The adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) phishing service lowers the barrier to entry for actors to create attacks and steal more than just user credentials.
The adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) phishing service lowers the barrier to entry for actors to create attacks and steal more than just user credentials.
In context
- Topic: Ciberseguridad — Riesgo, identidad, respuesta a incidentes y cumplimiento.
- Source: Dark Reading
- Published: 26/08/2026
Continue reading at the original source →
Excerpt published automatically by the site radar. The full text belongs to its publisher and is linked above.
Why it matters
Most incidents that end up being expensive did not start with a sophisticated technique. They started with an account that should have been closed when somebody resigned, a server nobody knew was still on, or a broad permission granted to unblock someone that then stayed forever.
I read it with the same short list as always: second factor on anything that grants access, tested backups kept off the network, and a real inventory of what is exposed to the internet. It is not glamorous, and it still prevents most disasters.
What usually goes wrong
Where it usually breaks is response, not prevention. There are tools, there are alerts, and when something real happens nobody knows who decides to disconnect, who gets called first, or what the customer is told. Valuable hours get lost arguing about that while the problem grows.
What to watch
- What could be restored and how fast — a backup that was never tested does not count.
- How it was communicated to customers and regulators, which is where reputational cost is decided.
- Whether third parties or suppliers were in the chain, because the perimeter now includes partners.
How I read this entry
What I would review this very week is access: accounts belonging to people who left, permissions that grew without anyone trimming them, and shared credentials everybody swears do not exist. It is the least glamorous work and the one that cuts off the most attacks.
This entry is an excerpt from the original source, selected by the site radar. The commentary above is the site's own and does not belong to the cited publisher.
Living through this in your own team?
Open the chat and tell me how you're handling it. I'm interested in comparing notes.
