Journalism, not consulting
CyberSecureToday publishes news and analysis. Our articles are written for a general professional audience and cannot account for the specifics of your environment, your risk appetite, your regulatory obligations or your architecture.
Nothing on this site constitutes professional security consulting, legal advice, financial advice or a formal risk assessment. Where a decision carries material consequences, engage a qualified professional who can look at your actual situation.
Test before you deploy
We publish configuration guidance, commands, detection logic and mitigation steps. All of it is provided as-is, without warranty of any kind.
Test any change in a non-production environment before applying it to production systems. A mitigation that is correct in general can still break your specific application, integration or compliance posture. You remain responsible for changes you make to systems you control.
Accuracy and timeliness
Security is a fast-moving field. Information that was accurate when published may be superseded within days: severity ratings get revised, patches get re-released, attribution changes, and initial reporting on an incident is frequently incomplete.
We work from the best sources available at the time of writing and link to them so you can check. Always confirm current status against the vendor's own advisory before acting, particularly for anything time-sensitive.
Vulnerability information
We report on vulnerabilities to help defenders protect their systems. We describe impact and mitigation. We do not publish working exploit code, and we follow coordinated disclosure norms when handling research shared with us.
Any technique described here is published for defensive purposes. Using it against systems you do not own or have explicit written authorisation to test is illegal in most jurisdictions. You are responsible for your own conduct.
How to read what we publish about named organisations
We report on security incidents at named organisations. Naming an organisation is a statement that an event has been reported, disclosed or claimed — it is not an assertion that the organisation was negligent, broke the law, or failed a duty, unless we say so expressly and set out the basis.
Being breached is not in itself evidence of wrongdoing. Well-run organisations are compromised by well-resourced attackers, and we try to write accordingly.
Where we describe an incident we distinguish, in the text, between what has been confirmed by the affected organisation, what a regulator or law enforcement body has stated, what a security vendor has assessed, and what a criminal group has claimed. Those are four very different things and we do not merge them.
Attribution is assessment, not proof
Attributing an intrusion to a named threat actor, group or state is an analytical judgement made under uncertainty, usually by a third party whose underlying evidence is not public. Where we report attribution we say who made it and, where the source states one, at what confidence level.
Phrases such as “assessed as”, “linked to”, “tracked as” and “claimed by” are used deliberately and should be read as written. Group names are labels applied by vendors to clusters of activity; different vendors draw those boundaries differently, and a single name does not imply a single organisation.
Analysis and opinion
Articles in our Insights and Industry sections, and the analytical passages within news reporting, contain the honest opinions of the author formed on the basis of the facts stated and sources cited. They are offered as comment on matters of public interest to people responsible for defending systems. Where we criticise a vendor's handling of a disclosure, a product decision or a regulatory position, that is comment and should be read as such.
Do not test systems you do not own
Nothing we publish is authorisation to access, probe or test any system. Techniques, commands, indicators and proof-of-concept discussion appear here so that defenders can find and fix problems in systems they are responsible for.
Using any of it against systems you do not own, or do not have explicit written permission to test, is likely a criminal offence — under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the United States, the Computer Misuse Act in the United Kingdom, sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act in India, and equivalent law elsewhere. Authorisation must come from the system owner and must be in writing. We cannot give it, and no article here does.
Third-party sources and claims
Much of our reporting draws on research published by security vendors, government agencies and independent researchers. We cite these sources and note where a figure comes from a party with a commercial interest in the answer.
Claims made by extortion groups — victim names, data volumes, what was stolen — are inherently unreliable and frequently exaggerated. Where we report them, we say so, and we distinguish claims from confirmed facts.
External links
We link out so you can verify our work. We do not control linked sites and are not responsible for their content, accuracy, security or privacy practices.
No liability
To the fullest extent permitted by law, CyberSecureToday accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising from use of, or reliance on, information published here. See our terms of service for the full limitation.
Corrections and complaints
If we have published something inaccurate, unfair or unlawful, tell us at info@0daysecure.com. Our complaints and right of reply page sets out how to raise it and the timescales we work to, including the right of reply available to organisations we report on. We correct errors openly and note the correction on the article — see our editorial policy.