verify the identity of users accessing the network.
    • Align with AAL3 as defined in NIST SP 800-63B. AAL3 requires hardware-based authenticators and proof of possession of cryptographic keys through secure authentication protocols.
  • Implement stringent access controls that restrict access to authorized personnel only using RBAC principles, ensuring that personnel can only access information and perform tasks pertinent to their roles and duties. This reduces the risk of internal threats or lateral movement and prevents unauthorized access.
  • Securely configure remote access tools, including by using secure protocols and disabling remote access tools on IT workstations to the OT network, enforcing that all remote access occurs through bastion hosts.
    • Disable insecure protocols like Telnet and unencrypted VNC to prevent interception and unauthorized access.
    • Log all remote access sessions and monitor for unauthorized or anomalous activities.

Implement Comprehensive Logging, Log Retention, and Analysis

  • Implement comprehensive and verbose (i.e., detailed) logging across all systems, including workstations, servers, network devices, and security appliances [CPG 2.T].
    • Enable logging of critical events such as authentication attempts, command-line executions with command arguments (Event ID 4688), and network connections.
  • Aggregate logs in an out-of-band, centralized location [CPG 2.U] where adversaries cannot tamper with them, such as a dedicated SIEM, in order to facilitate behavior analytics, anomaly detection, and proactive threat hunting [CPG 2.T, 2.U]. For more information on behavior- and anomaly-based detection techniques, see joint guidance Identifying and Mitigating Living off the Land.
  • Ensure comprehensive logging on bastion hosts for all activities. Capture detailed records of login attempts [CPG 2.G], commands executed (with command arguments enabled), configurations changed, and files transferred.
  • Continuously monitor logs for early detection of anomalous activities. Configure the SIEM to generate automatic alerts for suspicious activity and implement behavior analysis techniques to detect anomalies.
  • Securely store log backups and use tamper resistant storage [CPG 2.U] to prevent a threat actor from altering or purging logs to conceal malicious activity.

For additional guidance on logging, see joint guidance Best Practices for Event Logging and Threat Detection.

Securely Configure HTTPS Bindings and LocalSqlServer Connection String

  • Enforce both client certificate verification and secure renegotiation in IIS by configuring the sslFlags setting to “3” in the ApplicationHost.config file. Setting sslFlags=“3” requires clients to present valid X.509 certificates for authentication and implements the TLS Renegotiation Indication Extension (RFC 5746). To implement this, perform the following steps:
    • Locate the <binding> element for the HTTPS site within ApplicationHost.config.
    • Set the sslFlags attribute to “3”: <binding protocol=“https” bindingInformation=“*:443:” sslFlags=“3” />.
    • Restart IIS to apply the changes: iisreset.
  • Restrict the server to use only secure and up-to-date SSL/TLS protocols and cipher suites.
    • Disable deprecated protocols like SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, and TLS 1.1 to prevent protocol downgrade attacks that compromise the confidentiality and integrity of data.
  • Override the global settings in machine.config by modifying each application’s web.config file to define its own connection strings and providers. This isolates applications at the database level and allows for tailored security configurations for each application.
  • Create dedicated SQL Server database accounts for each application with permissions limited to necessary operations (e.g., SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE), and avoid granting excessive privileges.
    • Do not assign roles like db_owner or sysadmin to application accounts. This reduces the risk of privilege escalation and enhances accountability through segregated access logs.
  • Use machine.config only for configurations that must be applied globally across all applications on the server.
    • Audit the machine.config file to ensure no application-specific settings are present.

Enforce Strong Password Policies

  • Implement a system-enforced policy that requires a minimum password length of 15 or more characters for all password-protected IT assets and all OT assets, when technically feasible [CPG 2.B].
    • Consider leveraging passphrases and password managers to make it easier for users to maintain sufficiently long passwords.
  • In instances where minimum password lengths are not technically feasible, apply and record compensating controls, such as rate-limiting login attempts, account lockout thresholds, and strong network segmentation. Prioritize these systems for upgrade or replacement.
  • Implement MFA [CPG 2.H] in addition to strong passwords (i.e., passwords 15 characters or longer).

Additional Mitigation Recommendations to Strengthen Cybersecurity

CISA and USCG recommend critical infrastructure organizations implement the following additional mitigations (not tied to specific findings from the engagement) to improve the cybersecurity of their IT and OT environments:

  • Secure RDP from the IT to OT environments by deploying dedicated VPNs for all remote interactions with the OT network. Using RDP without strong authentication practices can lead to credential theft. Additionally, RDP does not inherently segregate or closely monitor user sessions, which can allow a compromised session to affect other parts of the network.
    • Deploy VPNs with strong encryption protocols such as SSL/TLS or Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) [CPG 2.K] to safeguard data integrity and confidentiality; use MFA [CPG 2.H] at all VPN access points to ensure only authorized personnel can gain access.
    • Configure VPN gateways to perform rigorous security checks and manage traffic destined for the OT network, ensuring comprehensive validation of all communications through pre-defined security policies.
      • VPN gateways should function as the primary enforcement points for access controls, scrutinizing every data packet to detect and block unauthorized access attempts.
    • Align the VPN traffic monitoring with the DMZ’s capabilities to regulate and inspect the data flow between IT and OT environments.
    • As part of the broader network architecture review, ensure the VPN infrastructure is correctly segmented from other network resources [CPG 2.F] to prevent any spillover effects from the IT environment to the OT network, containing potential breaches within isolated network zones.
    • Within the VPN configuration, enforce strict routing rules that require all remote access requests to pass through the DMZ and be authenticated by bastion hosts. This minimizes the risk of unauthorized access and ensures that all remote interactions with the OT network are monitored and controlled.
  • If wireless technology is employed within the OT environment, implement Wi-fi Protected Access 3 (WPA3)-Enterprise encryption with strong authentication protocols like Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)-TLS to ensure data confidentiality and integrity.
    • Deploy and continuously monitor Wireless Intrusion Prevention Systems (WIPS) to detect, prevent, and respond to unauthorized access attempts and anomalous activities within the wireless network infrastructure.
    • Disable unnecessary features like Service Set Identifier (SSID) broadcasting and peer-to-peer networking, enable Media Access Control (MAC) filtering as an additional layer, and keep wireless firmware updated.

Validate Security Controls

In addition to applying mitigations, CISA and USCG recommend exercising, testing, and validating your organization’s security program against the threat behaviors mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK for Enterprise framework in this advisory. CISA and USCG recommend testing your existing security controls inventory to assess how they perform against the ATT&CK techniques described in this advisory.

To get started:

  1. Select an ATT&CK technique described in this advisory (see Table 1 to Table 9).
  2. Align your security technologies against the technique.
  3. Test your technologies against the technique.
  4. Analyze your detection and prevention technologies’ performance.
  5. Repeat the process for all security technologies to obtain a set of comprehensive performance data.
  6. Tune your security program—including people, processes, and technologies—based on the data generated by this process.

CISA and USCG recommend continually testing your security program, at scale, in a production environment to ensure optimal performance against the MITRE ATT&CK techniques identified in this advisory.

Contact Information

Critical infrastructure organizations are encouraged to report suspicious or criminal activity related to information in this advisory to:

Additional Resources

For more information on improving cyber hygiene for critical infrastructure IT and OT environments, please see the following additional resources authored by CISA, CGCYBER, and international partners:

Disclaimer

The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. CISA and USCG do not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by CISA and USCG.

Version History

July 31, 2025: Initial version.

Appendix: MITRE ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques

See Table 1 to Table 9 for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques in this advisory. For assistance with mapping malicious cyber activity to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, see CISA and MITRE ATT&CK’s Best Practices for MITRE ATT&CK Mapping and CISA’s Decider Tool.

Table 1: Initial Access
Technique Title ID Use
Valid Accounts T1078 Malicious actors could use access to valid accounts for access to IT and OT networks.
Valid Accounts: Local Accounts T1078.003 Threat actors could use credentials obtained for local administrator accounts to gain administrator access to workstations or services that use the account.
Account Manipulation T1098 Malicious actors could modify existing accounts or create new accounts to maintain access or escalate privileges. 
Table 2: Execution
Technique Title ID Use
Command and Scripting Interpreter  T1059 Malicious actors could use script interpreters like PowerShell to execute commands and scripts. 
Table 3: Persistence
Technique Title ID Use
Boot or Autostart Execution T1547 Malicious actors could configure autostart execution paths to ensure persistence.
Hijack Execution Flow T1574 Malicious actors could hijack the execution flow of applications and inject malicious code.
Table 4: Privilege Escalation
Technique Title ID Use
Domain or Tenant Policy Modification T1484 Malicious actors could modify domain policies to escalate privileges or evade defenses.
Table 5: Defense Evasion
Technique Title ID Use
Modify Registry T1112 Malicious actors could install malicious browser extensions on compromised systems.
Impair Defenses: Downgrade Attack T1562.010 Malicious actors could exploit vulnerabilities in older systems to force a downgrade to a less secure mode of operation.
Table 6: Credential Access
Technique Title ID Use
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials in Files T1552.001 Malicious actors could search for and exploit credentials stored in unsecured files. 
OS Credential Dumping T1003 Malicious actors could extract credentials from memory or storage from unsecured workstations.
Adversary-in-the-Middle T1557 Malicious actors could position themselves between networked devices to intercept credentials and other data. 
Brute Force: Password Guessing T1110.001 Malicious actors could systematically guess possible passwords.
Brute Force: Password Cracking T1110.002 Malicious actors could recover plaintext credentials after obtaining password hashes or other similar credential material.
Brute Force: Password Spraying T1110.003 Malicious actors could attempt to use a common password against different accounts to try to obtain account access. 
Brute Force: Credential Stuffing T1110.004 Malicious actors could try to use credentials gained from an unrelated account to gain access to a desired account in the victim’s environment. 
Table 7: Discovery
Technique Title ID Use
System Network Connections Discovery T1049 Malicious actors could map network connections to identify paths to OT systems from an unsecured IT workstation with access to the OT network. 
System Network Configuration Discovery T1016 Malicious actors could use an unsecured workstation to discover network configurations.
Table 8: Lateral Movement
Technique Title ID Use
Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol T1021.001 Malicious actors could use valid credentials to establish an RDP connection to access a workstation. 
Remote Services: SSH T1021.004 Malicious actors could use valid accounts to establish an SSH connection to a workstation.
Table 9: Command and Control
Technique Title ID Use
Application Layer Protocol T1071 Malicious actors could use application layer protocols to communicate with systems they compromised while blending in with existing network traffic. 

[1] While CISA used PowerShell to review these configuration settings, they can also be identified by running a search in any text editor.
[2] For more information, see Schannel – Microsoft Learn.
[3] Reference the Purdue Model for ICS Security as a guide for layered security zones and assess compliance with IEC 62443 network and system security standards; organizations may use this version of the model developed by Department of Energy (DOE) as a guide: Purdue Model Framework for Industrial Control Systems & Cybersecurity Segmentation.

Announcing Microsoft.PowerShell.PlatyPS 1.0.0

This post was originally published on this site

We’re pleased to announce the general availability (GA) release of
Microsoft.PowerShell.PlatyPS v1.0.0.

PlatyPS is the tool that Microsoft uses to create the PowerShell content you get from Get-Help
and build the content published as PowerShell documentation on Microsoft Learn.

PowerShell help files are stored as Microsoft Assistance Markup Language (MAML), an XML
format. PlatyPS simplifies the authoring process by allowing you to write the help files in
Markdown, then convert to MAML. Markdown is widely used in the software industry,
supported by many editors including Visual Studio Code, and easier to author.

With this release, Microsoft.PowerShell.PlatyPS is the supported tool. This release is a
substantial rewrite with all new cmdlets. platyPS v0.14.2 is no longer supported. We encourage
all users to upgrade to Microsoft.PowerShell.PlatyPS for the latest features, performance
improvements, and ongoing support. If you have scripts that use the older version of platyPS,
you must rewrite them to use the new cmdlets.

Microsoft.PowerShell.PlatyPS includes several improvements:

  • Re-write in C# leveraging markdig for parsing Markdown (the same library used by
    Microsoft Learn to render Markdown)
  • Provides a more accurate description of a PowerShell cmdlet and its parameters and includes
    information that was previously unavailable
  • Creates an object model of the help file that you can manipulate and supports chaining cmdlets for
    complex operations
  • Increased performance – processes 1000s of Markdown files in seconds

Microsoft.PowerShell.PlatyPS runs on:

  • Windows PowerShell 5.1+
  • PowerShell 7+ on Windows, Linux, and macOS

Installing Microsoft.PowerShell.PlatyPS

To begin working with Microsoft.PowerShell.PlatyPS 1.0.0, install the module from PSGallery.

Install-PSResource -Name Microsoft.PowerShell.PlatyPS

Documentation to get started

For this release, the cmdlet reference is available at Microsoft.PowerShell.PlatyPS.
For an example of how to use the new cmdlets, see Example #1 in New-MarkdownCommandHelp.

Call to action

Our goal is to make it easier for you to update and maintain PowerShell help files. We value your
feedback. Stop by our GitHub repository and let us know of any issues you find.

Interested in contributing to the PlatyPS project? We welcome feature ideas and contributions.
Please follow the contribution guidance in the Github Readme.

Jason Helmick

Sr. Product Manager, PowerShell

The post Announcing Microsoft.PowerShell.PlatyPS 1.0.0 appeared first on PowerShell Team.

Announcing Microsoft Desired State Configuration v3.1.0

This post was originally published on this site

We’re pleased to announce the General Availability of Microsoft’s Desired State Configuration (DSC)
version 3.1.0. This release marks a significant milestone in our effort to deliver cloud-native
configuration management for cross-platform environments. DSC is a declarative configuration and
orchestration platform that defines a standard way of exposing settings for applications and
services. DSC v3.1.0 is built on collaboration with key improvements driven by partner requests.
Special thanks to the Windows Package Manager (WinGet) team and the incredible support of the DSC
community.

For additional details about the initial DSC v3.0.0 release, see:

What’s New in DSC v3.1

This release continues our momentum by delivering features and improvements
driven by real world use, partner feedback, and community contributions.

DSC v3.1 includes updates and fixes across the platform. Here are some of the
most important improvements:

WinGet and partner-driven enhancements

  • Core infrastructure updates to enable DSC-based management in WinGet scenarios.
  • Extended resource invocation APIs, allowing for richer integration by external tools.
  • Increased flexibility for configuration refresh and reporting, driven by partner needs.

Resource authoring improvements

  • Improved handling and validation for resource schema files, with clearer error messages.
  • Fixed issues with module loading and path resolution that impacted PSDSC resources.
  • More robust handling of resources with required and optional properties.

Cross-Platform reliability and bug fixes

  • Fixed several Linux-specific issues in resource execution, state detection, and error
    reporting.
  • Improved Windows compatibility, particularly for recent versions and in mixed-OS
    environments.
  • Addressed inconsistencies in the application of ensure properties and desired state
    evaluation.

Performance and quality

  • Optimized configuration drift detection, resulting in faster and more reliable test
    operations.
  • Reduced occurrence of configuration runs left in an indeterminate or failed state.
  • Improved error handling for edge cases in set, test, and get operations.

Diagnostics and usability

  • Expanded logging and diagnostics, making it easier to trace resource behavior and
    configuration activity.
  • Improved the clarity and usefulness of error and warning messages across platforms.
  • More consistent reporting of operation outcomes in both interactive and automated
    scenarios.

For a full list of changes, see the DSC v3.1 changelog

Installing DSC

To get started, follow these steps to install DSC on your system:

On Windows, you can install DSC from the Microsoft Store using winget. By installing from the
Store or using winget, you get automatic updates for DSC.

Search for the latest version of DSC:

winget search DesiredStateConfiguration --source msstore
Name                              Id           Version Source
---------------------------------------------------------------
DesiredStateConfiguration         9NVTPZWRC6KQ Unknown msstore
DesiredStateConfiguration-Preview 9PCX3HX4HZ0Z Unknown msstore

Install DSC using the id parameter:

# Install latest stable
winget install --id 9NVTPZWRC6KQ --source msstore
# Install latest preview
winget install --id 9PCX3HX4HZ0Z --source msstore

On Linux and macOS, you can install DSC using the following steps:

  1. Download the latest release from the PowerShell/DSC repository.
  2. Expand the release archive.
  3. Add the folder containing the expanded archive contents to your PATH environment variable.

Support lifecycle

DSC follows semantic versioning.

The first release of DSC version 3.0.0 is a Stable release. DSC version 3.1.0 is the current Stable
release. Patch releases update the third digit of the semantic version number. For example, 3.1.1 is
a patch update to 3.1.0. Stable releases receive patches for critical bugs and security
vulnerabilities for three months after the next Stable release. For example, version 3.1.0 is
supported for three months after 3.2.0 is released.

Always update to the latest patch version of the release you’re using.

Call to action

For more information about Desired State Configuration v3.0 (DSC), see the DSC documentation.
We value your feedback. Stop by our GitHub repository and let us know of any issues you find.

Jason Helmick

Sr. Product Manager, PowerShell

The post Announcing Microsoft Desired State Configuration v3.1.0 appeared first on PowerShell Team.

Ransomware Actors Exploit Unpatched SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management to Compromise Utility Billing Software Provider

This post was originally published on this site

Summary

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is releasing this advisory in response to ransomware actors leveraging unpatched instances of a vulnerability in SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) to compromise customers of a utility billing software provider. This incident reflects a broader pattern of ransomware actors targeting organizations through unpatched versions of SimpleHelp RMM since January 2025.

SimpleHelp versions 5.5.7 and earlier contain several vulnerabilities, including CVE-2024-57727—a path traversal vulnerability.1 Ransomware actors likely leveraged CVE-2024-57727 to access downstream customers’ unpatched SimpleHelp RMM for disruption of services in double extortion compromises.1 

CISA added CVE-2024-57727 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog on Feb. 13, 2025.

CISA urges software vendors, downstream customers, and end users to immediately implement the Mitigations listed in this advisory based on confirmed compromise or risk of compromise.

Download the PDF version of this report:

Mitigations

CISA recommends organizations implement the mitigations below to respond to emerging ransomware activity exploiting SimpleHelp software. These mitigations align with the Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs) developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The CPGs provide a minimum set of practices and protections that CISA and NIST recommend all organizations implement. CISA and NIST based the CPGs on existing cybersecurity frameworks and guidance to protect against the most common and impactful threats, tactics, techniques, and procedures. Visit CISA’s CPGs webpage for more information on the CPGs, including additional recommended baseline protections. These mitigations apply to all critical infrastructure organizations.

Vulnerable Third-Party Vendors

If SimpleHelp is embedded or bundled in vendor-owned software or if a third-party service provider leverages SimpleHelp on a downstream customer’s network, then identify the SimpleHelp server version at the top of the file <file_path>/SimpleHelp/configuration/serverconfig.xml. If version 5.5.7 or prior is found or has been used since January 2025, third-party vendors should:

  1. Isolate the SimpleHelp server instance from the internet or stop the server process.
  2. Upgrade immediately to the latest SimpleHelp version in accordance with SimpleHelp’s security vulnerability advisory.2
  3. Contact your downstream customers to direct them to take actions to secure their endpoints and undertake threat hunting actions on their network.

Vulnerable Downstream Customers and End Users

Determine if the system is running an unpatched version of SimpleHelp RMM either directly or embedded in third-party software.

SimpleHelp Endpoints

Determine if an endpoint is running the remote access (RAS) service by checking the following paths depending on the specific environment:

  • Windows: %APPDATA%JWrapper-Remote Access
  • Linux: /opt/JWrapper-Remote Access
  • MacOs: /Library/Application Support/JWrapper-Remote Access

If RAS installation is present and running, open the serviceconfig.xml file in <file_path>/JWrapper-Remote Access/JWAppsSharedConfig/ to determine if the registered service is vulnerable. The lines starting with <ConnectTo indicate the server addresses where the service is registered.

SimpleHelp Server

Determine the version of any SimpleHelp server by performing an HTTP query against it. Add /allversions (e.g., https://simple-help.com/allversions) to query the URL for the version page. This page will list the running version.

If an unpatched SimpleHelp version 5.5.7 or earlier is confirmed on a system, organizations should conduct threat hunting actions for evidence of compromise and continuously monitor for unusual inbound and outbound traffic from the SimpleHelp server. Note: This is not an exhaustive list of indicators of compromise.

  1.  Refer to SimpleHelp’s guidance to determine compromise and next steps.3
  2. Isolate the SimpleHelp server instance from the internet or stop the server process.
  3. Search for any suspicious or anomalous executables with three alphabetic letter filenames (e.g., aaa.exe, bbb.exe, etc.) with a creation time after January 2025. Additionally, perform host and network vulnerability security scans via reputable scanning services to verify malware is not on the system.
  4. Even if there is no evidence of compromise, users should immediately upgrade to the latest SimpleHelp version in accordance with SimpleHelp’s security vulnerabilities advisory.4

If your organization is unable to immediately identify and patch vulnerable versions of SimpleHelp, apply appropriate workarounds. In this circumstance, CISA recommends using other vendor-provided mitigations when available. These non-patching workarounds should not be considered permanent fixes and organizations should apply the appropriate patch as soon as it is made available.

Encrypted Downstream Customers and End Users

If a system has been encrypted by ransomware:

  1. Disconnect the affected system from the internet.
  2. Use clean installation media (e.g., a bootable USD drive or DVD) to reinstall the operating system. Ensure the installation media is free from malware.
  3. Wipe the system and only restore data from a clean backup. Ensure data files are obtained from a protected environment to avoid reintroducing ransomware to the system.

CISA urges you to promptly report ransomware incidents to a local FBI Field Office, FBI’s Internet Crime Compliant Center (IC3), and CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov or 888-282-0870).

Proactive Mitigations to Reduce Risk

To reduce opportunities for intrusion and to strengthen response to ransomware activity, CISA recommends customers of vendors and managed service providers (MSPs) implement the following best practices:

  • Maintain a robust asset inventory and hardware list [CPG 1.A].
  • Maintain a clean, offline backup of the system to ensure encryption will not occur once reverted. Conduct a daily system backup on a separate, offline device, such as a flash drive or external hard drive. Remove the device from the computer after backup is complete [CPG 2.R].
  • Do not expose remote services such as Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) on the web. If these services must be exposed, apply appropriate compensating controls to prevent common forms of abuse and exploitation. Disable unnecessary OS applications and network protocols on internet-facing assets [CPG 2.W].
  • Conduct a risk analysis for RMM software on the network. If RMM is required, ask third-party vendors what security controls are in place.
  • Establish and maintain open communication channels with third-party vendors to stay informed about their patch management process.
  • For software vendors, consider integrating a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) into products to reduce the amount of time for vulnerability remediation.
    • An SBOM is a formal record of components used to build software. SBOMs enhance supply chain risk management by quickly identifying and avoiding known vulnerabilities, identifying security requirements, and managing mitigations for vulnerabilities. For more information, see CISA’s SBOM page.

Resources

Reporting

Your organization has no obligation to respond or provide information back to FBI in response to this advisory. If, after reviewing the information provided, your organization decides to provide information to FBI, reporting must be consistent with applicable state and federal laws.

FBI is interested in any information that can be shared, to include boundary logs showing communication to and from foreign IP addresses, a sample ransom note, communications with threat actors, Bitcoin wallet information, decryptor files, and/or a benign sample of an encrypted file.

Additional details of interest include a targeted company point of contact, status and scope of infection, estimated loss, operational impact, transaction IDs, date of infection, date detected, initial attack vector, and host- and network-based indicators.

CISA and FBI do not encourage paying ransom as payment does not guarantee victim files will be recovered. Furthermore, payment may also embolden adversaries to target additional organizations, encourage other criminal actors to engage in the distribution of ransomware, and/or fund illicit activities. Regardless of whether you or your organization have decided to pay the ransom, FBI and CISA urge you to promptly report ransomware incidents to FBI’s Internet Crime Complain Center (IC3), a local FBI Field Office, or CISA via the agency’s Incident Reporting System or its 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov) or by calling 1-844-Say-CISA (1-844-729-2472).

SimpleHelp users or vendors can contact support@simple-help.com for assistance with queries or concerns.

Disclaimer

The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. CISA does not endorse any commercial entity, product, company, or service, including any entities, products, or services linked within this document. Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favor by CISA.

Version History

June 12, 2025: Initial version.

Notes

1. Anthony Bradshaw, et. al., “DragonForce Actors Target SimpleHelp Vulnerabilities to Attack MSP, Customers,” Sophos News, May 27, 2025, https://news.sophos.com/en-us/2025/05/27/dragonforce-actors-target-simplehelp-vulnerabilities-to-attack-msp-customers/.
2. For instructions for upgrading to the latest version of SimpleHelp, see SimpleHelp’s security vulnerability advisory.
3. To determine possibility of compromise and next steps, see SimpleHelp’s guidance.
4. For instructions for upgrading to the latest version of SimpleHelp, see SimpleHelp’s security vulnerability advisory.