Welcome to the January 2025 ransomware update, where we highlight the latest trends, threat actors, and developments in the ransomware ecosystem to keep CISOs and third-party risk managers informed and prepared.
The Black Kite Research & Intelligence Team (BRITE) tracked 546 ransomware incidents in January 2025, marking a sharp increase compared to January 2024, which saw approximately 300 cases. This significant rise indicates that ransomware activity is escalating at an alarming pace. Among these incidents, 274 were recorded in the United States, 32 in Canada, 23 in the United Kingdom, and 18 in France.
Manufacturing was the most targeted sector, followed by technical services. Closing out December with 535 cases, ransomware groups have historically shown a tendency to slow down at the beginning of the year. However, this year is proving to be an exception.
Top Threat Actors in January 2025
The Clop ransomware group took the lead in January 2025 by a significant margin with 115 publicly disclosed victims. As usual, RansomHub remained among the top-ranking groups with 42 victims. One of the most notable groups this month was Lynx, which saw a major surge with 42 victims in January. They were followed by the Akira group, which recorded 38 victims.
Clop Is No Joke, But It’s Not What It Used to Be
Nearly all of the 115 Clop attacks were linked to the CLEO vulnerability, continuing the momentum from Clop’s December disclosures. Initially, only 50 victims were expected, but as the group continues to release names in alphabetical order, the final number could reach 500.
Among these 115 victims, the United States was the most affected, with 79 cases, followed by Canada with 12 and the Netherlands with 4.
In terms of industry impact among these attacks, the manufacturing sector suffered the highest number of attacks, with 34 victims. It was followed by the transportation sector with 18 victims, the information technology sector with 17, and the technical services sector with 14.
Two years ago, during the MoveIT disclosures, Clop was at the center of global media attention. Now, despite its high ransomware activity, the group seems to be struggling to capture the same level of interest. They kept postponing victim disclosures, which was unusual for them, and then starting sharing victims in a different way to seek attention. Whether this signals Clop’s waning influence or a shift in public perception remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the group appears increasingly frustrated by the lack of attention.
Screenshot from the site where Clop now publishes stolen data.
FunkSec: From Ransomware to Full-Fledged Cybercrime Group
FunkSec continued its aggressive expansion in January, making headlines with its unconventional tactics:
Launched FunkBID, a data leak auction platform.
Announced a partnership with Fsociety for joint ransomware operations.
Gave media interviews, shedding light on their internal workings.
Released FunkSec V1.2, their own Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) for $100.
Threatened a cybersecurity researcher who had written about them.
Established their own forum to further expand their operations.
Screenshot of the site where Funksec announced Funksec V1.2
Key takeaways from their recent interview:
They claim to be entirely self-taught with no external affiliations.
AI plays a role in their operations, but they state it accounts for only 20%.
They have developed their own GPT model for internal use.
Their primary goal is financial gain, but they explicitly state hostility toward Israel and the U.S.
The group consists of four members.
While hacking remains their focus, they employ specialized ransomware developers.
They use tools like Shodan Premium and Burp Pro, alongside advanced custom brute force tools.
Rust is their programming language of choice.
FunkSec’s erratic yet calculated moves make them one of the most unpredictable actors in the ransomware ecosystem. Their expansion beyond traditional ransomware operations suggests a broader ambition that could redefine the threat landscape.
Is Babuk Back? Or Just an Imposter?
A new leak site emerged in January claiming to be affiliated with Babuk, publishing 60 alleged victims. While this sparked speculation that the notorious ransomware group had returned, our analysis revealed that most of the disclosed victims had already been published by FunkSec, RansomHub, and LockBit.
Shortly after the site gained traction, access was restricted, leaving its authenticity in question. Whether this marks the actual return of Babuk or merely an opportunistic attempt to capitalize on the name remains unclear.
Screenshot of the new Babuk Ransomware Leaks Site.
New Groups Keep Emerging, but Originality Is Fading
Ransomware groups continue to surface at an increasing rate, and the rise of Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) is undoubtedly fueling this trend. However, despite this growth, these groups seem to do little more than mimic each other. Many simply replicate existing leak sites, making it increasingly difficult to track them as they blur into one another.
In previous years, such copycat behavior was less common, but now it’s becoming the norm. This shift strongly suggests that experienced cybercriminals are being replaced by younger, less-skilled actors. As a result, while the number of ransomware groups grows, innovation within the ecosystem seems to be stagnating.
A new group appears to imitate the RansomHub group.
Attacks Are Increasing, but Ransom Payments Are Decreasing
While ransomware attacks surged in 2024, total ransom payments dropped by 35%, amounting to $813.55 million. Companies are increasingly adopting robust cybersecurity measures, improving backup strategies, and benefiting from law enforcement crackdowns on cybercriminals.
Notably, the international operation “Operation Cronos” disrupted LockBit’s infrastructure, demonstrating the growing impact of coordinated cybercrime enforcement. However, despite these advancements, ransomware groups are evolving their tactics, becoming more aggressive in their extortion methods.
In response, the UK government is considering stricter regulations, including:
Banning public institutions and critical infrastructure providers from making ransom payments.
Mandating all victims to report ransomware incidents to authorities.
Authorities believe these measures will curb ransomware groups’ financial streams and act as a deterrent. If enacted, these regulations could reshape how organizations respond to ransomware threats.
Key Takeaways
January 2025 set a record-breaking pace for ransomware incidents.
Clop led the charge but may be struggling to maintain its past level of influence.
FunkSec is rapidly expanding its operations beyond ransomware, building a cybercrime ecosystem.
The alleged return of Babuk remains uncertain, raising questions about its legitimacy.
While ransom payments are declining, attack volume is increasing, prompting tighter regulations.
For cybersecurity teams, 2025 is already shaping up to be one of the most challenging years yet. Black Kite’s Ransomware Susceptibility Index® (RSITM) offers a proactive approach by assessing the likelihood of a ransomware attack throughout the third-party ecosystem. By leveraging RSI, risk managers can identify high-risk vendors before an attack strikes, prioritize remediation efforts, and ultimately safeguard their organizations against the escalating threat.
Dig into our full 2025 Third Party Breach Report: The Silent Breach: How Third Parties Became the Biggest Cyber Threat in 2024 – accessible instantly, no download required.
In this week’s Focus Friday, we examine high-impact vulnerabilities affecting Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS, Ivanti Connect Secure, Zimbra Collaboration, and Cacti, all of which pose significant third-party risk concerns. These vulnerabilities range from remote code execution (RCE) flaws to SQL injection attacks that could lead to data breaches, system takeovers, and supply chain risks.
Organizations relying on network security appliances, email collaboration tools, and monitoring frameworks must take proactive measures to assess their exposure and secure their vendor ecosystem against these threats. In this blog, we provide an in-depth Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) perspective, detailing how these vulnerabilities could impact vendor security postures and what questions security teams should ask to mitigate risks.
Additionally, we highlight how Black Kite’s FocusTags™ provide real-time insights into vendor exposure, helping organizations prioritize remediation efforts and streamline their risk management processes.
Filtered view of companies with PAN-OS – Feb2025 FocusTag™ on the Black Kite platform.
CVE-2025-0108, CVE-2025-0110: Authentication Bypass & Command Injection in PAN-OS
What are the PAN-OS Authentication Bypass and Command Injection Vulnerabilities?
Two high-severity vulnerabilities have been identified in Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS, affecting network security devices:
CVE-2025-0108 (Authentication Bypass – CVSS: 8.8): This vulnerability affects the management web interface of PAN-OS. An unauthenticated attacker with network access can bypass authentication and invoke specific PHP scripts. While it does not allow remote code execution, it compromises system integrity and confidentiality.
CVE-2025-0110 (Command Injection – CVSS: 8.6): Found in the OpenConfig plugin, this vulnerability enables an authenticated administrator with gNMI request privileges to inject and execute arbitrary commands. The commands run as the _openconfig user, which has Device Administrator privileges, potentially leading to full system compromise.
Both vulnerabilities were published on February 12, 2025. One proof-of-concept exploit is available on github.com. There is no evidence of active exploitation or inclusion in CISA’s KEV catalog at this time. However, PAN-OS vulnerabilities have been targeted in the past, making proactive mitigation crucial.
Why Should TPRM Professionals Be Concerned About These Vulnerabilities?
Third-party risk management (TPRM) professionals should be concerned due to the critical role of PAN-OS in enterprise cybersecurity.
Authentication Bypass (CVE-2025-0108): Attackers could exploit this flaw to gain unauthorized access to PAN-OS management functions, leading to potential misconfigurations, unauthorized changes, or exposure of sensitive network settings.
Command Injection (CVE-2025-0110): If the OpenConfig plugin is enabled, an attacker with administrator access could execute arbitrary system commands, escalating privileges or deploying persistent malware on PAN-OS devices.
For vendors relying on PAN-OS for perimeter security, exploitation of these vulnerabilities could lead to network-wide security breaches, data exposure, and compromised firewall configurations.
What Questions Should TPRM Professionals Ask Vendors?
To assess vendor exposure, TPRM professionals should ask:
Have you identified any PAN-OS devices in your environment that are running vulnerable versions (before PAN-OS 11.2.4-h4, 11.1.6-h1, 10.2.13-h3, 10.1.14-h9)?
Do you use the OpenConfig plugin in PAN-OS? If so, have you verified that it is updated to version 2.1.2 or later?
What access controls are in place to restrict exposure of the PAN-OS management web interface to untrusted networks?
Have you applied Palo Alto Networks’ recommended mitigations, such as disabling unused plugins and restricting management access?
Remediation Recommendations for Vendors Subject to this Risk
To mitigate the risk associated with these vulnerabilities, vendors should:
✔ Upgrade PAN-OS to patched versions:
PAN-OS 11.2 → Upgrade to 11.2.4-h4 or later
PAN-OS 11.1 → Upgrade to 11.1.6-h1 or later
PAN-OS 10.2 → Upgrade to 10.2.13-h3 or later
PAN-OS 10.1 → Upgrade to 10.1.14-h9 or later
If running PAN-OS 11.0 (EoL), upgrade to a supported version.
✔ Update OpenConfig plugin to version 2.1.2 or later (if enabled). ✔ Restrict management interface access to trusted internal IPs only. ✔ Disable the OpenConfig plugin if not in use to reduce the attack surface. ✔ Monitor system logs for unusual access or command execution activity. ✔ Apply Palo Alto Networks’ Threat Prevention rules to block potential exploits (Threat IDs 510000, 510001).
How TPRM Professionals Can Leverage Black Kite for These Vulnerabilities
Black Kite has tagged this issue as “PAN-OS – Feb2025” with a VERY HIGH confidence level.
The FocusTag™ identifies vendors potentially affected by CVE-2025-0108 and CVE-2025-0110.
Black Kite provides asset intelligence, including IP addresses and subdomains hosting vulnerable PAN-OS instances.
The FocusTag™ was published on February 13, 2025, allowing TPRM teams to take proactive measures before potential exploitation.
Black Kite’s PAN-OS – Feb2025 FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
CVE-2025-22467, CVE-2024-38657, CVE-2024-10644: Critical Vulnerabilities in Ivanti Connect Secure and Policy Secure
What Are the Critical Vulnerabilities in Ivanti Connect Secure and Policy Secure?
Multiple critical vulnerabilities have been identified in Ivanti Connect Secure (ICS) and Ivanti Policy Secure (IPS) products:
CVE-2025-22467 (CVSS: 9.9): A stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in ICS versions prior to 22.7R2.6. This flaw allows a remote authenticated attacker with low privileges to execute arbitrary code, potentially leading to full system compromise.
CVE-2024-38657 (CVSS: 9.1): An external control of file name or path vulnerability affecting ICS (before 22.7R2.4) and IPS (before 22.7R1.3). A remote authenticated attacker with administrative privileges can write arbitrary files on the system, which may lead to unauthorized file manipulation or system compromise.
CVE-2024-10644 (CVSS: 9.1): A code injection vulnerability in ICS (before 22.7R2.4) and IPS (before 22.7R1.3). This allows a remote authenticated attacker with administrative privileges to execute arbitrary commands on the system, potentially resulting in complete system control.
These vulnerabilities were publicly disclosed on February 11, 2025. As of now, there is no evidence of active exploitation in the wild, and they have not been added to CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. Other vulnerabilities to be mindful of include CVE-2024-12058 (arbitrary file read), CVE-2024-13842 (sensitive data exposure), and CVE-2024-13843 (cleartext storage of sensitive information), which, despite their lower CVSS scores, should still be carefully considered.
Why Should TPRM Professionals Be Concerned About These Vulnerabilities?
Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) professionals should be concerned due to the following reasons:
Remote Code Execution Risks: Exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code or commands, leading to unauthorized access, data breaches, and potential lateral movement within the network.
Privilege Escalation: Attackers with low-level access could exploit these flaws to escalate privileges, gaining administrative control over critical systems.
Supply Chain Impact: Vendors utilizing vulnerable versions of ICS and IPS may inadvertently expose connected organizations to security risks, emphasizing the importance of assessing third-party security postures.
What Questions Should TPRM Professionals Ask Vendors About These Vulnerabilities?
To assess vendor exposure, TPRM professionals should inquire:
Which versions of Ivanti Connect Secure and Ivanti Policy Secure are currently deployed within your environment?
Have the identified vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-22467, CVE-2024-38657, CVE-2024-10644) been remediated by updating to the latest recommended versions?
What measures are in place to monitor and detect potential exploitation attempts related to these vulnerabilities?
Is multi-factor authentication (MFA) enabled for all administrative access to these systems?
Remediation Recommendations for Vendors Subject to This Risk
To mitigate the risks associated with these vulnerabilities, vendors should:
✔ Update to Patched Versions:
For Ivanti Connect Secure, upgrade to version 22.7R2.6 or later.
For Ivanti Policy Secure, upgrade to version 22.7R1.3 or later.
✔ Restrict Administrative Privileges:
Limit administrative access to essential personnel.
Enforce principle of least privilege to reduce risk.
✔ Implement Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA):
Ensure MFA is enabled for all administrative and remote access.
✔ Monitor System Logs:
Regularly review logs for unusual activities or signs of attempted exploitation.
✔ Apply Security Best Practices:
Follow Ivanti’s security guidelines to mitigate risks associated with authenticated users.
How TPRM Professionals Can Leverage Black Kite for These Vulnerabilities
Black Kite has tagged these vulnerabilities under “Ivanti Connect Secure – Feb2025” with a HIGH confidence level.
The FocusTag™ provides detailed information on vendors potentially affected by these vulnerabilities.
Black Kite’s asset intelligence helps identify IP addresses and subdomains hosting vulnerable instances.
This enables TPRM teams to proactively assess and address risks associated with these vulnerabilities.
Black Kite’s Ivanti Connect Secure – Feb2025 FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
Zimbra Collaboration (formerly known as Zimbra Collaboration Suite or ZCS) is an open-source and commercial groupware email platform. It includes features such as email, calendaring, contacts, task management, instant messaging, and file sharing, designed for enterprises, government institutions, and service providers.
What is CVE-2025-25064?
CVE-2025-25064 is a critical SQL injection vulnerability affecting Zimbra Collaboration versions 10.0.x prior to 10.0.12 and 10.1.x prior to 10.1.4. This flaw arises from insufficient sanitization of user-supplied parameters in the ZimbraSync Service SOAP endpoint. Authenticated attackers can exploit this vulnerability by manipulating specific request parameters to inject arbitrary SQL queries, potentially allowing unauthorized retrieval of email metadata and other sensitive information. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 9.8, indicating its critical severity, and an EPSS score of 0.05%. It was publicly disclosed on February 9, 2025. As of now, there is no evidence of active exploitation in the wild, and it has not been added to CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
Why Should TPRM Professionals Be Concerned About CVE-2025-25064?
Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) professionals should be concerned about CVE-2025-25064 due to its potential impact on email security. Zimbra Collaboration is widely used by organizations for email and collaboration services. Exploitation of this vulnerability could allow attackers to access sensitive email metadata, leading to unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. If a vendor utilizes vulnerable Zimbra Collaboration products, their compromised systems could serve as entry points for attackers, resulting in data breaches and disruptions that may affect connected organizations.
What Questions Should TPRM Professionals Ask Vendors Regarding CVE-2025-25064?
To assess and mitigate risks associated with this vulnerability, TPRM professionals should inquire:
Have you updated all instances of Zimbra Collaboration to versions 10.0.12 or 10.1.4, where CVE-2025-25064 has been patched?
Can you confirm if you have implemented access restrictions to the ZimbraSync Service SOAP endpoint to trusted networks and users as recommended?
Have you deployed Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) to detect and block SQL injection attempts targeting Zimbra Collaboration?
Do you regularly monitor server and application logs for unusual or unauthorized activities, particularly related to the ZimbraSync Service?
Remediation Recommendations for Vendors
Vendors using affected Zimbra Collaboration products should:
Update Software: Upgrade to Zimbra Collaboration versions 10.0.12 or 10.1.4, where this vulnerability has been addressed.
Restrict Access: Limit access to the ZimbraSync Service SOAP endpoint to trusted networks and users to minimize potential exploitation vectors.
Implement Web Application Firewalls (WAF): Deploy WAFs to detect and block SQL injection attempts and other malicious activities targeting web applications.
Monitor Logs: Regularly review server and application logs for unusual or unauthorized activities, particularly related to the ZimbraSync Service.
How Can TPRM Professionals Leverage Black Kite for This Vulnerability?
Black Kite has proactively addressed this issue by publishing the “Zimbra – Feb2025” FocusTag™ on February 11, 2025. This tag enables TPRM professionals to identify vendors potentially affected by CVE-2025-25064. By providing detailed asset information, including IP addresses and subdomains associated with the compromised devices, Black Kite empowers organizations to assess and mitigate risks efficiently. This actionable intelligence allows for targeted inquiries and remediation efforts, ensuring a robust third-party risk management strategy.
Black Kite’s Zimbra – Feb2025 FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
CVE-2025-22604: Critical Remote Code Execution Vulnerability in Cacti
Cacti is an open-source network monitoring and graphing tool designed to collect, store, and visualize performance data for IT infrastructure. It is widely used by network administrators and IT professionals to monitor network devices, servers, and applications in real time.
What is the Cacti Remote Code Execution Vulnerability?
CVE-2025-22604 is a critical security flaw in Cacti, an open-source network monitoring and fault management framework. This vulnerability allows authenticated users with device management permissions to execute arbitrary commands on the server by injecting malformed Object Identifiers (OIDs) into SNMP responses. When processed by functions like ss_net_snmp_disk_io() or ss_net_snmp_disk_bytes(), parts of these OIDs are used as keys in an array that becomes part of a system command, leading to remote code execution (RCE). The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 9.1. It was publicly disclosed on January 26, 2025. There is no evidence of proof of exploitation at the moment.
Why Should TPRM Professionals Be Concerned About This Vulnerability?
Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) professionals should be concerned about CVE-2025-22604 because Cacti is widely used by organizations to monitor network performance and availability. A successful exploit of this vulnerability could allow attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the server, potentially compromising system integrity and data security. This could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive information, disruption of network monitoring capabilities, and further exploitation within the organization’s network. Given the critical nature of this vulnerability and the availability of proof-of-concept exploit code, it is imperative for organizations to assess their exposure and ensure that their vendors have addressed this issue.
What Questions Should TPRM Professionals Ask Vendors About CVE-2025-22604?
To assess the risk associated with this vulnerability, TPRM professionals should consider asking vendors the following questions:
Have you identified any instances of Cacti within your infrastructure that are affected by CVE-2025-22604?
If so, have you updated all affected Cacti installations to version 1.2.29 or later to mitigate this vulnerability?
What measures have you implemented to restrict SNMP access to trusted users and networks?
Do you regularly monitor system logs and SNMP activity for unusual or unauthorized actions?
Remediation Recommendations for Vendors Subject to This Risk
Vendors should take the following actions to remediate the risk associated with CVE-2025-22604:
Upgrade Cacti: Update all Cacti installations to version 1.2.29 or later, as this version addresses the vulnerability.
Restrict SNMP Access: Limit SNMP access to trusted users and networks to reduce potential attack vectors.
Monitor Systems: Regularly review system logs and SNMP activity for any unusual or unauthorized actions.
Review Permissions: Ensure that only necessary personnel have device management permissions within Cacti.
How TPRM Professionals Can Leverage Black Kite for This Vulnerability
Black Kite has published a FocusTag™ titled “Cacti – Feb2025” to help organizations identify potential exposure to CVE-2025-22604. TPRM professionals can utilize this tag to assess their vendors’ risk related to this vulnerability. By leveraging Black Kite’s platform, professionals can identify vendors using vulnerable versions of Cacti and take proactive steps to mitigate potential risks. This includes obtaining asset information such as IP addresses and subdomains associated with the vendors’ systems, which is crucial for effective risk assessment and management.
Black Kite’s Cacti – Feb2025 FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
Maximizing TPRM Effectiveness with Black Kite’s FocusTags™
With high-profile vulnerabilities such as PAN-OS authentication bypass (CVE-2025-0108), Ivanti Connect Secure RCE (CVE-2025-22467), Zimbra SQL injection (CVE-2025-25064), and Cacti remote code execution (CVE-2025-22604), organizations must rapidly assess third-party security risks to prevent cascading impacts. Black Kite’s FocusTags™ enable security teams to efficiently identify, analyze, and mitigate these threats by offering:
✅ Real-Time Risk Identification – Instant visibility into which vendors are affected by the latest vulnerabilities, allowing organizations to take immediate action. ✅ Risk Prioritization – Insights into vendor importance and vulnerability severity, helping security teams allocate resources effectively. ✅ Informed Vendor Engagement – Targeted discussions with vendors about their security measures and remediation strategies for identified vulnerabilities. ✅ Comprehensive Security Posture Enhancement – A holistic view of third-party risks, enabling organizations to make data-driven security decisions.
By leveraging Black Kite’s FocusTags™, organizations can stay ahead of evolving cyber threats, ensuring proactive risk mitigation in their third-party ecosystems. These tags provide critical intelligence, transforming complex vulnerability data into actionable insights for better vendor security management.
Want to take a closer look at FocusTags™?
Take our platform for a test drive and request a demo today.
Every week, we delve into the realms of critical vulnerabilities and their implications from a Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) perspective. This series is dedicated to shedding light on pressing cybersecurity threats, offering in-depth analyses, and providing actionable insights.
FocusTagsTM in the Last 30 Days:
PAN-OS – Feb2025: CVE-2025-0108, CVE-2025-0110, Authentication Bypass Vulnerability, OS Command Injection Vulnerability in Palo Alto’s PAN-OS.
Every breach tells a story. In 2024, that story was about third-party vulnerabilities becoming the preferred entry point for attackers. From ransomware attacks that threatened supply chains to credential misuse that compromised entire industries, third-party breaches surged in both scale and sophistication.
Black Kite’s 2025 Third-Party Breach Report takes a deep dive into these incidents, analyzing the most significant third-party breaches of 2024 to identify the key trends shaping the future of cybersecurity. This year’s findings highlight critical shifts in the third-party risk landscape: ransomware affiliates are becoming more aggressive, unauthorized network access remains the most exploited attack vector, and regulatory frameworks are driving improvements — but not evenly across industries.
5 Takeaways from the 2025 Third-Party Breach Report
For cybersecurity leaders looking to adapt their strategies for the year ahead, here are a few notable findings from this year’s report — and what they mean for your approach to third-party risk management.
Read Black Kite’s 2025 Third-Party Breach Report, no download required.
1. A shift to continuous risk monitoring
In 2024, the Cleo File Transfer ransomware attack was a wake-up call that exposed the shortcomings of traditional third-party risk management. Attackers exploited unpatched vulnerabilities in widely used file transfer software, impacting dozens of organizations across industries. Traditional security assessments failed to catch these risks, but proactive monitoring tools could have flagged these vulnerabilities before attackers did.
For example, for too long, third-party risk management (TPRM) has relied on security questionnaires. Organizations track response rates, completion metrics, and compliance checklists — but breaches keep happening. The problem? These assessments measure vendor effort, not actual security posture, and for one point in time at that..
Meanwhile, ransomware groups aren’t wasting time with paperwork. They’re studying supply chains, buying marketing intelligence, and doing everything they can to learn more about their victims and their supply chains. Questionnaires are no defense against this kind of sophisticated, intentional approach.
Organizations need to move beyond static assessments and embrace real-time risk intelligence to detect vulnerabilities before they’re exploited. Instead of relying solely on vendors’ self-reported security measures, organizations should implement continuous monitoring tools that provide real-time visibility into third-party risks. During the Cleo File Transfer ransomware campaign, for example, Black Kite’s FocusTags™ helped organizations identify at-risk vendors and implement rapid mitigation strategies to prevent further breaches.
2. Affiliates are changing the rules of ransomware
Ransomware operations underwent a major shift in 2024, driven by changes in the underground cybercrime economy. The February attack on Change Healthcare didn’t just impact pharmacies, doctors, and hospitals — it reshaped the entire ransomware market. A payment dispute between an affiliate and a major ransomware group led to a structural change, where affiliates gained greater control and financial incentives.
This affiliate-led model has fueled a spike in ransomware activity. Now, instead of centralized ransomware groups leading the charge, affiliates are operating with more autonomy, deploying multiple types of ransomware and significantly increasing the frequency of attacks.
Healthcare bore the brunt of these attacks in 2024, accounting for over 40% of all third-party breaches. And unlike ransomware groups that historically followed an informal “twisted code of conduct” — where healthcare organizations were considered off-limits — modern affiliates have no such boundaries. They prioritize financial gain over all else, choosing targets based on likelihood to pay. The Cencora ransomware attack, for instance, allegedly resulted in a $75 million ransom payment, exposing sensitive patient data and revealing the cascading impact of third-party breaches.
This shift in ransomware tactics means organizations can no longer rely on past attack patterns to predict future threats. With financially motivated affiliates now driving attacks, businesses must invest in tools designed to proactively monitor and manage third-party risks to ensure a rapid response to disruptive events.
3. Regulations are driving cybersecurity improvements
Regulatory frameworks like DORA, HIPAA, and GDPR have been catalysts for critical risk management improvements, particularly in industries with strict compliance mandates. According to our findings, among vendors that experienced a breach and subsequently improved their cyber rating by at least 3 points, 72% serve the healthcare industry — an indication that regulatory enforcement is driving significant improvements in incident response and vendor risk management practices.
However, not all industries are keeping pace. Only 14% of vendors with improved scores following a breach support the financial services sector. Similarly, only 14% of vendors in the manufacturing sector showed progress in enhancing their cyber ratings.
The progress observed in sectors like healthcare, where regulations drove notable improvements, serves as a model for other industries to follow. But regulations aren’t enough on their own either. While regulatory frameworks establish baseline security standards, they must be backed by proactive risk management strategies. Organizations that implement continuous third-party risk monitoring, leverage real-time threat intelligence tools, and enforce vendor accountability through contractual security requirements are significantly better positioned to identify and mitigate emerging threats.
4. Defining unauthorized network access
Unauthorized network access accounted for over 50% of publicly disclosed third-party breaches in 2024. But what does that really mean? Too often, “unauthorized access” is used as a vague, catch-all explanation when organizations lack clarity on the root cause of an attack or choose not to disclose specific details. This makes it difficult to determine whether breaches were caused by stolen credentials, misconfigurations, or unpatched vulnerabilities.
The lack of transparency in incident reporting presents a serious challenge for CISOs. Without a clear picture of how attackers infiltrated a system, security teams struggle to remediate vulnerabilities and prevent future breaches. Instead of driving meaningful improvements, these incidents often fuel blame games and reactive security postures.
Given the sheer volume of breaches attributed to unauthorized access, security leaders must push for deeper analysis and clearer reporting. Creating a culture of transparency in incident reporting can help security teams better understand the root causes of unauthorized network access breaches, enabling more effective prevention strategies.
5. Building a resilient third-party risk management strategy
While we can’t predict exactly what’s next, there’s a lot we can learn from last year’s third-party breaches. By analyzing the trends, cybersecurity leaders can fine-tune their strategies to stay ahead of emerging threats. What’s clear from this year’s 2025 Third-Party Breach Report is that a proactive, collaborative approach to third-party risk management is now essential.
As we move into 2025, relying on reactive measures is no longer enough. Organizations must embrace real-time risk assessments, improve vendor communication using tools like Black Kite Bridge™, and invest in actionable remediation intelligence. Cyber threats are evolving fast, and so must the tools and strategies used to combat them. By adapting to these changes in the third-party risk landscape, companies can build a stronger, more resilient security posture and better protect themselves against the next wave of cyber threats.
Dig into our full 2025 Third Party Breach Report: The Silent Breach: How Third Parties Became the Biggest Cyber Threat in 2024 – accessible instantly, no download required.
In today's digital landscape, purchasing growth services for social media and online marketing is a common practice. However, ensuring secure transactions and protecting sensitive payment information is crucial. In this comprehensive guide, we will outline best practices to safeguard your financial data, highlight secure payment methods, and discuss how to avoid credit card fraud and chargeback scams.
Landing on the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) desk is the holy grail for any cybersecurity marketing strategy. CISOs control million-dollar technology budgets and determine enterprise platform priorities which are highly sought after by sales teams. However, the cold, hard truth is that these influential security leaders remain largely unreachable behind a fortress of gatekeepers, outdated perceptions, and overcrowded inboxes.
Automated software attacks targeted 62% of eCommerce stores in 2022. These numbers show why online merchants now take Shopify cyber security seriously.
Online stores, especially Shopify platforms, must protect their customer's sensitive data from breaches and unauthorised access. The good news is that Shopify maintains PCI DSS Level 1 compliance, the highest security standard for payment processing. The platform's built-in fraud detection tools analyze every transaction to identify potential risks.
Cloud migration has become a cornerstone of digital transformation, enabling businesses to leverage scalable infrastructure, advanced tools, and cost-efficiency. However, moving operations to the cloud also introduces new challenges, particularly in the areas of security and regulatory compliance.
Cloud migration services address these concerns by offering tailored strategies and solutions to ensure a secure, compliant, and seamless transition to cloud environments. This article explores how these services strengthen security and compliance, empowering businesses to embrace the cloud with confidence.
Ignoring application security has an escalated financial risk that is real and complex. Certainly, as a company, you seem to be pre-occupied with speeding up the product launches and the customer activity, but have you thought about the underlying security costs that have to be dealt with?
The costs associated with data breaches are severe. An organisation will experience loss of trust from the customer, an increase in customer churn, and reputation damage if security of applications is not top-notch.
Welcome to the December 2024 ransomware update, where we highlight the latest trends, threat actors, and developments in the ransomware ecosystem to keep CISOs and third-party risk managers informed and prepared.
The Black Kite Research & Intelligence Team (BRITE) tracked 535 ransomware incidents in December 2024. While it didn’t surpass the record-breaking 595 victims in November, December still proved to be a significant month. Of these incidents, an overwhelming 244 were in the United States and 27 in Canada, highlighting North America’s ongoing struggle as a primary target for ransomware attacks.
Top Threat Actors in December 2024
1. FunkSec Emerges as a Major Player with 87 Victims
December marked a turning point in the ransomware landscape as FunkSec dethroned RansomHub to become the leading threat actor with 87 victims. What makes FunkSec’s rise particularly remarkable is that it is a relatively new group in the ecosystem. Their operations have not been limited to ransomware; the group has been actively selling admin access and super access for various companies, offering a troubling range of services to their buyers. FunkSec primarily targeted the information sector and public administration industries this month, demonstrating a calculated focus on critical and data-heavy sectors. Their rapid ascent highlights their aggressive strategies and growing influence in the ransomware ecosystem.
FunkSec Ransom Note
2. RansomHub Maintains Stability with 57 Victims
After dominating the leaderboard since July, RansomHub dropped to the second spot with 57 victims in December. Despite losing its leadership position, RansomHub maintained its reputation as a consistent player in the ransomware space, continuing to target high-value organizations globally.
Akira Surges with 46 Victims
The Akira group surged to the third position this month with 46 victims, showcasing one of its most active and aggressive months of the year. Akira’s operations this month highlighted their ability to capitalize on vulnerabilities and expand their victim pool, signaling their intent to climb higher in the ransomware hierarchy.
They Hate Being Forgotten: Clop (Cl0p) Is Back Again
The Clop group added a chaotic twist to the month. Exploiting the CLEO vulnerability in December, they initially promised to release victim data “within 48 hours.” Then they postponed to December 30, only to announce they were “taking a holiday break” and would publish data after their return.
Clop’s statement about CLEO victims
In total, Clop announced 66 victims, but BRITE believes the actual number is higher. Their erratic behavior has left many wondering if the group is losing its grip or simply playing for attention. Regardless, Clop’s actions remind us of the unpredictable nature of threat actors and the challenges of staying ahead of them.
One thing is clear: Clop, despite its chaotic actions, refuses to be forgotten and remains a noteworthy player in the ransomware ecosystem.
LockBit 4.0 Introduces RaaS Pricing Model for Just $777
LockBit, once the industry leader, seems to be struggling to reclaim its former prominence. December saw the launch of LockBit 4.0, a move that many interpreted as an attempt to stay relevant. Along with this update, the group introduced a Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) pricing model for just $777, making their tools accessible to smaller players in the ecosystem.
Payment page for access to the LockBit panel
This shift has raised eyebrows across the cybersecurity world. Is it a sign of innovation or desperation? Many believe this move reflects LockBit’s declining influence after facing increased law enforcement pressure and internal challenges.
What stands out most is that LockBit’s struggles highlight a harsh reality: nothing in the ransomware world is unbreakable. Even the strongest groups can fall, showing how unpredictable and tough this space can be.
At the same time, their collapse shows how much it affects the whole ecosystem. It’s also a reminder of how hard it is to keep a group running steadily and stay on top in such a challenging environment.
RaaS Revolutionized Cybercrime in December 2024
The rise of Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) has been one of the defining trends of December.
LockBit’s pricing model set off a ripple effect, inspiring other groups like FunkSec to adopt similar strategies.
Smaller threat actors are now able to access sophisticated ransomware tools at lower costs, democratizing cybercrime and complicating defense efforts.
Example RaaS sharing
RaaS not only increases the number of attacks but also lowers the barrier for entry, making it easier for less experienced actors to enter the game. This trend, if it continues, could make 2025 an even more challenging year for cybersecurity professionals.
2024: A Record-Breaking Year for Ransomware
2024 was a record-breaking year for ransomware. As groups continue to grow, tactics evolve, and victims are added to the lists, we can expect more records to be set in the coming months.
At Black Kite, the BRITE team remains committed to tracking threat actors in real time, analyzing their movements, and staying aware of emerging threats. As we enter 2025, staying one step ahead has never been more critical.For weekly updates on emerging cyber threats, please follow our Focus Friday blog series and LinkedIn account.
Learn more about the rising ransomware attacks in the full 2025 Healthcare Ransomware Report — accessible instantly, no download required.
Today’s hyper-connected world demands robust cybersecurity measures. With data breaches and cyber attacks making headlines every day, organisations must stay vigilant against ever-evolving threats. Proactive protection is no longer optional; it’s essential for business continuity.
Email marketing is now a key element of business communication, providing an effective way to engage with audiences and support growth. However, as businesses increasingly depend on email marketing platforms, these tools have become prime targets for cyber attacks.
With threats like phishing and data breaches growing more advanced, strict cybersecurity measures are more important than ever today. To protect the integrity of email marketing campaigns, businesses must not only understand these risks but also implement strong security practices to stay ahead of potential threats.
The healthcare sector is under attack, and the numbers paint a stark picture of the growing ransomware crisis. Our latest infographic, drawn from the 2025 Healthcare Ransomware Report, uncovers the alarming rise in ransomware incidents targeting healthcare organizations and the reasons behind this surge.
Key insights from the infographic:
Healthcare is now the 3rd most targeted industry for ransomware.
Rising from 7th place in just one year, the sector now accounts for 8% of all ransomware attacks—up from 5% in 2023. Overall, ransomware incidents in healthcare surged by 32.16% in the last year.
High-stakes operations make healthcare a lucrative ransomware target.
Ransomware groups are drawn to healthcare’s sensitive patient data and the urgency to restore disrupted services. Ransom demands in the sector can reach as high as $20 million, with both large hospitals and small practices feeling the impact.
Ransomware groups have evolved to target healthcare.
Disruptions in the ransomware ecosystem, including the takedown of groups like LockBit and AlphV (BlackCat), and the growth in affiliates’ power, have led to the emergence of aggressive new players who don’t consider healthcare off-limits. For example, RansomHub offered affiliates a 90% payout with greater control over targets.
Patient safety is at risk from ransomware attacks.
These attacks are not just financial concerns—they jeopardize patient care and trust. Delayed surgeries, blocked medical records, and spillover effects on supply chains are just a few of the devastating consequences.
An early ransomware warning system is critical.
Black Kite’s Ransomware Susceptibility Index® (RSI™) offers healthcare organizations vital insights into ransomware risks, enabling them to prioritize and address vulnerabilities before attackers strike.
This infographic provides a detailed look at how ransomware attackers are zeroing in on the healthcare sector, from the tactics they use to the far-reaching impacts of their attacks. Whether you’re part of a major hospital system or a small clinic, the stakes are too high to ignore.
In today’s interconnected digital landscape, the rapid emergence of critical vulnerabilities demands an agile and informed approach to Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM). This week’s Focus Friday blog highlights high-profile incidents involving vulnerabilities in FortiGate firewalls, QNAP NAS systems, Mongoose, and the W3 Total Cache WordPress plugin. Each of these vulnerabilities poses unique challenges, from authentication bypasses enabling unauthorized access to database manipulation and SSRF attacks.
Leveraging Black Kite’s FocusTags™, we delve into the impact of these vulnerabilities from a TPRM perspective. This article offers detailed insights into the risks, remediation strategies, and questions TPRM professionals should be asking vendors to protect their ecosystems against potential breaches.
Filtered view of companies with FortiGate Leakage FocusTag™ on the Black Kite platform.
CVE-2022-40684 is a critical authentication bypass vulnerability affecting Fortinet’s FortiOS, FortiProxy, and FortiSwitchManager products. This flaw allows unauthenticated attackers to perform administrative operations via specially crafted HTTP or HTTPS requests. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 9.8, indicating its critical severity, and an EPSS score of 97.26%, reflecting the significant likelihood of exploitation. First identified in October 2022, this vulnerability has been actively exploited in the wild, with reports of threat actors leveraging it to download device configurations and add unauthorized super_admin accounts. Notably, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added CVE-2022-40684 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog on October 11, 2022.
As part of Black Kite Research & Intelligence Team (BRITE), we have proactively addressed the exposure of configuration files, IP addresses, and VPN credentials belonging to over 15,000 FortiGate devices identified and analyzed on the dark web.
Why Should TPRM Professionals Be Concerned About CVE-2022-40684?
Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) professionals should be particularly vigilant regarding CVE-2022-40684 due to its potential impact on network security. The recent leak of configuration files and VPN credentials for over 15,000 FortiGate devices underscores the risk of unauthorized access to sensitive systems. If a vendor utilizes vulnerable FortiGate products, their compromised systems could serve as entry points for attackers, leading to data breaches and disruptions that may cascade to connected organizations. Given the critical role of firewalls in protecting network perimeters, any compromise can have far-reaching consequences.
What Questions Should TPRM Professionals Ask Vendors Regarding CVE-2022-40684?
To assess and mitigate risks associated with this vulnerability, TPRM professionals should inquire:
Have you updated all instances of FortiOS, FortiProxy, and FortiSwitchManager products to the latest firmware versions where CVE-2022-40684 has been patched?
Can you confirm if you have implemented IP restrictions, enhanced network activity monitoring, and deactivated the HTTP/HTTPS administrative interface as recommended in the advisory to mitigate the risk of CVE-2022-40684?
Have you reset all VPN and administrative credentials, especially those previously configured, and reviewed your firewall rules and configurations to ensure they align with current security best practices following the FortiGate firewall configuration leak?
Have you verified if your FortiGate devices are among the compromised by reviewing the leaked data and taken necessary actions to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive systems.
Remediation Recommendations for Vendors
Vendors using affected Fortinet products should:
Update Firmware: Upgrade to the latest firmware versions that address CVE-2022-40684.
Change Credentials: Reset all VPN and administrative credentials, especially those previously configured.
Review Configurations: Assess and modify firewall rules and configurations to align with current security best practices.
Disable Administrative Interface: Deactivate the HTTP/HTTPS administrative interface to reduce the attack surface.
Implement IP Restrictions: Limit access to the administrative interface by allowing only trusted IP addresses.
Monitor Network Activity: Enhance monitoring to detect any unauthorized access or anomalies.
How Can TPRM Professionals Leverage Black Kite for This Vulnerability?
Black Kite has proactively addressed this issue by publishing the “FortiGate Leakage” FocusTag™ on January 17, 2025. This tag enables TPRM professionals to identify vendors potentially affected by the FortiGate data leak. By providing detailed asset information, including IP addresses and subdomains associated with the compromised devices, Black Kite empowers organizations to assess and mitigate risks efficiently. This actionable intelligence allows for targeted inquiries and remediation efforts, ensuring a robust third-party risk management strategy.
Black Kite’s FortiGate Leakage FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
CVE-2024-53691 and CVE-2023-39298 in QNAP QTS and QuTS Hero
What are CVE-2024-53691 and CVE-2023-39298?
CVE-2024-53691 is a link following a vulnerability in QNAP’s QTS and QuTS hero operating systems. It allows remote attackers with user access to traverse the file system to unintended locations, potentially leading to unauthorized access to sensitive files and system compromise. This vulnerability has a CVSS score of 8.7.
CVE-2023-39298 is a missing authorization vulnerability affecting several QNAP operating system versions. It permits local authenticated users to access data or perform actions they should not be allowed to via unspecified vectors. This vulnerability has a CVSS score of 7.8. As of January 23, 2025, neither vulnerability has been added to CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
Why Should TPRM Professionals Be Concerned About These Vulnerabilities?
QNAP NAS devices are widely used for storing and managing critical business data. Exploitation of these vulnerabilities could lead to unauthorized access, data breaches, and potential system compromises. For Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) professionals, it’s crucial to assess whether vendors utilize vulnerable QNAP systems, as a compromise could indirectly affect your organization’s data integrity and security.
What Questions Should TPRM Professionals Ask Vendors Regarding These Vulnerabilities?
To evaluate the risk associated with these vulnerabilities, TPRM professionals should inquire:
Can you confirm if you have upgraded all instances of QNAP QTS and QuTS hero to versions QTS 5.2.0.2802 build 20240620 and QuTS hero h5.2.0.2802 build 20240620 or later to mitigate the risk of CVE-2024-53691 and CVE-2023-39298?
Have you implemented the recommended actions such as monitoring system logs, applying security patches promptly, implementing MFA, and restricting network access to mitigate the risk of unauthorized access due to the link following vulnerability in QNAP QTS and QuTS hero operating systems?
Can you confirm if you have taken measures to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive files and potential system compromise due to the link following vulnerability (CVE-2024-53691) in QNAP QTS and QuTS hero operating systems?
Have you taken any additional steps to protect your QNAP devices from data theft, ransomware attacks, or malware deployment that could result from exploiting the vulnerabilities CVE-2024-53691 and CVE-2023-39298?
Remediation Recommendations for Vendors
Vendors utilizing affected QNAP systems should:
Update Firmware: Upgrade to QTS 5.2.0.2802 build 20240620 or QuTS hero h5.2.0.2802 build 20240620 or later.
Restrict Network Access: Configure firewalls and network settings to allow only trusted IP addresses access to NAS devices.
Monitor System Logs: Regularly review logs for unusual activity indicating attempted exploitation.
Apply Security Patches Promptly: Ensure all security patches are applied as soon as they become available.
How Can TPRM Professionals Leverage Black Kite for These Vulnerabilities?
Black Kite released the “QNAP QTS – Jan2025” FocusTag™ on January 23, 2025, to help organizations identify vendors potentially affected by these vulnerabilities. This tag provides detailed information, including the specific assets (IP addresses and subdomains) associated with vulnerable QNAP systems within a vendor’s infrastructure. By utilizing this intelligence, TPRM professionals can prioritize assessments and remediation efforts, ensuring that vendors have addressed these critical vulnerabilities.
Black Kite’s QNAP QTS – Jan2025 FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
CVE-2025-23061 in Mongoose
Mongoose is specifically an Object Data Modeling (ODM) library designed for Node.js, enabling easy interaction with MongoDB databases. It simplifies the management, validation, and modeling of data in MongoDB, providing developers with a more structured and secure working environment.
What is CVE-2025-23061?
CVE-2025-23061 is a critical code injection vulnerability affecting Mongoose, a MongoDB object modeling tool widely used for Node.js and Deno applications. It has a CVSS score of 9.0, emphasizing its severity, while the EPSS score is 0.05%, suggesting a lower probability of exploitation at present. This vulnerability arises from improper handling of nested $where filters used with the populate() function’s match option, enabling attackers to manipulate search queries and access sensitive data.
This flaw is linked to an incomplete fix for CVE-2024-53900, another critical issue involving the $where operator’s improper handling. The vulnerability impacts Mongoose versions prior to 8.9.5. Although PoC exploit code is unavailable and it has not been added to CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, its potential impact is significant due to Mongoose’s wide adoption, with over 2.7 million weekly downloads.
Why Should TPRM Professionals Be Concerned About CVE-2025-23061?
TPRM professionals should consider this vulnerability a high-priority concern due to Mongoose’s extensive use in applications that store sensitive data. If a vendor utilizes an unpatched version of Mongoose, their database integrity could be compromised, resulting in data manipulation, unauthorized access, or even larger breaches affecting downstream partners and customers. The prevalence of Mongoose as a dependency in critical systems underscores the potential ripple effect of an exploit.
What Questions Should TPRM Professionals Ask Vendors Regarding CVE-2025-23061?
To evaluate vendor risk associated with this vulnerability, consider asking:
Have you upgraded Mongoose to version 8.9.5 or later to mitigate the risk of CVE-2025-23061 and the previously related CVE-2024-53900?
Can you confirm if you have reviewed your application’s use of the populate() function and $where filters to ensure no unintended exposure exists, as recommended in the advisory?
Have you implemented robust input validation and sanitization measures to prevent potential search injection attacks related to the Mongoose vulnerability?
Are you regularly auditing and updating all dependencies to incorporate the latest security patches, specifically those related to Mongoose and MongoDB object modeling tools?
Remediation Recommendations for Vendors
Vendors using Mongoose should:
Update Mongoose: Upgrade to version 8.9.5 or later to address the vulnerability.
Audit Codebase: Review the usage of $where filters and the populate() function to identify and mitigate potential exposure.
Implement Input Validation: Enforce robust validation and sanitization mechanisms for all database queries.
Monitor Dependencies: Regularly review and update dependencies to ensure all security patches are applied promptly.
How Can TPRM Professionals Leverage Black Kite for This Vulnerability?
Black Kite published the “Mongoose” FocusTag™ on January 22, 2025, to help organizations identify vendors potentially affected by this vulnerability. This tag provides high-confidence identification of systems using vulnerable Mongoose versions, offering actionable insights into affected assets, including IP addresses and subdomains. TPRM professionals can leverage this intelligence to prioritize their vendor risk assessments and ensure remediation efforts are effectively targeted.
Black Kite’s Mongoose FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
CVE-2024-12365 in W3 Total Cache Plugin
W3 Total Cache (W3TC) is a well-known and powerful caching and performance optimization plugin designed for WordPress websites. This plugin enhances website speed, reduces loading times, and improves the overall user experience. It is particularly effective in delivering significant performance improvements for high-traffic websites.
What is CVE-2024-12365?
CVE-2024-12365 is a high-severity missing authorization vulnerability in the W3 Total Cache plugin for WordPress, affecting versions up to and including 2.8.1. With a CVSS score of 8.5 and an EPSS score of 0.09%, this vulnerability allows authenticated users with Subscriber-level access to exploit the is_w3tc_admin_page function to retrieve the plugin’s nonce value. Attackers can leverage this to perform unauthorized actions, potentially leading to information disclosure and server-side request forgery (SSRF).
Exploitation of this flaw could allow attackers to query internal services, including metadata on cloud-based applications, and consume service plan limits. While no PoC exploit code is currently available, more than a million WordPress sites using this plugin are at risk. As of January 22, 2025, this vulnerability has not been added to CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
Why Should TPRM Professionals Be Concerned About CVE-2024-12365?
Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) professionals should be highly attentive to this vulnerability due to its potential to expose sensitive internal data and compromise WordPress-based websites. Many businesses rely on WordPress as their primary web platform, and vulnerabilities in widely-used plugins like W3 Total Cache can create significant risks.
If a vendor’s website is compromised through this flaw, it may lead to:
Data breaches involving sensitive business or customer information.
Unintended exposure of internal application data through SSRF attacks.
Loss of trust and credibility due to website exploitation.
Given the widespread use of WordPress and this specific plugin, the impact of unpatched systems can extend across interconnected organizations and their customers.
What Questions Should TPRM Professionals Ask Vendors Regarding CVE-2024-12365?
To evaluate vendor risk, TPRM professionals can ask the following targeted questions:
Can you confirm if you have updated the W3 Total Cache plugin for WordPress to version 2.8.2 or later, which addresses the CVE-2024-12365 vulnerability?
Have you implemented any additional security measures to monitor for unauthorized access or unusual behavior on your WordPress sites that could indicate exploitation attempts related to the CVE-2024-12365 vulnerability?
Have you conducted an audit of user roles and permissions to ensure that only necessary privileges are granted, minimizing potential exploitation by lower-level users as recommended in the advisory for the CVE-2024-12365 vulnerability?
Can you confirm if you have taken any steps to mitigate the risk of server-side request forgery, such as implementing security best practices or updating the W3 Total Cache plugin, in response to the CVE-2024-12365 vulnerability?
Remediation Recommendations for Vendors
Vendors using the W3 Total Cache plugin should take the following steps:
Update the Plugin: Upgrade to version 2.8.2 or newer, where the vulnerability has been fixed.
Audit User Permissions: Review and minimize privileges for users, ensuring Subscriber-level accounts have limited access.
Monitor Activity: Regularly review website activity logs for unusual or unauthorized behavior.
Enforce Security Best Practices: Maintain strong security protocols for WordPress installations, including strong passwords, regular plugin updates, and security plugins for intrusion detection.
How Can TPRM Professionals Leverage Black Kite for This Vulnerability?
Black Kite released the “W3 Total Cache” FocusTag™ on January 22, 2025, to help organizations identify vendors potentially impacted by this vulnerability. By providing very high-confidence information, such as asset-level details (e.g., IP addresses and subdomains), Black Kite enables TPRM professionals to quickly assess and mitigate risks. This FocusTag™ is instrumental in narrowing down affected vendors and ensuring targeted remediation efforts.
Black Kite’s W3 Total Cache FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
Enhancing TPRM Strategies with Black Kite’s FocusTags™
Black Kite’s FocusTags™ are transformative tools designed to empower Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) professionals with actionable insights in the face of an ever-evolving threat landscape. With this week’s vulnerabilities spanning multiple platforms and industries, the value of these FocusTags™ becomes especially apparent:
Real-Time Threat Awareness: Instantly pinpoint vendors impacted by vulnerabilities like those in FortiGate firewalls, QNAP NAS systems, Mongoose, and the W3 Total Cache plugin, enabling rapid and targeted action.
Prioritized Risk Management: Evaluate risks based on the criticality of the vulnerabilities and the vendor’s importance, allowing for efficient allocation of resources to mitigate threats.
Tailored Vendor Engagement: Facilitate meaningful conversations with vendors, focusing on their exposure to vulnerabilities and the specific actions they’ve taken to address them.
Enhanced Cybersecurity Posture: Gain a comprehensive view of the threat landscape, supporting the development of robust strategies to defend against future risks.
By translating complex cybersecurity data into practical intelligence, Black Kite’s FocusTags™ help TPRM professionals navigate the complexities of vendor risk management with precision and confidence. These tools are essential for maintaining resilience in today’s fast-paced digital environment, where proactive risk mitigation can mean the difference between security and compromise.
Want to take a closer look at FocusTags™?
Take our platform for a test drive and request a demo today.
Every week, we delve into the realms of critical vulnerabilities and their implications from a Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) perspective. This series is dedicated to shedding light on pressing cybersecurity threats, offering in-depth analyses, and providing actionable insights.
FocusTagsTM in the Last 30 Days:
FortiGate Leakage: CVE-2022-40684, Authentication Bypass Vulnerability, Leaked Configurations and VPN Credentials for 15,000 FortiGate Devices.
QNAP QTS – Jan2025: CVE-2024-53691, CVE-2023-39298, Remote Code Execution Vulnerability, Link Following Vulnerability, Missing Authorization Vulnerability in QNAP QTS.
Mongoose: CVE-2025-23061, Search Injection Vulnerability in Mongoose.
W3 Total Cache: CVE-2024-12365, Missing Authorization Vulnerability in WordPress’ W3 Total Cache Plugin.
Juniper Junos: CVE-2025-21598, Out-of-bounds Read Vulnerability in Juniper’s Junos.
Cybercriminals are becoming increasingly bold — and no industry is safe, even those once considered untouchable. Last year, ransomware attacks in the healthcare industry skyrocketed, propelling it from the 7th most targeted industry to 3rd in just one year with attacks increasing by over 32%. The sector now accounts for 8% of ransomware attacks — up from just 5% a year ago — ranking behind only manufacturing and professional services.
What’s driving this surge? Cybercriminals are exploiting vulnerabilities unique to healthcare — making it one of the most lucrative targets. From sensitive patient data to operational disruptions that could jeopardize lives, the stakes couldn’t be higher. With 303 attacks in a single year on major hospitals to small clinics, no corner of healthcare is immune.
Our latest report, Healthcare Under Ransomware Attack, breaks down what’s behind this alarming trend — and what healthcare organizations can do to shore up their defenses.
Healthcare’s ransomware epidemic: The surge explained
Healthcare’s rise as a prime ransomware target marks a turning point in the tactics of cybercriminals. Once considered “off-limits” under an informal (yet twisted) code of conduct, healthcare now finds itself firmly in the crosshairs. Today’s ransomware groups prioritize ease of access and high ransom potential, and the unique pressures within healthcare — where patient safety and operational continuity are at stake — make the sector especially attractive.
This shift can be traced to two main catalysts: the high-profile attack on Change Healthcare and the dismantling of prominent ransomware groups like LockBit and AlphV (BlackCat).
The February 2024 ransomware attack on Change Healthcare disrupted vital services for healthcare facilities across the U.S. Although the company acted quickly to minimize the impact, the incident exposed vulnerabilities in healthcare operations. It also revealed growing tensions within the ransomware ecosystem. During the attack, a failed payment to an affiliate (an independent attacker partnering with a ransomware operator) sparked disputes, leading to an uprising by affiliates seeking to shift the power away from large ransomware groups.
The exit of AlphV (BlackCat) in December 2023 and the disruption of LockBit in February 2024 further impacted the ransomware landscape. While these events temporarily reduced attack volumes, the lull was quickly followed by an influx of new groups, many of which now lead attacks and work off an affiliate-led model. Emerging groups like RansomHub attracted many affiliates disillusioned with how ransomware groups were previously structured, offering affiliates greater control and payouts as high as 90%.
The shift in how ransomware groups operate also means affiliates are in high demand. Now, they transition freely between groups, spreading their knowledge further and making attacks by new, more aggressive players more likely. They’re also taking a carefully planned approach to which companies they target next.
Why ransomware groups are targeting healthcare
Healthcare’s ethical responsibility to ensure continuity of care for patients sets it apart from other industries and makes it uniquely vulnerable to attacks. When systems are compromised, the consequences can be a matter of life and death — delayed surgeries, inaccessible medical records, and compromised patient safety. This means that when attacked, healthcare companies are often pressured to pay ransoms to avoid disruptions to life-saving care.
Smaller healthcare providers, with less robust cybersecurity defenses, are especially vulnerable. But no organization — large or small — is immune. Attackers aren’t picking targets at random — they are following a deliberate, calculated strategy based on:
Technical vulnerability: Unpatched systems and outdated software are low-hanging fruit.
Industry: Sectors with sensitive, valuable data, like healthcare.
Likelihood to pay: Organizations with a history of paying ransoms are more likely to pay again.
Geographic area: The U.S. remains the top target for ransomware groups.
Revenue profile: Large enterprises (revenues over $100M and small to mid-sized businesses (revenues below $20 million) are commonly targeted.
While legacy ransomware groups tended to favor negotiation, modern groups are more likely to demand fast payments of a one-time ransom, with no room for negotiation. And sensitive patient data combined with high-stakes operations makes it more likely that affected companies will pay. In healthcare, ransom demands have climbed as high as $20M, driven by the urgent need to restore operations and protect patient outcomes.
The impact of these attacks goes far beyond finances. Attacks ripple through the healthcare ecosystem, exacting a human toll on providers, patients, and their families. The effects can also spill over to vendors and suppliers, putting your entire third-party ecosystem at risk. With no subindustry of healthcare safe — and ransomware groups targeting practices both large and small — maintaining the status quo is no longer an option.
Taking control: How to get ahead of the curve
With the chances of an attack becoming increasingly likely, it’s time to take a proactive approach to protect healthcare organizations and third-party ecosystems from attacks. Here’s how to start building a robust line of defense:
Continuously monitor risk factors
Healthcare organizations need to focus on monitoring risk factors that could increase the chance of an attack. Consider what your ecosystem looks like to attackers. Unpatched systems, outdated defenses, and weak links in your third-party ecosystem are common entry points.
By continuously monitoring for changes in risk factors — both within your organization and across your third-party network — it’s easier to take action before vulnerabilities are exploited.
Use an early warning system
An early warning system is one of the best ways to assess your company’s vulnerability to attack. Proactive tools like Black Kite’s Ransomware Susceptibility Index® (RSI™) provide insights into your organization’s risk of a ransomware attack. RSI™ uses machine learning and data analysis to assess vulnerability on a scale from 0 (low risk) to 1 (high risk). Scores above 0.50 indicate a heightened likelihood of attack, allowing organizations to prioritize and remediate vulnerabilities before they become problematic.
What makes RSI™ particularly powerful is that it mirrors the factors ransomware attackers themselves evaluate when choosing targets. By identifying and addressing any vulnerabilities before they’re picked up on by attackers, you can stay off their radar and keep sensitive patient data safe.
Prevention is the best medicine
Healthcare providers preach the power of preventative care — and the same goes for cybersecurity. Taking a proactive approach to ransomware defense, you can assess the risks to your organization and its third-party ecosystem, protecting against the growing risk of attacks before it’s too late.
With attacks on the healthcare industry becoming more frequent and aggressive, the cost of inaction is too great — not just in financial losses but in disruptions to patient care. Protecting your organization from these threats isn’t just a cybersecurity priority — it’s a critical investment in the safety and well-being of the patients and communities you serve.
Learn more about the rising ransomware attacks in the full 2025 Healthcare Ransomware Report — accessible instantly, no download required.
Welcome to this week’s Focus Friday, where we dive into key vulnerabilities impacting widely used technologies. This installment highlights three significant incidents that pose unique challenges to third-party risk management (TPRM) teams. From Juniper Junos OS to Rsync and SimpleHelp, we explore how these vulnerabilities affect the security posture of vendors and their downstream supply chains. By examining these issues, we aim to provide actionable insights and strategies to help organizations mitigate risks and maintain robust third-party relationships.
Filtered view of companies with Juniper Junos FocusTag™ on the Black Kite platform.
Juniper Junos CVE-2025-21598
What is the Juniper Junos BGP Vulnerability (CVE-2025-21598)?
CVE-2025-21598 is an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in the routing protocol daemon (rpd) of Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved. When a device is configured with BGP packet receive trace options, an unauthenticated attacker can send malformed BGP packets that cause the rpd process to crash. This vulnerability has a CVSS score of 8.2, making it a high-severity issue. It was first disclosed on January 14, 2025, and there are currently no reports of active exploitation. CISA’s KEV catalog does not yet list this vulnerability. Proof-of-concept (POC) is not available.
CVE-2025-21599 is a critical vulnerability affecting specific versions of Junos OS Evolved. It requires IPv6 to be enabled and involves attackers sending malformed IPv6 packets persistently to exhaust memory. Exploitation does not require authentication but needs network access to the device. The affected versions are:
From 22.4-EVO: before 22.4R3-S5-EVO
From 23.2-EVO: before 23.2R2-S2-EVO
From 23.4-EVO: before 23.4R2-S2-EVO
From 24.2-EVO: before 24.2R1-S2-EVO, and 24.2R2-EVO.
Versions prior to 22.4R1-EVO are unaffected. This vulnerability was excluded from the FocusTag™ scope due to its limitation to EVO versions and no detection by external clients specific to EVO.
Affected Products for CVE-2025-21598
Why should TPRM professionals care about CVE-2025-21598?
This vulnerability impacts network infrastructure devices, which are critical to business operations. If left unpatched, it could result in significant service interruptions, loss of connectivity, and reduced reliability of the affected network environment. Organizations that rely on these devices could face disruptions in their supply chain communications and business operations, making it essential for TPRM professionals to assess the risk and ensure proper mitigation measures are in place.
What questions should TPRM professionals ask vendors about CVE-2025-21598?
Have you updated all instances of Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved to the fixed versions mentioned in the advisory to mitigate the risk of CVE-2025-21598?
Can you confirm if you have disabled BGP packet receive trace options on your Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved devices to prevent potential exploitation of CVE-2025-21598?
Are you regularly inspecting your system logs for any indications of malformed BGP update messages, which may suggest attempted exploitation of CVE-2025-21598?
For Junos OS Evolved, have you ensured that all versions from 22.4-EVO before 22.4R3-S5-EVO, from 23.2-EVO before 23.2R2-S2-EVO, from 23.4-EVO before 23.4R2-S2-EVO, from 24.2-EVO before 24.2R1-S2-EVO, 24.2R2-EVO have been updated to mitigate the risk of CVE-2025-21599?
Remediation recommendations for vendors subject to this risk
Upgrade all affected Junos OS and Junos OS Evolved devices to the patched versions.
Disable BGP packets receive trace options if updating is not immediately possible.
Implement continuous network monitoring to identify any indications of exploitation attempts.
Maintain up-to-date logging configurations and review logs for signs of malformed BGP packets.
How can TPRM professionals leverage Black Kite for CVE-2025-21598?
Black Kite published this FocusTag™ to help organizations pinpoint the vendors affected by CVE-2025-21598. By providing detailed asset information—including relevant subdomains and vulnerable IPs—Black Kite enables TPRM professionals to rapidly identify which vendors need immediate attention. This targeted approach reduces time spent on outreach and allows more efficient mitigation efforts.
Black Kite’s Juniper Junos FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
Rsync, a widely-used file synchronization tool, has six significant vulnerabilities in versions 3.3.0 and earlier. These flaws pose risks such as arbitrary code execution, information leakage, and unauthorized system access, particularly for organizations relying on Rsync for backups.
Six vulnerabilities have been identified in Rsync, posing significant security risks. These include a heap-buffer overflow (CVE-2024-12084) in the Rsync daemon that allows attackers to execute code by controlling checksum lengths (s2length) and gaining server access. An information leak vulnerability (CVE-2024-12085) exposes uninitialized memory during file checksum comparisons. Additionally, malicious servers can exploit crafted checksums to extract arbitrary files from clients (CVE-2024-12086). Path traversal is possible due to improper symlink checks with the default –inc-recursive option (CVE-2024-12087), while a –safe-links bypass flaw (CVE-2024-12088) allows arbitrary file writes and further path traversal. Finally, a symbolic-link race condition (CVE-2024-12747) could lead to privilege escalation or data leakage by exploiting timing issues during file transfers. Exploitation of these vulnerabilities requires specific conditions, such as server access or manipulated configurations.
Currently, no publicly available POC exists, and these vulnerabilities are not listed in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. Affected versions include Rsync ≥3.2.7 and <3.4.0 for CVE-2024-12084, while other CVEs impact Rsync 3.3.0 and earlier. Organizations relying on Rsync for synchronization or backups should apply patches or mitigations promptly to mitigate risks of unauthorized access and data breaches.
Why should TPRM professionals care about Rsync vulnerabilities?
Many organizations rely on Rsync for critical backup operations. Unaddressed vulnerabilities could lead to severe disruptions, including unauthorized data exposure, system compromise, and operational downtime. These risks demand immediate attention from TPRM professionals to ensure that vendors and their supply chain partners have implemented the necessary remediations.
What questions should TPRM professionals ask vendors about the Rsync vulnerabilities?
Have you upgraded all instances of Rsync to version 3.4.0 or later to mitigate the risk of CVE-2024-12084, CVE-2024-12085, CVE-2024-12086, CVE-2024-12087, CVE-2024-12088, and CVE-2024-12747?
Can you confirm if you have implemented the recommended mitigation measures such as restricting Rsync daemon access to trusted networks and authenticated users, and regularly reviewing and applying security best practices for system and network configurations?
Have you reviewed and updated any backup programs utilizing Rsync, such as Rclone, DeltaCopy, and ChronoSync, in response to these vulnerabilities?
Are you monitoring for any unusual activities that may indicate exploitation attempts related to these Rsync vulnerabilities, specifically those related to heap-buffer overflow, information leak, file leak, path traversal, safe-links bypass, and symbolic-link race condition?
Remediation recommendations for vendors subject to this risk
Upgrade Rsync to version 3.4.0 or higher to eliminate known vulnerabilities.
Disable unused options such as –inc-recursive and –safe-links to minimize exposure.
Implement strict access controls, allowing only authenticated and trusted connections.
Conduct regular security audits of your Rsync configuration and logs.
How can TPRM professionals leverage Black Kite for these vulnerabilities?
Black Kite’s FocusTag™ for Rsync, published in January 2025, helps TPRM professionals identify vendors at risk from these vulnerabilities. By providing detailed information on affected versions, associated IPs, and potentially vulnerable assets, Black Kite enables organizations to narrow their outreach to only those vendors requiring immediate action. This targeted approach not only streamlines risk management processes but also helps protect sensitive data and critical systems from emerging threats.
Black Kite’s Rsync FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
Recent security assessments have uncovered critical vulnerabilities in SimpleHelp, a widely used remote support software.
CVE-2024-57726: A privilege escalation flaw that allows users with technician-level access to elevate their privileges to administrator due to missing backend authorization checks. This vulnerability has a CVSS score of 8.2, making it a high-severity issue. This vulnerability has a CVSS score of 8.8, making it a high-severity issue.
CVE-2024-57727: A path traversal vulnerability allowing unauthenticated attackers to download arbitrary files, including sensitive configuration files. This vulnerability has a CVSS score of 7.5, making it a high-severity issue.
CVE-2024-57728: An arbitrary file upload vulnerability enabling attackers with administrative privileges to upload malicious files anywhere on the server, potentially leading to remote code execution. This vulnerability has a CVSS score of 8.8, making it a high-severity issue.
These vulnerabilities can be chained to compromise the entire server, leading to sensitive information disclosure and potential remote code execution. They affect SimpleHelp versions 5.5.7 and earlier. Currently, there are no reports of these vulnerabilities being exploited in the wild, no available PoC, and no listing in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
Why should TPRM professionals care about SimpleHelp vulnerabilities?
SimpleHelp is widely used for remote support, making these vulnerabilities particularly concerning. A compromised SimpleHelp server could expose sensitive client information, provide attackers with persistent remote access, and lead to unauthorized actions such as executing malicious scripts. TPRM professionals must ensure that vendors relying on SimpleHelp have patched their systems and implemented necessary security controls to avoid supply chain disruptions and data breaches.
What questions should TPRM professionals ask vendors about SimpleHelp vulnerabilities?
Have you updated all instances of SimpleHelp to versions 5.5.8, 5.4.10, or 5.3.9 to mitigate the risk of CVE-2024-57727, CVE-2024-57728, and CVE-2024-57726?
Can you confirm if you have implemented IP access restrictions on your SimpleHelp server to accept technician and administrator logins only from trusted IP addresses, as recommended in the advisory?
Have you changed the administrator and technician account passwords after updating SimpleHelp to ensure any previously compromised credentials are invalidated?
Are you regularly reviewing your server logs for any unusual or unauthorized activities that may indicate attempted exploitation of these vulnerabilities in SimpleHelp?
Remediation recommendations for vendors subject to this risk
Update SimpleHelp to the latest secure versions (5.5.8, 5.4.10, or 5.3.9) to address these vulnerabilities.
Change Administrator Passwords. After updating, change the administrator password of the SimpleHelp server to ensure any previously compromised credentials are invalidated.
Update Technician Account Passwords. Reset passwords for all technician accounts, especially those not utilizing third-party authentication services.
Restrict IP Access. Configure the SimpleHelp server to accept technician and administrator logins only from trusted IP addresses to reduce unauthorized access risks.
Monitor System Logs. Regularly review server logs for any unusual or unauthorized activities that may indicate attempted exploitation.
How can TPRM professionals leverage Black Kite for these vulnerabilities?
Black Kite provides a detailed FocusTag™ highlighting these vulnerabilities, including a list of affected versions and mitigation steps. By using Black Kite’s asset information—such as associated IP addresses and potentially vulnerable subdomains—TPRM professionals can quickly identify which vendors require immediate attention, streamlining the risk mitigation process.
Black Kite’s SimpleHelp FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
Enhancing TPRM Strategies with Black Kite’s FocusTags™
As the cyber threat landscape continues to evolve, maintaining a resilient Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) framework is more crucial than ever. Black Kite’s FocusTags™ provide a unique advantage, allowing organizations to identify and respond to high-profile vulnerabilities quickly and effectively. By incorporating FocusTags into their TPRM processes, organizations gain:
Timely Vendor Risk Identification: Quickly determine which vendors are impacted by emerging threats, enabling prompt and strategic action. Prioritized Risk Management: Focus on the most critical vulnerabilities and vendors, ensuring that resources are allocated where they’re needed most. Enhanced Vendor Collaboration: Conduct more informed and productive discussions with vendors, addressing their specific exposure and improving overall security measures. Broader Security Insight: Gain a comprehensive view of the current threat landscape, helping TPRM teams anticipate future risks and strengthen their cybersecurity defenses.
With Black Kite’s FocusTags™, TPRM professionals have the tools they need to transform complex threat data into actionable intelligence. This capability not only improves risk management efficiency but also helps ensure that organizations can confidently manage their third-party ecosystem in an increasingly unpredictable digital environment.
Want to take a closer look at FocusTags™?
Take our platform for a test drive and request a demo today.
Every week, we delve into the realms of critical vulnerabilities and their implications from a Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) perspective. This series is dedicated to shedding light on pressing cybersecurity threats, offering in-depth analyses, and providing actionable insights.
FocusTagsTM in the Last 30 Days:
Juniper Junos: CVE-2025-21598, Out-of-bounds Read vulnerability in Juniper’s Junos.
You wake up one morning to a news alert: A new Zero-Day vulnerability is emerging, and it’s already being exploited in the wild. You race into the office and sit down at your computer to…write and send generic emails to each of your 1,000 vendors. “Have you been breached? If so, to what extent? Is our data exposed? What’s your plan to respond to it?”
Radio silence. At best, you get a trickle of responses, but most of your emails go unanswered because your vendors are busy figuring out what happened and how to mitigate fallout.
Organizations must immediately kick into high gear to mitigate damages or business disruptions when a Zero-Day event or other time-sensitive third-party threat occurs. A key step in this process is contacting vendors to communicate risk intelligence and ensure they take remedial action.
However, this process is easier said than done — especially when vendors are getting inundated by hundreds of frantic and panicked customers.
Most organizations make the mistake of sending vague “hunches” that a vendor is impacted by an incident, followed by a generic security questionnaire. In other words, they’re sharing no new information. In fact, it can come off as hostile policing. This is, obviously, not very motivating for a vendor and typically results in low, delayed, or nonexistent responses. This means risk is not being reduced, either for you or the vendor.
We built the Black Kite Bridge™ with exactly these challenges in mind. It offers the first end-to-end vulnerability response tool for:
risk identification and scoping
intelligence sharing
vendor communications
real-time reporting
Third-party risk management (TPRM) teams can now share trusted, vetted Black Kite intelligence directly with their vendors. This information is far more specific and actionable, leading to proven vendor engagement.
4 Ways Black Kite Revolutionizes Vendor Collaboration
Since its inception, Black Kite has been focused on providing the most accurate, transparent, and timely risk intelligence on the market, empowering customers to take control of their third-party risk.
As a result, customers organically started sharing that intelligence and asking for more ways to give their vendorstm access to it to improve their own cyber risk postures. We heard their feedback, so we built the Black Kite Bridge™ to enable TPRM professionals to:
1. Confidently Narrow the Scope of the Outreach
One of the most significant challenges in responding to an emerging Zero-Day event is knowing which vendors are impacted and what type of data to share with them.
Instead of casting the net wide and contacting vendors that may or may not pose a risk to your company, customers can leverage Black Kite to:
Identify those vendors that have a material impact on your business.
Narrow the scope of outreach into a manageable list based on known exposures or susceptibility to attacks.
We arm you with insights, such as:
Tags highlighting known impacted vendors in your cyber ecosystem through FocusTags™, to give you confidence in your actual exposures.
Real-time risk quantification for all vendors, enabling you to make decisions based on potential financial impact if a threat were to impact a particular vendor.
Actionable, asset-level evidence and recommended remediation steps rooted in a common language, like MITRE and NIST. Rather than asking generic questions, we provide you with targeted evidence to share, so a vendor can take immediate and appropriate action.
When you can share this information directly with a vendor through the Black Kite Bridge™, it gives you both a clear way forward. Instead of saying, “We think you were affected by X event — tell us if you were and what you’re doing to remediate it,” you can approach the vendor with clear evidence of what happened and hard recommendations to fix it.
2. Communicate and Remediate in a Central Location
Vendor communications about risk and the risk intelligence itself should live in the same location.
Why? Organizations already struggle with the sheer volume of vendors they rely on. If they need to communicate with all of them through one-off channels like email and without embedded context, this can easily become too complex and error-prone to scale.
Today, the relevant intelligence often lives in a separate tool from vendor communications (e.g., a GRC or VRM tool). Or worse yet, it lives in long email threads and offline spreadsheets. When TPRM is handled manually like this, progress becomes impossible to track, details slip through the cracks, and, ultimately, risk is not reduced.
A better way:
Black Kite Bridge™ centralizes intelligence sharing and vendor communications in one location.
Now vendors can access and view the same findings our customers see through a self-serve portal.
As the vendor remediates issues, their risk ratings change in real time (versus the weeks it typically takes for traditional SRS solutions to update).
This gives the vendor confidence they are doing the right things.
The process becomes far smoother, and the vendor relationship becomes far more frictionless.
3. Report in Real Time
Since communications and intelligence live in one tool, reporting becomes a breeze. Your CISO wants a status update on that Zero-Day event? No problem.
With out-of-the-box reporting, you can immediately measure an incident’s initial exposure, vendor response rates, remediation progress, mean time to remediate (MTTR), and more across all vendors. Say goodbye to time-consuming, manual tracking in spreadsheets.
4. Achieve Higher Vendor Engagement & Partnership
The Black Kite Bridge™ lets customers share unprecedented, ungated access to the intelligence they trust and rely on with their third-party vendors. Our customers have seen huge improvements in response rates and better relationships as a result of the benefits their vendors receive:
Timely access to incident details, prioritized list of findings, and remediation steps.
Real-time updates to ratings for closing out risks.
Visibility into responses, which means less private messages, questionnaires, or emails to track, and more time back in your day (and your vendors’).
To learn more practical strategies for building stronger vendor partnerships, check out our ebook: Chaos to Collaboration: Transforming Third-Party Risk Response for Zero-Day Events.
Welcome to this week’s Focus Friday blog, where we analyze high-profile vulnerabilities and incidents from a Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) perspective. As organizations grapple with the growing complexities of cybersecurity threats, identifying and addressing vendor-related risks becomes paramount. This week, we had a busy week focusing on vulnerabilities. In this week’s article, we examined critical vulnerabilities in widely used products, including SonicWall SonicOS, Ivanti Connect Secure, Progress WhatsUp Gold, and GoCD. These vulnerabilities underscore the importance of swift action and strategic prioritization in TPRM processes. Read on to explore actionable insights and strategies to mitigate these risks.
Filtered view of companies with SonicWall SonicOS FocusTag™ on the Black Kite platform.
Critical Vulnerabilities in SonicWall SonicOS
What are the vulnerabilities affecting SonicWall SonicOS?
The SonicWall SonicOS platform has been found vulnerable to multiple issues that could severely impact network security. Below are the key vulnerabilities:
CVE-2024-40762: Use of Cryptographically Weak Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) vulnerability in the SSLVPN authentication token generator. This flaw allows attackers to predict authentication tokens, potentially leading to authentication bypass. (CVSS Score: 7.1)
CVE-2024-53704: Authentication Bypass vulnerability in the SSLVPN mechanism that could enable remote attackers to gain unauthorized system access. (CVSS Score: 8.2)
CVE-2024-53706: Local Privilege Escalation vulnerability in the Gen7 SonicOS Cloud platform NSv (AWS and Azure editions). This allows attackers to escalate privileges to root, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution. (CVSS Score: 7.8)
CVE-2024-53705: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the SSH management interface. Attackers could establish TCP connections to arbitrary IP addresses and ports, enabling further attacks. (CVSS Score: 6.5, EPSS Score: 0.04%)
These vulnerabilities were disclosed in SonicWall’s security advisory on January 7, 2025. While no active exploitation has been reported yet, similar vulnerabilities have been targeted by Chinese threat actors in the past, raising the likelihood of exploitation in future attack campaigns. As of now, these vulnerabilities are not listed in CISA’s KEV catalog.
Why should TPRM professionals care about these vulnerabilities?
The vulnerabilities in SonicWall SonicOS present significant risks for organizations that rely on these devices for network security:
Authentication Bypass (CVE-2024-53704): Attackers gaining unauthorized access could compromise sensitive data, introduce malware, or disrupt critical services.
Local Privilege Escalation (CVE-2024-53706): A successful attack could allow threat actors to execute arbitrary code, potentially leading to full control of the affected systems.
SSRF (CVE-2024-53705): This could facilitate lateral movement or act as a pivot point for launching further attacks.
PRNG Vulnerability (CVE-2024-40762): Weak token generation undermines the reliability of authentication mechanisms, posing a significant threat to systems reliant on SSLVPN.
These vulnerabilities directly affect SonicWall Gen6/6.5, Gen7, and TZ80 devices, often used by organizations as a critical part of their perimeter defense. Exploitation could result in compromised networks, data breaches, or service interruptions, which would affect operational and business continuity.
What questions should TPRM professionals ask vendors about these vulnerabilities?
Have you updated all affected Gen6/6.5, Gen7, and TZ80 series devices to the recommended SonicOS versions (6.5.5.1-6n, 7.1.3-7015, 7.0.1-5165, and 8.0.0-8037 respectively) to mitigate the risk of CVE-2024-40762, CVE-2024-53704, CVE-2024-53705, and CVE-2024-53706?
Can you confirm if you have implemented measures to limit SSLVPN and SSH management access to trusted sources or disabled access from the internet entirely to reduce exposure to the vulnerabilities CVE-2024-40762 and CVE-2024-53704?
Have you enabled Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for all remote access to enhance security against the improper authentication issue in the SSLVPN mechanism (CVE-2024-53704)?
How are you monitoring your system logs and network traffic to detect any unusual activity that may indicate attempted exploitation of the server-side request forgery (SSRF) flaw in the SSH management interface (CVE-2024-53705) and the privilege escalation issue in the Gen7 SonicOS Cloud platform NSv (CVE-2024-53706)?
Remediation Recommendations for Vendors
To mitigate the risks associated with these vulnerabilities, vendors should:
Update Firmware: Ensure all impacted devices are updated to the fixed versions:
Gen6 Firewalls: SonicOS 6.5.5.1-6n or higher
Gen7 Firewalls: SonicOS 7.1.3-7015 or higher
Gen7 NSv: SonicOS 7.0.1-5165 or higher
TZ80 Series: SonicOS 8.0.0-8037 or higher
Restrict Access: Limit SSLVPN and SSH management access to trusted sources or disable access from the internet entirely.
Enable Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Strengthen authentication for all remote access to reduce attack surface.
Monitor and Log: Continuously review system logs and monitor network traffic for anomalies that may indicate exploitation attempts.
How can TPRM professionals leverage Black Kite for these vulnerabilities?
Black Kite published the FocusTag™ SonicWall SonicOS – Jan2025 on January 8, 2025 to help TPRM professionals quickly identify vendors at risk. The tag provides:
A list of vendors using affected SonicWall devices and their associated assets, such as IP addresses or subdomains.
Insight into which vulnerabilities may impact vendors’ systems.
An updated status on exploitation activity or new advisories.
Using this tag, professionals can narrow the scope of their risk assessments, focus efforts on high-priority vendors, and expedite their response to these vulnerabilities.
Black Kite’s SonicWall SonicOS FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
CVE-2025-0282 and CVE-2025-0283 in Ivanti Connect Secure
What are the vulnerabilities affecting Ivanti Connect Secure?
Ivanti Connect Secure, Policy Secure, and Neurons for ZTA Gateway products are affected by two critical vulnerabilities:
CVE-2025-0282: A Critical Stack-Based Buffer Overflow Vulnerability that permits unauthenticated remote code execution. This vulnerability affects Ivanti Connect Secure versions 22.7R2 through 22.7R2.4, Policy Secure versions 22.7R1 through 22.7R1.2, and Neurons for ZTA Gateways versions 22.7R2 through 22.7R2.3. It has a CVSS score of 9.0, reflecting its high severity, and an EPSS score of 0.83%, indicating a notable likelihood of exploitation.
CVE-2025-0283: A High-Severity Stack-Based Buffer Overflow Vulnerability that enables local authenticated attackers to escalate their privileges. This issue impacts the same product versions as CVE-2025-0282. It has a CVSS score of 7.0 and an EPSS score of 0.04%, suggesting a moderate risk of exploitation.
Both vulnerabilities were disclosed on January 8, 2025. CVE-2025-0282 has been listed in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog on January 8, 2025, and is being exploited in limited incidents, particularly targeting Connect Secure appliances. Mandiant has attributed these exploitations to UNC5337, a suspected subgroup of the China-based espionage group UNC5221. No exploitation of CVE-2025-0283 has been reported.
Why should TPRM professionals care about these vulnerabilities?
These vulnerabilities present significant risks to organizations using Ivanti products:
CVE-2025-0282: The ability to achieve unauthenticated remote code execution could enable attackers to gain full control of affected systems, compromising network integrity and exposing sensitive data.
CVE-2025-0283: Privilege escalation could allow an attacker with local access to execute actions reserved for administrators, further increasing the risk of insider threats or unauthorized system changes.
The active exploitation of CVE-2025-0282 highlights the urgency of addressing these vulnerabilities, particularly for organizations relying on these products for secure remote access and network security.
What questions should TPRM professionals ask vendors about these vulnerabilities?
Have you identified any systems within your organization running vulnerable versions of Ivanti Connect Secure, Policy Secure, or Neurons for ZTA Gateways?
Have you applied the necessary patches for these vulnerabilities, and if so, when was the patching completed?
Are you actively monitoring systems for signs of exploitation, particularly regarding CVE-2025-0282?
Have you implemented Ivanti’s Integrity Checker Tool (ICT) to detect compromises, and what were the results?
Remediation Recommendations for Vendors
To mitigate the risks associated with these vulnerabilities, vendors should:
Apply Patches Immediately: Upgrade to the latest patched versions:
Ivanti Connect Secure: Version 22.7R2.5 or higher.
Policy Secure: Patched versions available by January 21, 2025.
Neurons for ZTA Gateways: Patched versions available by January 21, 2025.
Perform Integrity Checks: Use Ivanti’s Integrity Checker Tool (ICT) to detect any signs of compromise in both internal and external systems.
Restrict Internet Exposure: Ensure that Policy Secure appliances are not exposed to the internet, reducing the likelihood of exploitation.
Factory Reset Compromised Systems: If signs of compromise are detected, perform a factory reset before redeployment.
Monitor Activity: Continuously review system logs and network traffic for anomalies that may indicate exploitation attempts.
How can TPRM professionals leverage Black Kite for these vulnerabilities?
Black Kite’s FocusTag™ Ivanti Connect Secure – Jan2025 enables TPRM professionals to identify vendors at risk of exposure to these vulnerabilities. This tag provides:
Insight into which vendors utilize affected Ivanti products and their associated assets, such as IP addresses and subdomains.
Actionable intelligence to prioritize assessments and remediation efforts.
Updates on exploitation activity and vendor patching status to guide decision-making.
The tag was published on January 9, 2025. Leveraging this tag can streamline risk management efforts and enhance the security posture of third-party ecosystems.
Black Kite’s Ivanti Connect Secure – Jan2025 FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
CVE-2024-12108, CVE-2024-12105, and CVE-2024-12106 Vulnerabilities in Progress WhatsUp Gold
What are the vulnerabilities affecting Progress WhatsUp Gold?
The Progress WhatsUp Gold network monitoring software has been identified as vulnerable to the following critical and medium-severity security issues:
The vulnerabilities affecting Progress WhatsUp Gold include the following:
CVE-2024-12108: An Authentication Bypass by Spoofing Vulnerability that allows attackers to gain complete control of the WhatsUp Gold server via the public API. This vulnerability has a CVSS score of 9.6 and an EPSS score of 0.07%, making it critical in severity.
CVE-2024-12106: A Missing Authentication for Critical Function Vulnerability that enables unauthenticated attackers to configure LDAP settings, potentially leading to unauthorized access and data breaches. While this vulnerability is rated Critical with a CVSS score of 9.4 by the CNA, the NIST CVSS score is 7.5. Its EPSS score is 0.05%.
CVE-2024-12105: A Path Traversal Vulnerability that allows authenticated users to extract sensitive information through specially crafted HTTP requests. This vulnerability is rated Medium with a CVSS score of 6.5 and an EPSS score of 0.05%.
These vulnerabilities affect WhatsUp Gold versions prior to 24.0.2. Progress issued a security bulletin on December 12, 2024, urging users to upgrade. While no evidence of active exploitation exists, similar vulnerabilities have historically attracted threat actors targeting network monitoring systems.
Why should TPRM professionals care about these vulnerabilities?
The WhatsUp Gold vulnerabilities present critical risks to network security due to the product’s integral role in monitoring and managing network devices. Exploitation of these vulnerabilities could result in:
Full System Compromise: CVE-2024-12108 could allow attackers to control the WhatsUp Gold server, compromising all monitored devices and exposing sensitive configurations.
Data Breaches: CVE-2024-12106 could enable attackers to tamper with LDAP settings, leading to unauthorized access to sensitive data or services.
Sensitive Information Exposure: CVE-2024-12105 could facilitate information disclosure, which could be leveraged for subsequent attacks.
These risks make these vulnerabilities particularly concerning for third-party risk management (TPRM) professionals monitoring vendor ecosystems. The critical CVSS scores of CVE-2024-12108 and CVE-2024-12106 highlight the need for immediate action.
What questions should TPRM professionals ask vendors about these vulnerabilities?
Have you identified any systems within your organization running vulnerable versions of WhatsUp Gold prior to 24.0.2?
Has your organization implemented the recommended update to version 24.0.2, and when was it completed?
Are access controls in place to restrict unauthorized changes to LDAP configurations and prevent exploitation?
How do you monitor and address unusual activity that could indicate exploitation attempts related to these vulnerabilities?
Remediation Recommendations for Vendors
To address these vulnerabilities, vendors should:
Upgrade Software: Immediately update to WhatsUp Gold version 24.0.2 to patch all identified vulnerabilities.
Restrict Access: Limit server access to authorized personnel only and ensure secure configuration of LDAP settings.
Monitor Logs: Regularly review server and network logs for anomalies indicative of exploitation attempts.
Enhance Security Measures: Implement firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and strong authentication mechanisms to mitigate potential risks.
How can TPRM professionals leverage Black Kite for these vulnerabilities?
Black Kite provides the FocusTag™ Progress WhatsUp Gold, published on January 2, 2025, to help TPRM professionals identify and address potential risks in their vendor ecosystems. This tag allows users to:
Determine which vendors utilize affected versions of WhatsUp Gold and the associated assets.
Access details on vulnerable IP addresses and subdomains to prioritize risk assessments.
Leverage actionable insights to communicate effectively with vendors and ensure timely remediation.
Black Kite’s Progress WhatsUp Gold FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
CVE-2024-56320 in GoCD
What is the GoCD Admin Privilege Escalation Vulnerability?
CVE-2024-56320 is a Critical Improper Authorization Vulnerability affecting GoCD versions prior to 24.5.0. This flaw enables authenticated users to persistently escalate their privileges to admin level, compromising the system’s integrity and security. The vulnerability arises from insufficient access controls in the admin “Configuration XML” UI feature and its associated API. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 9.4 and an EPSS score of 0.05%, and it was published in January 2025.
This vulnerability cannot be exploited without prior authentication, requiring an attacker to have a valid GoCD user account. It poses a significant insider threat but does not currently have publicly available exploit code. As of now, it is not listed in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
Why should TPRM professionals care about this vulnerability?
The critical nature of CVE-2024-56320 makes it a significant concern for TPRM professionals. As GoCD is a continuous delivery server, its exploitation could:
Compromise CI/CD Pipelines: Escalated admin privileges could allow attackers to alter build configurations, inject malicious code, or disrupt deployments.
Sensitive Information Disclosure: Unauthorized access to admin-only data could expose credentials, API keys, and system configurations.
Operational Risks: Persistent admin-level access increases the risk of prolonged exploitation and unauthorized system changes.
This vulnerability highlights the importance of securing insider accounts and CI/CD environments, both critical for maintaining operational and data security.
What questions should TPRM professionals ask vendors about this vulnerability?
Have you upgraded all instances of GoCD to version 24.5.0 or later to mitigate the risk of CVE-2024-56320?
Have you implemented the recommended workarounds such as using a reverse proxy or web application firewall (WAF) to block external access to paths with the /go/rails/ prefix, and limiting GoCD user base to trusted individuals?
Can you confirm if you have taken steps to review network logs regularly for any unusual or unauthorized activities that could indicate exploitation attempts related to CVE-2024-56320?
Have you considered temporarily disabling plugins like the guest-login-plugin that allow limited anonymous access to further secure your GoCD instances from potential exploitation of CVE-2024-56320?
Remediation Recommendations for Vendors
To mitigate the risks of CVE-2024-56320, vendors should:
Upgrade to GoCD Version 24.5.0: This version addresses the improper authorization flaw and prevents privilege escalation.
Restrict Access: Implement a reverse proxy or web application firewall (WAF) to block access to vulnerable paths with the /go/rails/ prefix. This can mitigate the risk without affecting functionality.
Limit User Base: Reduce GoCD access to a smaller group of trusted users. Temporarily disable plugins like the “guest-login-plugin” to prevent anonymous or unauthorized access.
Monitor Logs: Regularly review system and application logs for signs of privilege escalation or unauthorized access.
How can TPRM professionals leverage Black Kite for this vulnerability?
Black Kite’s FocusTag™ GoCD provides actionable intelligence to help TPRM professionals identify vendors potentially impacted by CVE-2024-56320. The tag enables users to:
Pinpoint vendors utilize vulnerable GoCD versions and associated assets such as IP addresses or subdomains.
Access insights into vendors’ patch management and security practices related to CI/CD environments.
Expedite risk assessments by narrowing the scope to the most at-risk vendors.
This FocusTag™ was published on January 8, 2025. Black Kite users can operationalize this tag to prioritize remediation efforts and minimize exposure to insider threats.
Black Kite’s GoCD FocusTagTM details critical insights on the event for TPRM professionals.
Maximizing TPRM Effectiveness with Black Kite’s FocusTags™
Black Kite’s FocusTags™ are indispensable tools for refining TPRM strategies in today’s dynamic cybersecurity landscape. This week’s vulnerabilities in SonicWall SonicOS, Ivanti Connect Secure, Progress WhatsUp Gold, and GoCD highlight the critical role of FocusTags™ in proactive risk management. Here’s how these tags empower TPRM professionals:
Real-Time Risk Identification: FocusTags™ enable immediate identification of vendors exposed to critical vulnerabilities, such as the authentication bypass issues in SonicWall or the privilege escalation risks in GoCD. This rapid insight ensures a timely response to emerging threats.
Strategic Risk Prioritization: By assessing both the severity of vulnerabilities and the importance of affected vendors, FocusTags™ helps allocate resources efficiently, addressing the most pressing risks first.
Enhanced Vendor Engagement: Armed with precise information, TPRM teams can initiate targeted discussions with vendors, emphasizing their exposure to vulnerabilities like the stack-based buffer overflow in Ivanti products or the API flaws in WhatsUp Gold.
Strengthened Cybersecurity Posture: With a comprehensive overview of the evolving threat landscape, FocusTags™ aid in fortifying an organization’s overall security defenses against vulnerabilities impacting critical vendor systems.
Black Kite’s FocusTags™ simplify the complexity of cybersecurity threats by translating intricate technical data into actionable intelligence. This capability is critical for managing third-party risks effectively and proactively, ensuring that organizations remain one step ahead in mitigating potential threats.
Want to take a closer look at FocusTags™?
Take our platform for a test drive and request a demo today.
Every week, we delve into the realms of critical vulnerabilities and their implications from a Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) perspective. This series is dedicated to shedding light on pressing cybersecurity threats, offering in-depth analyses, and providing actionable insights.
FocusTagsTM in the Last 30 Days:
SonicWall SonicOS – Jan2025: CVE-2024-40762, CVE-2024-53704, CVE-2024-53706, CVE-2024-53705, Use of Cryptographically Weak Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG), Authentication Bypass Vulnerability, Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) Vulnerability, and Local Privilege Escalation Vulnerability in SonicWall’ SonicOS SSLVPN, SSH Management, and Gen7 Cloud NSv SSH Config Function.
Ivanti Connect Secure – Jan2025: CVE-2025-0282, CVE-2025-0283, Stack-Based Buffer Overflow Vulnerability, Remote Code Execution Vulnerability, Privilege Escalation Vulnerability in Ivanti Connect Secure, Policy Secure, and Ivanti Neurons for ZTA gateways.
Progress WhatsUp Gold: CVE-2024-12108, CVE-2024-12106, CVE-2024-12105, Authentication Bypass by Spoofing Vulnerability, Missing Authentication for Critical Function, and Path Traversal Vulnerability in Progress WhatsUp Gold.
GoCD: CVE-2024-56320, Improper Authorization Vulnerability in GoCD.
The hospitality sector has fully recovered after the past few years when the global health crisis disrupted the international travel industry. However, that doesn’t mean hotels and booking agencies are spared from danger. In terms of cybersecurity, companies will always need to be prepared for anything that could compromise their clients’ most sensitive data. With technology becoming even more sophisticated, hackers are developing new tools and strategies to exploit the hospitality sector’s weaknesses.
The traditional third-party risk management process often treats vendors with suspicion, mistrust, and skepticism, focusing on control rather than collaboration. This one-way “policing” mindset undermines what should be a productive and mutually beneficial partnership, creating an environment of contention and inefficiency.
Instead of working together to manage risks, organizations often overwhelm vendors with scattershot questions about vulnerability management, patching strategies, SOC 2 compliance, and more — usually without providing clear context or guidance. Vendors are left feeling frustrated and disconnected, expected to comply without fully understanding the purpose or value of their efforts. This approach feels more like an interrogation, turning what should be a partnership into more of a power struggle.
To strengthen defenses and improve the overall risk posture of their ecosystems, organizations need to move beyond this outdated approach of managing third-party risk. After all, cyberattackers don’t work in isolation — they share intelligence, coordinate strategies, and collaborate to exploit weaknesses. To combat this, organizations must adopt a similar mindset, shifting from control to collaboration. Lone wolves simply cannot prevail against well-coordinated efforts.
Embracing partnership over policing, organizations can build trust and create a culture of shared responsibility — transforming third-party risk management into a proactive, collaborative strategy that benefits everyone involved. To understand why the current approach falls short, let’s examine the consequences of this policing mindset.
The Problem With Policing Vendors
Policing vendors has long been a common approach in third-party risk management, but it usually creates more problems than it solves. Instead of building a collaborative, trust-based relationship, it positions vendors as adversaries under constant scrutiny. Vendors may feel like they are being targeted — not by cybercriminals, but by the very organizations they’re supposed to support.
This sense of distrust will lead to counterproductive outcomes. Rather than being transparent about potential risks or vulnerabilities, vendors may withhold critical information to avoid blame or punitive consequences, leaving organizations blind to potential risks.
The resulting lack of transparency can lead to delayed responses – or none at all – and missed opportunities for risk mitigation. After all, you can’t address risks you don’t know about. Distrust and resentment are partners in crime, and vendors may feel resentful that their time is being wasted by time-consuming questionnaires. As a result, vendors deprioritize or ignore these tasks and organizations waste valuable time chasing incomplete responses.
Beyond the operational inefficiencies, policing represents a major misstep in risk management. It doesn’t just sour relationships — it’s fundamentally shortsighted. Since it focuses narrowly on identifying and resolving immediate vulnerabilities, it misses the broader opportunity to build a shared, proactive, and long-term defense strategy.
Why Partnering Creates a Better Third-Party Risk Management Process
Cyberattackers don’t work in a vacuum — they operate in networks, share intel and strategies, and collaborate on attack timings. In contrast, many organizations and their vendors remain stuck in reactive, adversarial relationships — pointing fingers, struggling with miscommunication, and ultimately, leaving critical risks untreated.
A partnership-driven approach flips this dynamic, creating an environment where organizations and vendors collaborate, learn from each other, and pool their resources and expertise. Open communication also eliminates data silos and barriers, meaning it’s easier to act quickly during critical moments. When everyone in your supply chain sees the same accurate, actionable data, responses are faster and more effective.
Vendors treated as integral allies rather than external risks are more likely to engage openly, prioritize security initiatives, and align with your goals. This approach strengthens relationships, closes security gaps more efficiently, and creates a continuous improvement cycle that benefits both parties.
How To Build Strong Vendor Partnerships
Modernizing your third-party risk management process starts with rethinking how you work with vendors. These tips will help you shift from a policing mindset to a more collaborative approach, building mutually beneficial partnerships that strengthen security:
1. Build a strong foundation from the outset
Partnerships start with transparency. During vendor onboarding, clearly communicate how you assess security posture and why it matters. This sets expectations and reinforces the mutual benefits of an open, collaborative approach.
For existing vendors, revisit your goals and outline plans to strengthen collaboration. Engage your vendors in these discussions — ask for their input on improving collaboration and listen actively to their feedback.
Using tools like Black Kite’s Ransomware Susceptibility Index® can provide insights into which companies in your ecosystem are most likely to be hit by a ransomware attack, so that you can work with your vendors proactively to reduce that risk.
2. Prioritize communication and engagement
Regular communication is essential for maintaining trust and efficiency. Establish direct, security-to-security communication channels to expedite responses during critical moments. Sharing trustworthy, actionable data also reduces the burden on vendors who may be working with hundreds or even thousands of customers — who are all expecting their attention.
Tools like Black Kite Bridge™ streamline this process by centralizing communication, automating outreach, and sharing real-time intelligence. With a tool that shares asset-level vulnerability intelligence and real-time ratings updates, vendors know exactly what they need to do to address your concerns. Vendors also appreciate such solutions as they help them scale efficiently — remediations to one client’s concerns are immediately visible to other clients, saving time.
3. Develop proactive incident detection and resolution processes
Security incidents are inevitable, making it essential to develop a proactive process for identifying and addressing them. Effective incident response depends on access to precise, actionable information shared transparently with vendors.
The traditional approach of inundating vendors with unstructured data leads to delays and confusion. Without clear guidance, vendors may struggle to prioritize their actions. A better option is to use a tool like Black Kite’s FocusTags™ to offer specific, actionable steps for addressing vulnerabilities. This makes it much easier for vendors to know what exactly needs to be done and why.
4. Collaborate on post-mortem incident reviews
When incidents occur, the response shouldn’t end with mitigation. Collaborating with your vendors to conduct post-mortem reviews is much more constructive than pointing fingers. It also shifts the focus to learning and improvement rather than fault-finding. By honestly evaluating what went wrong, it’s easier to take the necessary steps to improve your, and their, response in the future.
Taking a team-oriented approach to post-incident reviews strengthens your collective defenses. These collaborative discussions show a commitment to mutual success and ongoing improvement, reinforcing your shared responsibility in maintaining a strong security posture.
The Power of Partnership
Vendor partnerships aren’t just about managing risk — they’re about building relationships that deliver mutual value. Collaboration shifts the dynamic from adversarial into one rooted in trust, transparency, and shared objectives. Partnerships accelerate threat responses, streamline third-party risk management processes, and enable both organizations and vendors to strengthen their defenses.
The real power of partnership lies in its ability to create a symbiotic cybersecurity ecosystem, where each party contributes to a stronger collective defense. Vendors become trusted allies, working alongside you to identify vulnerabilities, mitigate risks, and stay ahead of threats. In this unified ecosystem, the sum truly is greater than the parts.
To learn more practical strategies for building stronger vendor partnerships, check out our ebook: Chaos to Collaboration: Transforming Third-Party Risk Response for Zero-Day Events.
E-commerce has become the main way for many companies to sell goods and services. For many customers it has become the way to make the vast majority of purchases. The success of your online store depends on various factors. These include a good branding and maximum website usability.
As well as the quality of the goods or services you offer. However, another factor is no less important. Namely, how the payment process you offer for your customers. Is it safe enough and convenient? That is why choosing the most secure payment gateway for your e-commerce platform is of utmost importance. We will help you understand how to choose the right payment gateway. We’ll also look at what types of payment gateways exist, and how to integrate online payments on your website.
Login
