Microsoft Discloses Exchange Server Flaw Enabling Silent Cloud Access in Hybrid Setups

Microsoft has released an advisory for a high-severity security flaw affecting on-premise versions of Exchange Server that could allow an attacker to gain elevated privileges under certain conditions.
The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2025-53786, carries a CVSS score of 8.0. Dirk-jan Mollema with Outsider Security has been acknowledged for reporting the bug.
“In an Exchange hybrid deployment, an

from The Hacker News https://ift.tt/vXib1py
via IFTTT

The AI-Powered Security Shift: What 2025 Is Teaching Us About Cloud Defense

Now that we are well into 2025, cloud attacks are evolving faster than ever and artificial intelligence (AI) is both a weapon and a shield. As AI rapidly changes how enterprises innovate, security teams are now tasked with a triple burden:

Secure AI embedded in every part of the business.
Use AI to defend faster and smarter.
Fight AI-powered threats that execute in minutes—or seconds.

Security

from The Hacker News https://ift.tt/Ipqe79j
via IFTTT

Mass Internet Scanning from ASN 43350 [Guest Diary], (Thu, Aug 7th)

[This is a Guest Diary by Duncan Woosley, an ISC intern as part of the SANS.edu BACS program]

During the last three months I've had a DShield sensor online and collecting data from a deployment in AWS. This week I did some statistical analysis of the last three months of data and found surprising result. Of all the locations that scanned and attacked the DShield sensor, one location was a clear winner in terms of volume of traffic, accounting for over 65% of the total traffic sent to the sensor. To my surprise, that location was Panama!

Total DShield Sensor Traffic per Location

The top 10 locations were close to inline with common expectations, however, the traffic from Panama was greater than the total traffic from all the remaining locations combined!

Digging into the source of this anomaly, I filtered for traffic by day and found that there were massive spikes on just a few days in the last three months that accounted for most of the DShield sensor's captured volume.

Largest Single Days by volume from April 7th to July 7th

Each spike was found to be caused by traffic from a single IP each day, but the IP responsible for each spike was different. However, six of the top ten most active IPs were all from a single /24 subnet! The subnet 141.98.80.0/24 was the cause of 59.4% of total logs collected by the sensor. Moreover, nine of the top 10 IPs were from the same internet service provider (ISP) named "NForce Entertainment B.V."

Autonomous System Numbers (ASN) 43350 accounted for 71.6% of the total sensor logs! This ASN belonging to NForce Entertainment but NForce Entertainment appears to often lease out its IP space to other VPN and proxy providers like the Panama based Flyservers S.A. Flyservers is categorized as a "potentially very high fraud risk ISP" by Scamalytics and is likely the source of this activity.

Top ASNs by Total Traffic

Further research into this ISP found that the NForce Entertainment IP activity was often associated with phishing, malware, and scanning. As a Dutch ISP, they operate without strict regulatory oversight or pressure from their host nation to revoke threat actors’ use of their services.

Recommendations

Unfortunately, the solution for network defenders isn't as simple as blocking all traffic from NForce Entertainment. If your organization is in a position where no NForce Entertainment traffic is required for business, this may be an option, but the majority of organizations don’t allow sweeping IP blocking. Instead, I would recommend blocking only sensitive services and HTTP(S) endpoints that allow for logins. The following actions are recommended.

•    Flagging traffic from NForce Entertainment and particularly from ASN 43350.
•    Block access to Remote Desktop Protocol from the internet.
•    Monitor for SSH activity from ASN 43350 and configured SSH to use key based authentication.
•    Implement a Web Application Firewall (WAF) for all web applications and monitor activity originating from any sources for suspicious queries.
•    Create a WAF alert threshold for high traffic originating from a single source.

[1] https://ift.tt/T087ocX
[2] https://scamalytics.com
[3] https://owasp.org/www-community/Web_Application_Firewall
[4] https://ift.tt/oBITSkv

NOTE: ChatGTP was used for Spelling and grammar checks only
———–
Guy Bruneau IPSS Inc.
My GitHub Page
Twitter: GuyBruneau
gbruneau at isc dot sans dot edu

(c) SANS Internet Storm Center. https://isc.sans.edu Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

from SANS Internet Storm Center, InfoCON: green https://ift.tt/iUotwnx
via IFTTT

Researchers Uncover ECScape Flaw in Amazon ECS Enabling Cross-Task Credential Theft

Cybersecurity researchers have demonstrated an “end-to-end privilege escalation chain” in Amazon Elastic Container Service (ECS) that could be exploited by an attacker to conduct lateral movement, access sensitive data, and seize control of the cloud environment.
The attack technique has been codenamed ECScape by Sweet Security researcher Naor Haziz, who presented the findings today at the

from The Hacker News https://ift.tt/huClmvy
via IFTTT

Minimize AI hallucinations and deliver up to 99% verification accuracy with Automated Reasoning checks: Now available

Today, I’m happy to share that Automated Reasoning checks, a new Amazon Bedrock Guardrails policy that we previewed during AWS re:Invent, is now generally available. Automated Reasoning checks helps you validate the accuracy of content generated by foundation models (FMs) against a domain knowledge. This can help prevent factual errors due to AI hallucinations. The policy uses mathematical logic and formal verification techniques to validate accuracy, providing definitive rules and parameters against which AI responses are checked for accuracy.

This approach is fundamentally different from probabilistic reasoning methods which deal with uncertainty by assigning probabilities to outcomes. In fact, Automated Reasoning checks delivers up to 99% verification accuracy, providing provable assurance in detecting AI hallucinations while also assisting with ambiguity detection when the output of a model is open to more than one interpretation.

With general availability, you get the following new features:

  • Support for large documents in a single build, up to 80K tokens – Process extensive documentation; we found this can add up to 100 pages of content
  • Simplified policy validation – Save your validation tests and run them repeatedly, making it easier to maintain and verify your policies over time
  • Automated scenario generation – Create test scenarios automatically from your definitions, saving time and effort while helping make coverage more comprehensive
  • Enhanced policy feedback – Provide natural language suggestions for policy changes, simplifying the way you can improve your policies
  • Customizable validation settings – Adjust confidence score thresholds to match your specific needs, giving you more control over validation strictness

Let’s see how this works in practice.

Creating Automated Reasoning checks in Amazon Bedrock Guardrails
To use Automated Reasoning checks, you first encode rules from your knowledge domain into an Automated Reasoning policy, then use the policy to validate generated content. For this scenario, I’m going to create a mortgage approval policy to safeguard an AI assistant evaluating who can qualify for a mortgage. It is important that the predictions of the AI system do not deviate from the rules and guidelines established for mortgage approval. These rules and guidelines are captured in a policy document written in natural language.

In the Amazon Bedrock console, I choose Automated Reasoning from the navigation pane to create a policy.

I enter name and description of the policy and upload the PDF of the policy document. The name and description are just metadata and do not contribute in building the Automated Reasoning policy. I describe the source content to add context on how it should be translated into formal logic. For example, I explain how I plan to use the policy in my application, including sample Q&A from the AI assistant.

Consoel screenshot.

When the policy is ready, I land on the overview page, showing the policy details and a summary of the tests and definitions. I choose Definitions from the dropdown to examine the Automated Reasoning policy, made of rules, variables, and types that have been created to translate the natural language policy into formal logic.

The Rules describe how variables in the policy are related and are used when evaluating the generated content. For example, in this case, which are the thresholds to apply and how some of the decisions are taken. For traceability, each rule has its own unique ID.

Console screenshot.

The Variables represent the main concepts at play in the original natural language documents. Each variable is involved in one or more rules. Variables allow complex structures to be easier to understand. For this scenario, some of the rules need to look at the down payment or at the credit score.

Console screenshot.

Custom Types are created for variables that are neither boolean nor numeric. For example, for variables that can only assume a limited number of values. In this case, there are two type of mortgage described in the policy, insured and conventional.

Console screenshot.

Now we can assess the quality of the initial Automated Reasoning policy through testing. I choose Tests from the dropdown. Here I can manually enter a test, consisting of input (optional) and output, such as a question and its possible answer from the interaction of a customer with the AI assistant. I then set the expected result from the Automated Reasoning check. The expected result can be valid (the answer is correct), invalid (the answer is not correct), or satisfiable (the answer could be true or false depending on specific assumptions). I can also assign a confidence threshold for the translation of the query/content pair from natural language to logic.

Before I enter tests manually, I use the option to automatically generate a scenario from the definitions. This is the easiest way to validate a policy and (unless you’re an expert in logic) should be the first step after the creation of the policy.

For each generated scenario, I provide an expected validation to say if it is something that can happen (satisfiable) or not (invalid). If not, I can add an annotation that can then be used to update the definitions. For a more advanced understanding of the generated scenario, I can show the formal logic representation of a test using SMT-LIB syntax.

Console screenshot.

After using the generate scenario option, I enter a few tests manually. For these tests, I set different expected results: some are valid, because they follow the policy, some are invalid, because they flout the policy, and some are satisfiable, because their result depends on specific assumptions.

Console screenshot.

Then, I choose Validate all tests to see the results. All tests passed in this case. Now, when I update the policy, I can use these tests to validate that the changes didn’t introduce errors.

Console screenshot.

For each test, I can look at the findings. If a test doesn’t pass, I can look at the rules that created the contradiction that made the test fail and go against the expected result. Using this information, I can understand if I should add an annotation, to improve the policy, or correct the test.

Console screenshot.

Now that I’m satisfied with the tests, I can create a new Amazon Bedrock guardrail (or update an existing one) to use up to two Automated Reasoning policies to check the validity of the responses of the AI assistant. All six policies offered by Guardrails are modular, and can be used together or separately. For example, Automated Reasoning checks can be used with other safeguards such as content filtering and contextual grounding checks. The guardrail can be applied to models served by Amazon Bedrock or with any third-party model (such as OpenAI and Google Gemini) via the ApplyGuardrail API. I can also use the guardrail with an agent framework such as Strands Agents, including agents deployed using Amazon Bedrock AgentCore.

Console screenshot.

Now that we saw how to set up a policy, let’s look at how Automated Reasoning checks are used in practice.

Customer case study – Utility outage management systems
When the lights go out, every minute counts. That’s why utility companies are turning to AI solutions to improve their outage management systems. We collaborated on a solution in this space together with PwC. Using Automated Reasoning checks, utilities can streamline operations through:

  • Automated protocol generation – Creates standardized procedures that meet regulatory requirements
  • Real-time plan validation – Ensures response plans comply with established policies
  • Structured workflow creation – Develops severity-based workflows with defined response targets

At its core, this solution combines intelligent policy management with optimized response protocols. Automated Reasoning checks are used to assess AI-generated responses. When a response is found to be invalid or satisfiable, the result of the Automated Reasoning check is used to rewrite or enhance the answer.

This approach demonstrates how AI can transform traditional utility operations, making them more efficient, reliable, and responsive to customer needs. By combining mathematical precision with practical requirements, this solution sets a new standard for outage management in the utility sector. The result is faster response times, improved accuracy, and better outcomes for both utilities and their customers.

In the words of Matt Wood, PwC’s Global and US Commercial Technology and Innovation Officer:

“At PwC, we’re helping clients move from AI pilot to production with confidence—especially in highly regulated industries where the cost of a misstep is measured in more than dollars. Our collaboration with AWS on Automated Reasoning checks is a breakthrough in responsible AI: mathematically assessed safeguards, now embedded directly into Amazon Bedrock Guardrails. We’re proud to be AWS’s launch collaborator, bringing this innovation to life across sectors like pharma, utilities, and cloud compliance—where trust isn’t a feature, it’s a requirement.”

Things to know
Automated Reasoning checks in Amazon Bedrock Guardrails is generally available today in the following AWS Regions: US East (Ohio, N. Virginia), US West (Oregon), and Europe (Frankfurt, Ireland, Paris).

With Automated Reasoning checks, you pay based on the amount of text processed. For more information, see Amazon Bedrock pricing.

To learn more, and build secure and safe AI applications, see the technical documentation and the GitHub code samples. Follow this link for direct access to the Amazon Bedrock console.

The videos in this playlist include an introduction to Automated Reasoning checks, a deep dive presentation, and hands-on tutorials to create, test, and refine a policy.

Danilo

from AWS News Blog https://ift.tt/3S6XA4J
via IFTTT

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

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?

I thought that it might be worthwhile to try and find out, so I decided to go over sextortion messages that were delivered to my various spam traps and e-mail accounts during the past 12 months and see whether the cryptocurrency addresses mentioned in them actually received any payments.

In total, I collected 21 different e-mail messages that asked for payment to be sent to 15 distinct cryptocurrency addresses (13 of these were Bitcoin addresses and 2 were Litecoin addresses). For completeness’s sake, it should be noted that while most of the addresses were only seen in e-mails delivered during a single day, this wasn’t always the case, as one of the addresses was observed in messages sent out 32 days apart.

Admittedly, 15 addresses represent a rather small sample size, but it proved to be more than sufficient to give us the desired information about the continued effectiveness of sextortion…

In the sextortion messages, their senders were asking for payments of between $750 and $1,550, with average and median requested amounts being $1,203 and $1,250, respectively. While 6 of the 15 identified addresses didn’t receive any payments at all, the remaining 9 did – in total, incoming transactions to these addresses amounted to between $945 and $10,715, with average and median total amounts received being $1,836 and $1,028, respectively.

Although not all incoming payments to the addresses were necessarily connected  solely to sextortion, it seems highly probable that at least most of them were… Which suggests that even in 2025, sextortion is still a relevant threat, and a topic that warrants attention in security awareness programs.

———–
Jan Kopriva
LinkedIn
Nettles Consulting

(c) SANS Internet Storm Center. https://isc.sans.edu Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

from SANS Internet Storm Center, InfoCON: green https://ift.tt/MoIL1S3
via IFTTT