Connect with us

Infosecurity

Beyond the Alert: Why UEBA is a Critical Piece, But Not the Whole Puzzle, in Insider Threat Defense

Published

on

Beyond the Alert: Why UEBA is a Critical Piece, But Not the Whole Puzzle, in Insider Threat Defense

The cybersecurity market buzzes with solutions promising to solve complex problems. In the arena of UEBA software, the promise is often framed as the ultimate answer to insider threats. This framing, however, sets a dangerous precedent. While indispensable, UEBA is a powerful component within a broader defense-in-depth strategy, not a standalone silver bullet.

The Core Function and Inherent Limitation of UEBA

At its heart, UEBA software operates by establishing a baseline of normal activity for users and entities—like servers or applications—within a network. It then flags significant deviations from this norm. This could be an employee accessing sensitive financial records at 3 a.m., a system administrator downloading vast amounts of data, or a service account behaving in a way that mimics human interaction. Consequently, it serves as a sophisticated tripwire, signaling potential malice, negligence, or a compromised account.

Nevertheless, an alert is merely the starting pistol, not the finish line. The fundamental challenge lies in the gap between detecting anomalous behavior and confirming malicious intent. A security operations center (SOC) analyst might receive a high-priority alert about the HR director querying a proprietary engineering database. The UEBA system has done its job perfectly by flagging this unusual access pattern. But what happens next?

The Critical Need for Investigative Context

Building on this, the alert itself is data-poor. It lacks the crucial business context needed for a rapid, accurate assessment. Was the HR director assisting with a cross-departmental audit authorized by leadership? Did they receive legitimate, temporary access privileges for a specific project? Or is this a clear case of data exfiltration? The UEBA software cannot answer these questions.

Therefore, investigators are thrust into a time-consuming process of correlation. They must pivot to identity management systems, ticketing platforms, and asset inventories. They need to contact the application owner to understand normal use cases. This investigative sprawl turns what should be a swift verification into a protracted hunt, draining SOC resources and increasing the window of exposure if a threat is real.

Adopting an Inside-Out Security Mindset

To move beyond reactive alert-chasing, organizations must embrace an inside-out approach to security. This strategy begins not with threats, but with assets. It asks three foundational questions: What are our crown jewels—the data and systems whose compromise would cause catastrophic business loss? What specific threats target these assets? And what vulnerabilities do these assets possess that those threats could exploit?

In this model, UEBA software plays a targeted and vital role. It directly addresses the threat of malicious or careless insiders, as well as external actors operating through a hijacked account, specifically when they are targeting those pre-identified critical assets. This focus ensures the SOC’s efforts are prioritized on protecting what matters most to the business, rather than being distracted by noise.

Unifying the Organization on Cyber Risk

Effective insider threat management is not a siloed SOC function; it is an organizational discipline. From the boardroom to the IT department, everyone must operate from a unified understanding of business risk. The people closest to critical assets—the application owners, data stewards, and business unit leaders—hold intuitive knowledge about their environment and its legitimate users.

This means that integrating this human-centric context with the machine-driven alerts from UEBA is non-negotiable. A platform that can marry the technical alert (“unusual access”) with business context (“user is part of approved merger team”) is where true efficiency and accuracy are born. It transforms the SOC from a group of alert triagers into informed cyber risk managers.

As a result, the next evolution in security analytics is not about replacing UEBA, but about enveloping it. The future lies in platforms that integrate UEBA’s behavioral detection with deep asset valuation, vulnerability context, and threat intelligence. This holistic view allows companies to understand not just that something is happening, but why it matters and what should be done about it. For a deeper dive on building this strategy, explore our guide on implementing a cyber risk framework.

Ultimately, dismissing UEBA software would be foolish; it provides an essential, data-driven lens on user activity. Yet, relying on it alone is equally perilous. It is a brilliant detective that finds clues but needs a full investigative team to solve the case. By placing UEBA within a comprehensive, asset-centric security program, organizations can ensure they are not just collecting alerts, but actively managing and mitigating their most pressing cyber risks. For further reading on complementary technologies, consider our analysis of SIEM and SOAR platforms.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Infosecurity

Progress Restores ShareFile Storage Zones Access After Vulnerability Exploit Concerns

Published

on

ShareFile Storage Zones

ShareFile Storage Zones Back Online After Security Scare

Progress Software has restored access to its ShareFile Storage Zones Controller after a four-day security suspension. The company pulled the plug on July 10 after detecting what it called a credible external threat. By July 14, service was back up.

ShareFile is Progress’s flagship enterprise file-sharing platform. The Storage Zones Controller is the component that gives corporate customers their own private data storage — a critical feature for organizations that need to keep files on-premises or in a controlled cloud environment.

The incident stemmed from a high-severity path traversal vulnerability. Progress confirmed to Infosecurity that attackers exploited the flaw, which affects Storage Zones Controller versions 5.x and 6.x.

“We developed and released patched versions to customers and once patched, these customers’ Storage Zones Controllers will be operational,” the company said.

The patched builds are version 5.12.5 and version 6.0.2.

No CVE Yet — And Here’s Why

Progress hasn’t published a CVE identifier for the vulnerability. The company told BleepingComputer it’s deliberately holding back the details to give customers time to apply the patches before the information goes public. That’s a standard responsible-disclosure playbook move, but it also means security teams can’t look up the flaw in public databases yet.

“At this time, we have no evidence of unauthorized access to any ShareFile customer account or data, and we have not identified any active threat,” Progress told Infosecurity.

That’s good news for the companies that rely on ShareFile for sensitive document sharing. Still, the four-day outage and the need for emergency patching are reminders of how quickly things can go sideways.

A Familiar Pattern for Progress

This isn’t Progress’s first run-in with a serious security incident. In 2023, the company’s MOVEit Transfer product was exploited in a massive ransomware campaign that hit hundreds of organizations worldwide. The Clop ransomware group used a SQL injection vulnerability to steal data from MOVEit servers, and the fallout dragged on for months.

Then in April 2026, a critical vulnerability in MOVEit Automation resurfaced, causing further disruptions.

Each time, Progress has scrambled to issue patches and reassure customers. The ShareFile incident follows the same script: detect, suspend, patch, restore. But for IT teams managing these systems, the pattern is exhausting — and costly.

What Path Traversal Means for Your Data

A path traversal vulnerability lets an attacker read files outside the intended directory. In the context of Storage Zones, that could mean accessing configuration files, credentials, or other sensitive data stored on the server. The severity rating was high, not critical, but the fact that it was actively exploited made the shutdown necessary.

Progress hasn’t shared details on who exploited the flaw or how they found it. The company’s security team is likely still investigating the incident’s scope.

What ShareFile Customers Should Do Now

If you’re running Storage Zones Controller, the fix is straightforward:

  • Upgrade to version 5.12.5 or 6.0.2 immediately.
  • Check your logs for any unusual activity between July 10 and July 14.
  • Review access controls on your storage zones.

Progress says patched controllers will operate normally. Unpatched ones won’t be supported and could remain exposed if the vulnerability details leak before you update.

For organizations that use WhatsApp HD photo sending or other consumer-grade file sharing, this incident is a good reminder that enterprise tools come with their own risks — and responsibilities.

The Bigger Picture: Enterprise File Sharing Under Pressure

Enterprise file-sharing services like ShareFile, Egnyte, and Box have become essential for remote work. They handle contracts, financial data, HR records — the kind of material that keeps compliance officers up at night.

But every feature that adds convenience also adds attack surface. Storage Zones, for example, gives customers control over where their data lives. That’s great for compliance. It also means a vulnerability in that component can expose data that’s supposed to be locked down.

Progress’s decision to suspend the service was aggressive but probably wise. A four-day outage beats a data breach. Still, customers are left wondering: how many more of these incidents are coming?

For now, patch your systems, verify your backups, and keep an eye on Progress’s security advisories. The CVE will drop eventually — and when it does, you’ll want to already be on a fixed version.

Continue Reading

Infosecurity

Eight Greeks file lawsuit against Intellexa over Predator spyware surveillance

Published

on

Predator spyware lawsuit

Eight Greeks sue Intellexa over Predator spyware surveillance

Eight Greek citizens whose phones were infected with Predator spyware have filed a civil lawsuit against the surveillance technology company Intellexa and 13 individuals linked to the firm. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, seeks roughly €7.6 million ($8.7 million) in total damages.

The plaintiffs include a former Meta security manager, financial journalist Thanassis Koukakis, two lawyers, a former director of the Hellenic Police’s Forensic Laboratories, the ex-head of a Greek intelligence agency, journalist Spyridon Sideris, and a former intelligence and law enforcement official. Their lawyer, Zacharias Kesses, told Greek outlet Ekathimerini that the compensation is meant to address “the moral damage suffered by the victims from the illegal violation of their privacy, the confidentiality of their communications and their personal data.”

How the Predator spyware scandal unfolded

The scandal erupted in 2022 when forensic investigators found traces of Predator spyware on dozens of phones belonging to journalists, politicians, and business figures. The revelations triggered a political crisis. Greece’s intelligence service chief resigned, and so did the prime minister’s chief of staff. In February, a Greek court sentenced Intellexa’s founder, Tal Dilian, and three associates to more than 126 years in prison. Under Greek law, however, they will serve only eight years. They remain free while the appeals process plays out.

The lawsuit details “the structure, operation and division of roles of the network of companies and individuals associated with the development, distribution and use of Predator,” Kesses said. He called the legal action “the next institutional step towards full accountability of all those involved and redress for victims, both at national and European level.” A trial is scheduled to begin in April 2027.

Tal Dilian blames Greek government

In March, weeks after the prison sentences were handed down, Dilian gave an interview to a local news outlet claiming he was being made a scapegoat for the Greek government’s own wrongdoing. He insisted Intellexa sold Predator exclusively to government customers — in this case, the Greek government and its national intelligence agency. Dilian accused the government and intelligence agency of committing a “conspiratorial criminal act” designed to cover up their own malfeasance. He maintains Intellexa provides the spyware to government clients and has no role in selecting targets.

That defense hasn’t swayed the victims. The plaintiffs argue Intellexa and its associates bear direct responsibility for the illegal surveillance that invaded their private lives. The case is one of the first major civil lawsuits in Europe targeting a spyware manufacturer, and it could set a precedent for how courts handle privacy violations enabled by commercial surveillance tools.

What the victims are seeking

Each victim is claiming compensation for specific harms: invasion of privacy, breach of confidential communications, and misuse of personal data. The total €7.6 million demand reflects the severity of the violations, according to Kesses. The lawsuit also names 13 individuals tied to Intellexa, though Kesses did not specify their roles. The legal filings reportedly lay out the corporate structure and operational links between the companies and people involved in the Predator supply chain.

The case has drawn attention from privacy advocates across Europe. It highlights the growing tension between governments that buy spyware for law enforcement and the companies that manufacture it. Critics argue that once spyware is sold, vendors lose control over how it’s used — and that governments often target journalists, lawyers, and political opponents rather than criminals.

For the eight Greek plaintiffs, the lawsuit is about more than money. It’s about holding Intellexa accountable for building and selling a tool that was used to spy on them. The trial in 2027 will be a key test of whether spyware makers can be held liable for the actions of their government customers.

Continue Reading

Infosecurity

Compromised Logins Surge as the Most Common Entry Point for Ransomware Attacks

Published

on

compromised logins ransomware

Stolen Credentials Now Drive the Majority of Ransomware Incidents

Cybercriminals have shifted tactics. A new analysis from Sophos shows that compromised logins are now the primary way ransomware gets inside a network. The report, based on real-world incidents, found that 79% of ransomware attacks trace back to an initial intrusion that exploited legitimate user credentials or abused identity systems.

That’s a major jump. It means the front door — a stolen password or a phished login — is now far more dangerous than a software bug.

“Over the last 12 months across the ransomware landscape we’ve seen attackers rely on ‘easier’ attacks, using compromised identities as the primary initial access vector,” said Ross McKerchar, CISO at Sophos, in a statement to Infosecurity. He pointed to advances in social engineering, including AI-polished phishing emails and sophisticated ClickFix campaigns designed to trick even trained users into bypassing multi-factor authentication (MFA).

How Attackers Get In: Phishing, Brute Force, and Old Vulnerabilities

The report breaks down the initial entry points. Malicious emails accounted for 26% of ransomware incidents, up from 19% in 2025. Phishing attacks — often used to steal credentials — were the root cause in 24% of cases, rising from 18% the previous year.

Brute force attacks came in third at 23%, a slight dip from 22% in 2025. That method relies on automation to guess weak or common passwords.

What’s falling out of favor? Exploiting known security vulnerabilities. That approach dropped from 32% in 2025 to just 18% in 2026. Attackers are choosing the path of least resistance — and that path leads straight to human error and weak identity controls.

Where Stolen Logins Are Used: VPNs, Firewalls, and IoT Devices

Once attackers have a valid login, they don’t stop at one system. The report details how exploited identities are used to move laterally. In 38% of cases, attackers accessed exposed applications or systems. Remote device logins accounted for 30%, firewalls for 21%, and exposed VPNs for 8%. Even IoT devices served as an initial point of entry in 3% of incidents.

That breadth of access points means a single compromised password can open multiple doors. No wonder identity-based attacks are surging.

Why Organizations Are Still Getting Caught Off Guard

Sophos surveyed 2,158 cybersecurity leaders. Their answers reveal persistent gaps. 62% cited security gaps in the network — both known and unknown — as a reason attacks went undetected. Over half (58%) said their organization was held back by a lack of people or expertise. And 57% felt they hadn’t implemented the right level of cybersecurity protections.

The message is clear: tools alone aren’t enough. Teams need the right skills and the right configurations to make identity-based defenses work.

Ransom Payments: Smaller Demands, But More Victims Paying

The report also tracks ransom demands. The median demand has fallen to $698,000, down from $2 million just two years ago. But that doesn’t mean attackers are getting softer. They’re tailoring demands to each victim. Smaller organizations get smaller asks. If the ransom seems “reasonable,” victims are more likely to pay — especially if they fear downtime will cost more than the ransom itself.

Among organizations that had data encrypted, 48% paid the ransom. Meanwhile, 66% used their own backups to restore some data, up from 54% in 2025. That’s progress, but it’s not a silver bullet.

How to Defend Against Identity-Based Ransomware Attacks

The Sophos report offers clear guidance: treat identity as a foundational security layer, not an afterthought. “Organizations should prioritize identity threat detection and response (ITDR), enforce multi-factor authentication across all access points, and regularly audit both human and non-human identity credentials,” the report recommends.

That means ransomware protection strategies must start with identity hygiene. Enforce MFA everywhere. Monitor for unusual login patterns. Audit credentials regularly. And don’t forget non-human identities — service accounts and API keys are often overlooked.

For readers looking to strengthen their defenses, a good place to start is understanding common phishing attack techniques and how to spot them. Training alone won’t stop every attack, but combined with strong identity controls, it raises the bar.

The bottom line? Attackers are going where the defenses are weakest — straight at the login screen. Organizations that lock that door first will have the best chance of keeping ransomware out.

Continue Reading

Trending