Search results

Can Firewalls Be Hacked? Yes, Here’s 6 Vulnerabilities Like all security tools, firewalls can be hacked. That’s what happened to the... Cyber Attacks & Incident Response Can Firewalls Be Hacked? Yes, Here’s 6 Vulnerabilities Tsippi Dach 2 min read Tsippi Dach Short bio about author here Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur. Vitae donec tincidunt elementum quam laoreet duis sit enim. Duis mattis velit sit leo diam. Tags Share this article 12/20/23 Published Can Firewalls Be Hacked? Yes, Here’s 6 Vulnerabilities Like all security tools, firewalls can be hacked. That’s what happened to the social media platform X in January 2023, when it was still Twitter. Hackers exploited an API vulnerability that had been exposed since June the previous year. This gave them access to the platform’s security system and allowed them to leak sensitive information on millions of users. This breach occurred because the organization’s firewalls were not configured to examine API traffic with enough scrutiny. This failure in firewall protection led to the leak of more than 200 million names, email addresses, and usernames, along with other information, putting victims at risk of identity theft . Firewalls are your organization’s first line of defense against malware and data breaches. They inspect all traffic traveling into and out of your network, looking for signs of cyber attacks and blocking malicious activity when they find it. This makes them an important part of every organization’s cybersecurity strategy. Effective firewall management and configuration is vital for preventing cybercrime. Read on to find out how you can protect your organization from attacks that exploit firewall vulnerabilities you may not be aware of. Understanding the 4 Types of Firewalls The first thing every executive and IT leader should know is that there are four basic types of firewalls . Each category offers a different level of protection, with simpler solutions costing less than more advanced ones. Most organizations need to use some combination of these four firewall types to protect sensitive data effectively. Keep in mind that buying more advanced firewalls is not always the answer. Optimal firewall management usually means deploying the right type of firewall for its particular use case. Ideally, these should be implemented alongside multi-layered network security solutions that include network detection and response, endpoint security, and security information and event management (SIEM) technology. 1. Packet Filtering Firewalls These are the oldest and most basic types of firewalls. They operate at the network layer, checking individual data packets for their source IP address and destination IP. They also verify the connection protocol, as well as the source port and destination port against predefined rules. The firewall drops packets that fail to meet these standards, protecting the network from potentially harmful threats. Packet filtering firewalls are among the fastest and cheapest types of firewalls available. Since they can not inspect the contents of data packets, they offer minimal functionality. They also can’t keep track of established connections or enforce rules that rely on knowledge of network connection states. This is why they are considered stateless firewalls. 2. Stateful Inspection Firewalls These firewalls also perform packet inspection, but they ingest more information about the traffic they inspect and compare that information against a list of established connections and network states. Stateful inspection firewalls work by creating a table that contains the IP and port data for traffic sources and destinations, and dynamically check whether data packets are part of a verified active connection. This approach allows stateful inspection firewalls to deny data packets that do not belong to a verified connection. However, the process of checking data packets against the state table consumes system resources and slows down traffic. This makes stateful inspection firewalls vulnerable to Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks. 3. Application Layer Gateways These firewalls operate at the application layer, inspecting and managing traffic based on specific applications or protocols, providing deep packet inspection and content filtering. They are also known as proxy firewalls because they can be implemented at the application layer through a proxy device. In practice, this means that an external client trying to access your system has to send a request to the proxy firewall first. The firewall verifies the authenticity of the request and forwards it to an internal server. They can also work the other way around, providing internal users with access to external resources (like public web pages) without exposing the identity or location of the internal device used. 4. Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFW) Next-generation firewalls combine traditional firewall functions with advanced features such as intrusion prevention, antivirus, and application awareness . They contextualize data packet flows and enrich them with additional data, providing comprehensive security against a wide range of threats. Instead of relying exclusively on IP addresses and port information, NGFWs can perform identity-based monitoring of individual users, applications, and assets. For example, a properly configured NGFW can follow a single user’s network traffic across multiple devices and operating systems, providing an activity timeline even if the user switches between a desktop computer running Microsoft Windows and an Amazon AWS instance controlling routers and iOT devices. How Do These Firewalls Function? Each type of firewall has a unique set of functions that serve to improve the organization’s security posture and prevent hackers from carrying out malicious cyber attacks. Optimizing your firewall fleet means deploying the right type of solution for each particular use case throughout your network. Some of the most valuable functions that firewalls perform include: Traffic Control They regulate incoming and outgoing traffic, ensuring that only legitimate and authorized data flows through the network. This is especially helpful in cases where large volumes of automated traffic can slow down routine operations and disrupt operations. For example, many modern firewalls include rules designed to deny bot traffic. Some non-human traffic is harmless, like the search engine crawlers that determine your website’s ranking against certain keyword searches. However, the vast majority of bot traffic is either unnecessary or malicious. Firewalls can help you keep your infrastructure costs down by filtering out connection attempts from automated sources you don’t trust. Protection Against Cyber Threats Firewalls act as a shield against various cyber threats, including phishing attacks, malware and ransomware attacks . Since they are your first line of defense, any malicious activity that targets your organization will have to bypass your firewall first. Hackers know this, which is why they spend a great deal of time and effort finding ways to bypass firewall protection. They can do this by exploiting technical vulnerabilities in your firewall devices or by hiding their activities in legitimate traffic. For example, many firewalls do not inspect authenticated connections from trusted users. If cybercriminals learn your login credentials and use your authenticated account to conduct an attack, your firewalls may not notice the malicious activity at all. Network Segmentation By defining access rules, firewalls can segment networks into zones with varying levels of trust, limiting lateral movement for attackers. This effectively isolates cybercriminals into the zone they originally infiltrated, and increases the chance they make a mistake and reveal themselves trying to access additional assets throughout your network. Network segmentation is an important aspect of the Zero Trust framework. Firewalls can help reinforce the Zero Trust approach by inspecting traffic traveling between internal networks and dropping connections that fail to authenticate themselves. Security Policy Enforcement Firewalls enforce security policies, ensuring that organizations comply with their security standards and regulatory requirements. Security frameworks like NIST , ISO 27001/27002 , and CIS specify policies and controls that organizations need to implement in order to achieve compliance. Many of these frameworks stipulate firewall controls and features that require organizations to invest in optimizing their deployments. They also include foundational and organizational controls where firewalls play a supporting role, contributing to a stronger multi-layered cybersecurity strategy. Intrusion Detection and Prevention Advanced firewalls include intrusion detection and prevention capabilities, which can identify and block suspicious activities in real-time. This allows security teams to automate their response to some of the high-volume security events that would otherwise drag down performance . Automatically detecting and blocking known exploits frees IT staff to spend more time on high-impact strategic work that can boost the organization’s security posture. Logging and Reporting Firewalls generate logs and reports that assist in security analysis, incident response, and compliance reporting. These logs provide in-depth data on who accessed the organization’s IT assets, and when the connection occurred. They enable security teams to conduct forensic investigations into security incidents, driving security performance and generating valuable insights into the organization’s real-world security risk profile. Organizations that want to implement SIEM technology must also connect their firewall devices to the platform and configure them to send log data to their SIEM for centralized analysis. This gives security teams visibility into the entire organization’s attack surface and enables them to adopt a Zero Trust approach to managing log traffic. Common Vulnerabilities & Weaknesses Firewalls Share Firewalls are crucial for network security, but they are not immune to vulnerabilities. Common weaknesses most firewall solutions share include: Zero-day vulnerabilities These are vulnerabilities in firewall software or hardware that are unknown to the vendor or the general public. Attackers can exploit them before patches or updates are available, making zero-day attacks highly effective. Highly advanced NGFW solutions can protect against zero-day attacks by inspecting behavioral data and using AI-enriched analysis to detect unknown threats. Backdoors Backdoors are secret entry points left by developers or attackers within a firewall’s code. These hidden access points can be exploited to bypass security measures. Security teams must continuously verify their firewall configurations to identify the signs of backdoor attacks. Robust and effective change management solutions help prevent backdoors from remaining hidden. Header manipulation Attackers may manipulate packet headers to trick firewalls into allowing unauthorized traffic or obscuring their malicious intent. There are multiple ways to manipulate the “Host” header in HTTP traffic to execute attacks. Security teams need to configure their firewalls and servers to validate incoming HTTP traffic and limit exposure to header vulnerabilities. How Cyber Criminals Exploit These Vulnerabilities Unauthorized Access Exploiting a vulnerability can allow cybercriminals to penetrate a network firewall, gaining access to sensitive data, proprietary information, or critical systems. Once hackers gain unauthorized access to a network asset, only a well-segmented network operating on Zero Trust principles can reliably force them to reveal themselves. Otherwise, they will probably remain hidden until they launch an active attack. Data Breaches Once inside your network, attackers may exfiltrate sensitive information, including customer data, intellectual property, and financial records (like credit cards), leading to data breaches. These complex security incidents can lead to major business disruptions and reputational damage, as well as enormous recovery costs. Malware Distribution Attackers may use compromised firewalls to distribute malware, ransomware, or malicious payloads to other devices within the network. This type of attack may focus on exploiting your systems and network assets, or it may target networks adjacent to your own – like your third-party vendors, affiliate partners, or customers. Denial of Service (DDoS) Exploited firewalls can be used in DDoS attacks, potentially disrupting network services and rendering them unavailable to users. This leads to expensive downtime and reputational damage. Some hackers try to extort their victims directly, demanding organizations pay money to stop the attack. 6 Techniques Used to Bypass Firewalls 1. Malware and Payload Delivery Attackers use malicious software and payloads to exploit firewall vulnerabilities, allowing them to infiltrate networks or systems undetected. This often occurs due to unpatched security vulnerabilities in popular firewall operating systems. For example, in June 2023 Fortinet addressed a critical-severity FortiOS vulnerability with a security patch. One month later in July, there were still 300,000 Fortinet firewalls still using the unpatched operating system. 2. Phishing Attacks Phishing involves tricking individuals into divulging sensitive information or executing malicious actions. Attackers use deceptive emails or websites that may bypass firewall filters. If they gain access to privileged user account credentials, they may be able to bypass firewall policies entirely, or even reconfigure firewalls themselves. 3. Social Engineering Tactics Cybercriminals manipulate human psychology to deceive individuals into disclosing confidential information, effectively bypassing technical security measures like firewalls. This is typically done through social media, email, or by telephone. Attackers may impersonate authority figures both inside and outside the organization and demand access to sensitive assets without going through the appropriate security checks. 4. Deep Packet Inspection Evasion Attackers employ techniques to disguise malicious traffic, making it appear benign to firewalls using deep packet inspection, allowing it to pass through undetected. Some open-source tools like SymTCP can achieve this by running symbolic executions on the server’s TCP implementation, scanning the resulting execution paths, and sending malicious data through any handling discrepancies identified. 5. VPNs and Remote Access Attackers may use Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and remote access methods to circumvent firewall restrictions and gain unauthorized entry into networks. This is particularly easy in cases where simple geo restrictions block traffic from IP addresses associated with certain countries or regions. Attackers may also use more sophisticated versions of this technique to access exposed services that don’t require authentication, like certain containerized servers . 6. Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) Bypass Sophisticated attackers attempt to evade IPS systems by crafting traffic patterns or attacks that go undetected, enabling them to compromise network security. For example, they may use technologies to decode remote access tool executable files hidden inside certificate files, allowing them to reassemble the malicious file after it passes through the IPS. Protecting Against Firewall Vulnerabilities Multi-factor Authentication (MFA) MFA adds an extra layer of security by requiring users to provide multiple forms of identification, such as a password and a one-time code sent to their mobile device, before they gain access. This prevents attackers from accessing sensitive network assets immediately after stealing privileged login credentials. Knowing an account holder’s password and username is not enough. Two-factor Authentication (2FA) 2FA is a subset of MFA that involves using two authentication factors, typically something the user knows (password) and something the user has (a mobile device or security token), to verify identity and enhance firewall security. Other versions use biometrics like fingerprint scanning to authenticate the user. Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) IPS solutions work alongside firewalls to actively monitor network traffic for suspicious activity and known attack patterns, helping to block or mitigate threats before they can breach the network. These systems significantly reduce the amount of manual effort that goes into detecting and blocking known malicious attack techniques. Web Application Firewalls (WAF) WAFs are specialized firewalls designed to protect web applications from a wide range of threats, including SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and other web-based attacks. Since these firewalls focus specifically on HTTP traffic, they are a type of application level gateway designed specifically for web applications that interact with users on the public internet. Antivirus Software and Anti-malware Tools Deploying up-to-date antivirus and anti-malware software on endpoints, servers, and Wi-Fi network routers helps detect and remove malicious software, reducing the risk of firewall compromise. In order to work effectively, these tools must be configured to detect and mitigate the latest threats alongside the organization’s other security tools and firewalls. Automated solutions can help terminate unauthorized processes before attackers get a chance to deliver malicious payloads. Regular Updates and Patch Management Keeping firewalls and all associated software up-to-date with the latest security patches and firmware updates is essential for addressing known vulnerabilities and ensuring optimal security. Security teams should know when configuration changes are taking place, and be equipped to respond quickly when unauthorized changes take place. Implementing a comprehensive visibility and change management platform like AlgoSec makes this possible. With AlgoSec, you can simulate the effects of network configuration changes and proactively defend against sophisticated threats before attackers have a chance to strike. Monitoring Network Traffic for Anomalies Continuous monitoring of network traffic helps identify unusual patterns or behaviors that may indicate a security incident. Anomalies can trigger alerts for further investigation and response. Network detection and response solutions grant visibility into network activities that would otherwise go unnoticed, potentially giving security personnel early warning when unannounced changes or suspicious behaviors take place. Streamline Your Firewall Security With AlgoSec Organizations continue to face increasingly sophisticated cyber threats, including attacks that capitalize on misconfigured firewalls – or manipulate firewall configurations directly. Firewall management software has become a valuable tool for maintaining a robust network security posture and ensuring regulatory compliance. AlgoSec plays a vital role enhancing firewall security by automating policy analysis, optimizing rule sets, streamlining change management, and providing real-time monitoring and visibility. Find out how to make the most of your firewall deployment and detect unauthorized changes to firewall configurations with our help. Schedule a demo Related Articles Q1 at AlgoSec: What innovations and milestones defined our start to 2026? AlgoSec Reviews Mar 19, 2023 · 2 min read 2025 in review: What innovations and milestones defined AlgoSec’s transformative year in 2025? AlgoSec Reviews Mar 19, 2023 · 2 min read Navigating Compliance in the Cloud AlgoSec Cloud Mar 19, 2023 · 2 min read Speak to one of our experts Speak to one of our experts Work email* First name* Last name* Company* country* Select country... Short answer* By submitting this form, I accept AlgoSec's privacy policy Schedule a call

Manage and secure your enterprise's hybrid network with integrated solutions that offer visibility, control, and efficiency across diverse infrastructures. Enterprise hybrid network management solutions ---- ------- Schedule a Demo Select a size ----- Get the latest insights from the experts Choose a better way to manage your network

Learn best practices to secure your cloud environment and deliver applications securely Webinars State of Ransomware: Caught between perception and reality Ransomware continues to be a major problem—and the problem is only getting worse. An exclusive ExtraHop 2022 survey conducted with over 500 security and IT decision makers provided some sobering responses: 85% of those surveyed reported suffering at least one ransomware attack while an alarming 74% have experienced multiple attacks. Yet most IT decision makers (77%) are confident in their ability to prevent or mitigate all cybersecurity threats, including ransomware. In this webinar, we take an in-depth look into the implications of this alarming trend and provide a turnkey strategy that organizations can implement today to safeguard their most critical data stored in their business applications and increase their level of ransomware preparedness. Join us for: * In-depth analysis of infamous ransomware attacks * Ways to identify and remediate vulnerabilities at the application level * A practical application centric approach that can support your pre-existing security measures * Mitigation measures to consider at the onset of your next ransomware attack * Ransomware future trends predictions January 24, 2023 Eric Jeffery Regional Sales Engineer Relevant resources Reducing risk of ransomware attacks - back to basics Keep Reading Fighting Ransomware - CTO Roundtable Insights Keep Reading Ransomware Attack: Best practices to help organizations proactively prevent, contain and Keep Reading Choose a better way to manage your network Choose a better way to manage your network Work email* First name* Last name* Company* country* Select country... Short answer* By submitting this form, I accept AlgoSec's privacy policy Continue

The predictive roadmap: Architecting Zero Trust for the hybrid reality WhitePaper Download PDF Download PDF Add a Title Add a Title Add a Title Schedule time with one of our experts Work email* First name* Last name* Company* country* Select country... Short answer* By submitting this form, I accept AlgoSec's privacy policy Continue

Zero trust vs micro segmentation Select a size Which network Can AlgoSec be used for continuous compliance monitoring? Yes, AlgoSec supports continuous compliance monitoring. As organizations adapt their security policies to meet emerging threats and address new vulnerabilities, they must constantly verify these changes against the compliance frameworks they subscribe to. AlgoSec can generate risk assessment reports and conduct internal audits on-demand, allowing compliance officers to monitor compliance performance in real-time. Security professionals can also use AlgoSec to preview and simulate proposed changes to the organization’s security policies. This gives compliance officers a valuable degree of lead-time before planned changes impact regulatory guidelines and allows for continuous real-time monitoring. Microsegmentation Zero Trust: How Microsegmentation Drives Zero Trust Success Microsegmentation zero trust is the practice of enforcing zero trust principles through fine‑grained, application‑aware segmentation at the workload and service level. Companies today are turning to microsegmentation, a granular form of network segmentation, to contain attacks quickly, prove least‑privilege access, and simplify compliance across hybrid environments. Despite still having to spend an average of $4.4 million per breach, according to IBM's Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 , this is 9% lower than 2024. That drop ties directly to faster identification and containment—outcomes microsegmentation accelerates by limiting lateral movement and shrinking the blast radius from the first indicator of compromise. In yet another study, Verizon’s 2025 Data Breach Investigations Report , more than 12,000 confirmed breaches demonstrated how multi-stage intrusions use lateral movement, which microsegmentation technology directly addresses. Meanwhile, the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) requires network segmentation for system scope reduction, which leads to decreased audit work and better system isolation. Taken together, these findings underscore a simple point: Organizations need application‑aware controls—specifically microsegmentation—to stop attackers from moving between systems and to operationalize zero trust. This article discusses the zero trust vs. micro‑segmentation debate, explains how zero trust and microsegmentation in fact work together, and provides a path to design, enforce, and operate this approach. What Is Microsegmentation? Microsegmentation divides networks into small, secure domains that match workload requirements and user/service identities with explicit allow‑rules to stop lateral movement. Network security today benefits from application-based boundaries, i.e., policies applied where applications actually communicate—not just subnets and VLANS. In practice, that means protecting individual workloads and the communication between them across data centers, public clouds, containers, and endpoints—rather than vaguely “protecting components” or “locations.” What Is the Difference Between Traditional (Macro) and Micro-Segmentation This comparison comes down to a difference in approach: Macro-segmentation uses broad VLANs and subnets or DMZs to divide network tiers; while this provides limited east-west control, it is simpler to design. Micro-segmentation uses SDN and host agents, as well as cloud security groups; application-specific policies are enforced at the workload/service boundary, which is why they are the engine of microsegmentation zero trust. What Role Do Firewalls and Network Segmentation Layers Play in Microsegmentation? Your existing perimeter and internal firewalls provide north‑south control, compliance zones, and enforcement points that microsegmentation can orchestrate. In other words, microsegmentation complements firewalls and network segmentation layers—it does not replace them. Extending the point above: Microsegmentation orchestrates those firewall and segmentation layers to deploy least‑privilege across hybrid systems—specifically: Cloud security groups NACLs SDN fabrics Kubernetes policies Host-based controls Since these layers are complementary, they collectively shrink the blast radius. What Is Zero Trust? Zero trust is a security concept, not a product or service. The system uses identity-based dynamic authorization, which takes into account device health status and environmental context—instead of traditional static location-based access methods. Verification is continuous because environments and risk conditions evolve. Zero trust verifies every access decision—no implicit trust—and enforces least privilege Zero Trust vs. Micro‑Segmentation: Complementary Forces While zero trust operates as an operational framework, microsegmentation functions as an implementation methodology. While zero trust explains what needs protection and which aspects require protection, microsegmentation provides the how. The table below breaks down the two concepts across key parameters. Aspect Zero Trust (Strategy) Microsegmentation (Mechanism) Focus Identity, posture, continuous verification Allowed app/workload flows Scope Enterprise‑wide architecture App tiers, services, identities Enforcement Policies derived from context and risk SDN, host agents, security groups, firewalls Outcome Minimized implicit trust; provable least‑privilege Contained blast radius; fewer lateral‑movement paths What Is Microsegmentation Zero Trust? The combination of zero trust and microsegmentation forms microsegmentation zero trust—a strategy connected to enforcement. The three primary goals of this approach are: Risk reduction Lateral movement prevention Least privilege verification Microsegmentation zero trust applies zero trust principles—continuous verification and least privilege—by defining and enforcing explicit, application‑aware allow‑rules between identities, services, and workloads. Why Does Microsegmentation Zero Trust Matter? It matters because it measurably reduces lateral movement paths and speeds incident containment. Authorized paths are explicitly permitted communication flows (service A to service B on port X from an approved identity) that have been validated as necessary for the application to function. Pre‑defining and testing these authorized paths speeds deployment because changes ship with pre-validated, least‑privilege policies—reducing last‑minute firewall rework, minimizing approvals, and preventing rollback from unexpected blocks. Implementing Microsegmentation to Achieve Zero Trust Microsegmentation is a continuous process, consisting of multiple stages to successfully achieve zero trust. Asset & Dependency Discovery Start by analyzing the network traffic behavior of applications and workloads in traditional on-premises setups, public clouds, and container environments. This application-first view serves as the base for zero trust segmentation, which stops security gaps from occurring. Policy Creation Create allow‑lists for individual app components and identity groups based on observed application traffic flows (sources/destinations, ports, processes) and documented business requirements, then validate with “what‑if” simulations before production. Enforcement Implement the approved policy through current controls—cloud security groups, firewalls, SDN fabrics, host controls, and Kubernetes—to achieve uniform protection across hybrid and multi-cloud systems. Continuous Monitoring & Adaptive Policy Continuously monitor for drift, prune unused rules, and adjust policies using detection data—without re‑introducing broad implicit trust or “allow any” access. Challenges & Pitfalls to Avoid Security organizations that operate effectively still encounter various obstacles when implementing microsegmentation: Lack of visibility in application maps: When third-party or SaaS endpoints and ephemeral services (containers, serverless functions) are not properly documented, visibility suffers. The fix? Run continuous dependency discovery operations while keeping tags and labels up to date. Focusing solely on network-based controls: Ignoring workload and identity context can weaken your security measures. The fix? Use service accounts, workload identities, namespaces, and labels as the basis for policy connections whenever possible. Relying on a single technology: Depending only on firewalls or security groups can create gaps in your security posture. The fix? Implement security orchestration using a combination of firewalls, SDN security groups, and Kubernetes network policies. Manual exception handling: Human intervention creates delays, slowing down release cycles. The fix? Orchestrate a combination of controls—next‑gen firewalls, SDN fabrics, cloud security groups, and Kubernetes network policy—so each layer covers the others. AlgoSec's Microsegmentation‑Driven Zero Trust Platform In today's fast-paced digital landscape, the combination of speed and safety is not just important—it's imperative. Zero Trust security delivered by AlgoSec’s unified platform enables companies to successfully implement microsegmentation across data centers, clouds, and Kubernetes. The platform begins with an application-first method, allowing users to clearly see their workloads and intricate patterns. AlgoSec provides immediate connectivity between different environments—on-premises systems, public clouds, and containers—to detect lateral movement paths and compliance issues fast. Beyond basic observability, AlgoSec maps security policy to business applications and services so that teams can simulate proposed changes, quantify risk in business terms, and validate least‑privilege before anything reaches production.. This proactive method validates the least privilege principle, protecting against security breaches and outages. AlgoSec integrates with next-generation firewalls, SDN fabrics and cloud security groups, and Kubernetes to enforce the same intent everywhere, orchestrating changes so rules remain consistent across hybrid and multi‑cloud environments. To see microsegmentation zero trust in action with AlgoSec, schedule a demo today. Get the latest insights from the experts Schedule time with one of our experts Work email* First name* Last name* Company* country* Select country... Short answer* By submitting this form, I accept AlgoSec's privacy policy Continue

The Big Collection Of FIREWALL MANAGEMENT TIPS Download PDF Download PDF Add a Title Add a Title Add a Title Schedule time with one of our experts Work email* First name* Last name* Company* country* Select country... Short answer* By submitting this form, I accept AlgoSec's privacy policy Continue

Marking the start of a consolidation era defined by unification, automation, and centralized control State of Network Security 2026 Select a size Which network Can AlgoSec be used for continuous compliance monitoring? Yes, AlgoSec supports continuous compliance monitoring. As organizations adapt their security policies to meet emerging threats and address new vulnerabilities, they must constantly verify these changes against the compliance frameworks they subscribe to. AlgoSec can generate risk assessment reports and conduct internal audits on-demand, allowing compliance officers to monitor compliance performance in real-time. Security professionals can also use AlgoSec to preview and simulate proposed changes to the organization’s security policies. This gives compliance officers a valuable degree of lead-time before planned changes impact regulatory guidelines and allows for continuous real-time monitoring. Executive summary After years of expansion and tool proliferation, 2026 will mark the beginning of a consolidation period defined by unification, automation, and control. As hybrid architectures, AI-driven workloads, and shared operational responsibilities continue to blur the boundaries between security, cloud, and network teams, the focus has shifted from adding tools to simplifying them. Security management solutions are now being evaluated through a much more strategic lens. When respondents were asked to identify the primary driver behind their selection, the dominant theme was control: the ability to unify policies, streamline operations, and reduce the overhead that comes from managing multiple, disconnected systems. Since last year’s report, interest in consolidation and simplification has only intensified. Multi-cloud remains the dominant operating model, but instead of seeking scale and breadth, businesses are prioritizing visibility and control. 55% of companies now select cloud platforms primarily based on security, a trend reinforced by Deloitte’s 2024 findings that security plays a “major role” in cloud investment decisions. Increasingly, every cloud decision is a security decision. AI is reshaping this environment even further. The priority has shifted from pilot to practice, with teams applying AI to practical, low-risk functions such as hybrid network visibility, compliance enforcement, and rule optimization. Across all trends uncovered in this research paper, the unifying thread is consolidation. This reflects an industry moving from fragmentation to cohesion, simplifying technology stacks, standardizing workflows, and building shared accountability across disciplines that once operated separately. Based on insights from 504 security, network, and cloud professionals across 28 countries, this year’s report offers one of the clearest snapshots yet of this transformation. As the network security landscape enters this new period of consolidation and clarity, one message stands out: resilience now depends less on how many tools an organization deploys, and more on how effectively those tools connect technically, operationally, and organizationally. Trend 1: The great firewall rebalance Organizations no longer buy tools solely to check boxes for compliance or to deliver incremental improvements. Instead, they are motivated by the need to regain centralized control in the face of sprawling hybrid architectures and increasingly fragmented policy enforcement. When respondents were asked to identify the primary driver behind their selection, the dominant theme was control: the ability to unify policies, streamline operations, and reduce the overhead that comes from managing multiple, disconnected systems. Performance and cost continue to matter, but they are no longer defining factors with performance and scalability emerging as the top driver at 29.4%. Our findings indicate that organizations are prioritizing platforms that can deliver consistent visibility across hybrid environments, integrate seamlessly with cloud-native services, and support automation at scale. This shift reinforces a broader trend seen throughout the survey – that security teams are consolidating around fewer, more capable management layers that can provide visibility in an increasingly complex network environment. This strategic shift is tied closely to the broader evolution of the firewall itself. As hybrid and multi-cloud architectures continue to expand, the role of the firewall is undergoing its most significant shift in more than a decade. Firewalls remain a critical enforcement point for securing digital assets, but the way enterprises deploy, manage, and evaluate them is changing rapidly. Rather than treating firewalls as isolated perimeter controls, organizations are increasingly viewing them as part of a distributed, policy-driven security environment that must operate consistently across data centers, public clouds, and emerging application environments. This evolution is being driven by the growing complexity of distributed infrastructures and the rising need for unified visibility. With workloads and data now spanning multiple clouds and service layers, security teams are rethinking how firewall capabilities fit into broader governance and automation frameworks. Scalability, interoperability, and centralized orchestration have become as important as raw inspection performance. What’s left is a strategic rebalance, where organizations are demanding more flexibility at the edge, more consistency in the middle, and more visibility at the management layer. Firewall strategies split across three paths This year’s findings report that 30% of respondents plan to expand into multi-vendor environments to maintain flexibility and avoid lock-in, while 24% are actively consolidating. A further 22% intend to maintain their current mix, signaling a period of stabilization after years of expansion. The data suggests that rather than pursuing one path exclusively, enterprises are balancing control and choice, consolidating at the management layer while retaining multi-vendor diversity at the edge. Palo Alto and Fortinet lead a tightening vendor field Vendor preferences in 2026 highlight consolidation in practice. Palo Alto Networks has reclaimed the top position it lost in 2025, with Fortinet rising from fourth to second, showing the appeal of tightly integrated security and networking under one platform. Palo Alto has gone on the record this year stating that consolidating security data into a single platform will avoid redundant ingestion costs and, with the help of AI analytics, make insights available across the entire security stack1 Azure Firewall drops to third as organizations rebalance native integration with cross-cloud interoperability. AWS Firewall and Check Point maintain steady adoption, while GCP enters the ranking – perhaps evidence that, even as the market consolidates, ecosystem “fit” can create room for additional players. Notably, Cisco dropped out of the cloud-firewall list entirely, reflecting a maturing market where nearly all organizations now deploy some form of pure cloud-based firewalling. Top five firewall vendors ranked by enterprise deployment and market shifts Key takeaway Firewall strategy is moving into a more deliberate and balanced phase. Rather than expanding indiscriminately or consolidating outright, organizations are adopting nuanced approaches that blend flexibility with control. Multi-vendor diversity remains valuable at the edge, but consolidation at the management layer is becoming essential for achieving consistent policy enforcement and operational clarity. As hybrid environments grow more complex, the enterprises that succeed will be those that rationalize their footprint without sacrificing the adaptability required in a multi-cloud world. Trend 2: Cloud firewall strategies prioritize consolidation As organizations mature their hybrid and multi-cloud environments, 2026 marks an inflection point in firewall strategy. After several years of vendor diversification, the pendulum is swinging back toward consolidation. Businesses are prioritizing unified visibility, simplified operations, and consistency in policy enforcement across complex, distributed networks. In other words, the focus has shifted from expanding coverage to regaining control – reducing sprawl, streamlining management, and integrating security more deeply into cloud architectures. Cloud firewall adoption solidifies as a strategic standard The move toward cloud-based firewalls continues, but with a change in tone. Rather than experimenting with cloud-native protection, most organizations now view it as essential to enterprise security. 24% of respondents plan to move primarily to cloud firewalls over the next two years, confirming that cloud-native controls are no longer an emerging consideration but a baseline expectation. As hybrid infrastructures become the norm, firewall strategies are being designed to operate seamlessly across both on-premise and cloud environments, enforcing consistent policy without introducing operational complexity. Hybrid control replaces hybrid compromise On the face of it, the emphasis on consolidation might signal a retreat from hybrid operations, but it actually represents a new approach to managing them. The question has simply evolved from, “which firewall secures the cloud,” to “which cloud secures the enterprise?” Firewalls are evolving from perimeter defenses into unified control planes for policy orchestration, compliance, and risk management across all environments. As AI workloads and distributed applications proliferate, organizations are standardizing policy and automating enforcement to prevent drift and maintain continuous compliance. Over the next 2 years, how do you expect your firewall strategy to evolve? Key takeaway The firewall market is consolidating around fewer, more integrated vendors. Palo Alto Networks and Fortinet now anchor the field, with cloud-native solutions firmly mainstream and GCP emerging as a secondary player. The dominant priority for 2026 is control: simplifying management, tightening policy enforcement, and building the unified visibility layer that modern hybrid enterprises depend on for resilience. Trend 3: Security becomes the deciding factor in cloud platform selection The cloud has now confidently become the enterprise control layer, where security, data, and consolidation converge. As organizations mature their multi-cloud strategies, the criteria for choosing providers are shifting. Performance and price remain relevant, but they are no longer decisive. In 2026, the dominant priority will be security, confirming that every cloud decision will indeed be a security decision. The rise of AI-driven workloads, compliance requirements, and cross-platform orchestration has made security the critical benchmark for platform selection. Security leads cloud decision-making According to Gartner, worldwide end-user spending on public cloud services reached $723.4 billion in 2025 (up from $595.7 billion in 2024)². More than half (55%) cited security as their top consideration, far exceeding any other factor. Ecosystem and integrations ranked second at 44%, while AI and data services (42%) followed closely behind. Collectively, this paints a picture of a market driven by protection, compatibility, and intelligence rather than cost. The finding also underscores a broader mindset shift – enterprises are no longer treating cloud as infrastructure, but as the foundation for secure operations. Integration and ecosystem strength outweigh price and performance The emphasis on ecosystem integration reflects how organizations are consolidating around platforms that offer tighter interoperability across security, networking, and data layers. Rather than adopting best-of-breed tools in isolation, businesses are favoring providers that enable unified visibility and shared policy control. This trend echoes the broader consolidation theme observed across firewall and automation data: complexity has reached its limit, and integration has become the differentiator. When selecting a cloud platform, which factor carries the most weight? AI and data services redefine platform value The inclusion of AI and data services among the top selection criteria signals a growing recognition that intelligence is now inseparable from security. Organizations increasingly choose cloud platforms that can support AI-enhanced monitoring, anomaly detection, and compliance analytics within the same environment. The result is a more strategic alignment between where data resides and how it is protected, a shift from infrastructure management to intelligent security orchestration. Consolidation shapes platform strategy These findings also reflect a broader pattern of consolidation across cloud ecosystems. While multi-cloud remains the operational norm, the drivers behind it have changed. Rather than spreading workloads for cost or redundancy, organizations are choosing fewer platforms and using them more deeply, consolidating workloads, policies, and visibility tools to reduce friction. The balance of flexibility and control remains key, but the overall gravitational pull is toward simplification. Consistent policy enforcement overtakes visibility as the top cloud security challenge The findings from the survey show a notable shift in the challenges organizations face when securing cloud applications. For the first time, maintaining consistent policies across on-premise and cloud environments (58.6%) has overtaken lack of visibility into cloud applications (54.3%) as the number-one obstacle. This change reflects the realities of growing tool sprawl and increasingly mixed deployment models. As businesses consolidate platforms and pursue unified control, the problem isn’t identifying what applications exist, but enforcing the right policies for those applications across multiple clouds, networks, and security layers. This also reinforces the broader consolidation narrative, where consistency is key to cloud security. Rank the cloud service providers most used in your organization Key takeaway It would be reasonable to say that cloud strategy and security strategy are now one and the same. With more than half of organizations ranking security as the defining factor in provider selection, this year has cemented the cloud’s role as the enterprise security backbone. The future of multi-cloud will not be decided by speed or scale alone, but by how effectively each platform can deliver integrated protection, data intelligence, and operational clarity across the entire digital estate. Trend 4: SD-WAN further cements its role The enterprise network edge continues to evolve, with SD-WAN now established as a mainstream capability rather than a specialist solution. As organizations expand their hybrid environments and distributed workforces, the demand for secure, high-performance connectivity has solidified SD-WAN’s role as the connective tissue between data centers, clouds, and users. This year’s findings show that the market is maturing: adoption is nearly universal, leadership has reshuffled, and the differentiator is no longer deployment speed but the depth of security integration. SD-WAN adoption reaches maturity For the first time, SD-WAN can be considered standard practice across most enterprise environments. The share of organizations reporting no solution applied has dropped sharply to 21.1%, confirming that SD-WAN has moved beyond early adoption. Businesses increasingly view it as foundational to hybrid and multi-cloud architectures, providing the visibility and policy control that traditional WAN models lacked. The focus now is on consolidating SD-WAN with broader security frameworks to create unified, adaptive network fabrics. Which SD-WAN ( Software-Defined WAN) solutions is your organization using? (select all that apply) Fortinet takes the lead in an increasingly competitive market This year’s results mark a significant milestone: Fortinet (31%) has become the most widely used SD-WAN solution for the first time, reflecting its strength in integrating advanced security and networking under one platform. Cisco (30.7%) remains a close second, leveraging both its Viptela and Meraki offerings to address enterprise and distributed site use cases. VMware (20.7%) and Palo Alto Networks (19.2%) maintain consistent adoption, while Aruba (16.1%) and Versa (13%) continue to serve mid-enterprise and service-provider environments. The data suggests a crowded but stabilizing market, with leadership now determined by convergence rather than coverage. Integration overtakes performance as the new priority While performance and scalability remain important, the defining value of SD-WAN this year will be integration, particularly its ability to operate seamlessly within consolidated security ecosystems. According to Gartner, by the end of 2026, 60% of new SD-WAN purchases will be part of a single-vendor SASE offering, up from 15 % in 2022.³ Organizations are no longer viewing SD-WAN as a stand-alone connectivity layer but as a key component of unified network and security orchestration. This trend is reinforced by the parallel growth of Secure Access Service Edge (SASE), where many SD-WAN platforms now serve as the underlying transport for cloud-delivered security functions. Simplified management drives next-phase adoption As the market matures, ease of management has emerged as a primary differentiator. Enterprises want simplified, policy-based control that extends across both SD-WAN and security operations. Vendors capable of offering single-pane management, covering traffic routing, segmentation, and threat prevention, are gaining a decisive edge. This shift underscores the industry’s pivot from product expansion to platform unification, where value lies in operational simplicity and end-to-end visibility. Key takeaway SD-WAN has transitioned from optional to essential. Adoption is near-universal, and leadership now depends on the depth of integration with security and orchestration platforms. Fortinet has overtaken Cisco to lead the market, signaling that convergence, not performance, is the new metric for success. As enterprises strive to unify their networking and security stacks, SD-WAN’s role as the foundation of hybrid connectivity has never been clearer. Trend 5: SASE moves from exploration to standardization Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) continues its steady progression from a niche innovation to a mainstream framework for unified security and networking. Once viewed primarily as an aspirational goal, SASE is now being operationalized across industries as organizations seek to consolidate connectivity, control, and cloud-delivered protection within a single architecture. This year’s findings show a market that has matured beyond experimentation. Adoption is broadening, vendor leadership is stabilizing, and integration with SD-WAN has become the norm. Non-adoption falls for the third consecutive year For the third year running, the share of organizations without a SASE solution has declined, down to 27.5% from 40% in 2025. This consistent decrease signals that SASE adoption is no longer exploratory but a planned progression for most enterprises. The increasing prominence of SASE is also reflected by Gartner, who estimate that between 2025 and 2028 the market will have a CAGR of 26% and exceed $30 billion by the end of the decade. As hybrid and remote workforces become permanent fixtures, businesses are embedding SASE as the control layer that secures access, governs data movement, and enforces consistent policy across all environments. The technology’s role has shifted from experimental pilot to strategic pillar. Which SASE platform is your organization using? Zscaler and Prisma Access maintain leadership amid growing competition Zscaler (37.8%) remains the market leader in SASE adoption, closely followed by Palo Alto Networks’ Prisma Access (34.4%). Both platforms have consolidated their positions through strong ecosystem partnerships and mature policy integration, particularly across large enterprise deployments. Netskope (21.9%) continues its rapid ascent as the fastest-growing challenger, driven by its focus on data protection and multi-cloud visibility. Smaller providers, including Cato (9.3%), Barracuda (4.7%), and other vendors (5.4%), maintain regional or industry-specific footholds where turnkey simplicity and localized deployment remain priorities. SD-WAN and SASE converge under single-vendor models According to the Dell’Oro Group, single vendor SASE will grow twice as fast as multi-vendor SASE in the next few years5. Organizations increasingly favor single-vendor frameworks that deliver both connectivity and security from the same platform, reducing latency and operational overhead. This reflects the same drive toward consolidation seen across the broader network security landscape to fewer moving parts, shared visibility, and unified control. Last year’s Gartner projection that more than half of SD-WAN purchases will be tied to integrated SASE offerings6 by 2026 appears well on track. In fact, the Dell’Oro Group anticipates single-vendor SASE will make up 90% of the market by the end of the decade. Implementation complexity gives way to operational consistency The challenges that once slowed SASE adoption, such as multi-component integration, legacy dependencies, and management fragmentation, are giving way to more standardized deployment models. Enterprises are learning to phase implementation, layering security and access capabilities without disrupting core connectivity. As policy orchestration becomes more automated and AI-assisted, SASE is evolving from a complex project to an achievable operational baseline for hybrid enterprises. Key takeaway SASE has crossed the threshold from early adoption to normalization. Zscaler and Prisma Access continue to lead, but Netskope’s rapid rise shows that innovation still drives competition. The decline in non-adoption rates confirms that SASE is now the de-facto model for secure, distributed access, valued for its operational simplicity and the consistency it delivers across the modern enterprise network. Trend 6: True zero trust remains elusive Zero Trust remains one of the most discussed principles in cybersecurity, yet one of the slowest to fully materialize in practice. The philosophy of “never trust, always verify” continues to guide strategic planning, but this year’s data reveals that operational progress has stalled. Awareness and intent are high, but implementation maturity has plateaued. Most organizations have laid the groundwork, such as segmentation, identity management, and access control, but few have advanced beyond these initial stages to comprehensive, policy-driven Zero Trust frameworks. Adoption steady, but forward motion limited Overall Zero Trust adoption remains consistent at around 55-60%, nearly identical to last year. However, the share of organizations still in the learning phase has increased from 20% to 31%, indicating that while more enterprises are engaging with the concept, fewer are moving to execution. This highlights a widening gap between intent and implementation, where Zero Trust is now universally recognized as the right approach, but practical deployment continues to challenge even mature security teams. What is your current Zero Trust implementation status? Execution gaps widen as awareness grows The data also shows that increased awareness has not translated into faster rollout. Many enterprises are still navigating legacy infrastructure, fragmented identity systems, and policy enforcement across hybrid networks. Even organizations that have implemented partial Zero Trust measures, such as micro-segmentation or network division, often lack unified governance models. The result is a growing class of “permanently pilot” deployments that are “active,” but not yet integrated or automated. This finding is echoed by Gartner, which revealed that in 2026, only 10 % of large enterprises will have a “mature and measurable” Zero Trust programme in place, up from less than 1 % today7. Fragmented approaches slow standardization The variety of adoption paths available further complicates progress. Some organizations are investing in Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) as an entry point, while others prioritize endpoint verification or identity-based access control. This flexibility allows for adaptation but prevents standardization, making it difficult to measure maturity consistently across industries. The absence of a universal framework also leads to uneven tool adoption and inconsistent results, reinforcing the need for clearer guidance and shared benchmarks. Education becomes the critical barrier The rising proportion of organizations still in the learning phase reflects a shortage of accessible best practices and practical guidance. Many teams understand the goal of Zero Trust but struggle to translate it into architectural blueprints or measurable outcomes. Training, governance alignment, and vendor-neutral frameworks are now essential to bridge this gap, ensuring that education accelerates adoption rather than replacing it. Key takeaway Zero Trust remains the strategic north star for enterprise security, but the journey toward full implementation has stalled. Awareness is at an all-time high, yet maturity has barely shifted. This year’s findings highlight an execution gap driven by complexity, fragmented infrastructure, and limited practical guidance. Organizations that focus on education, cross-team alignment, and measurable governance will be best positioned to move Zero Trust from aspiration to operational reality. Trend 7: AI-powered threats and defenses go mainstream Artificial intelligence has become both the newest threat vector and the next frontier of defense. According to McKinsey, phishing attacks have surged by 1200% since generative AI went mainstream in 2022, but at the same time, more than 90% of defensive AI capabilities are being outsourced to third parties – showing that businesses are keen to leverage the technology to defend themselves. That trend will continue in 2026, when the conversation around defensive AI will move beyond theory and into practice. Organizations are no longer asking if AI will change their security posture. Instead they want to know how fast they can adapt. Our findings show that while most enterprises are already taking steps to address AI-powered attacks, only a minority have made the deeper structural and procedural changes needed to counter them effectively. The result is a mixed picture - strong awareness, accelerating experimentation, but uneven readiness. How they are adapting to AI-powered attacks? Most organizations are adapting, but depth of change varies The majority (65%) have already adapted their strategies, with 23.6% making major structural changes and 40.9% implementing moderate adjustments. Surprisingly, only 15.6% reported no action at all. This points to an industry that has accepted the inevitability of AI as both an enabler and an adversary. However, while surface-level adaptations are widespread, the transformation of governance, tooling, and training remains in its early stages. AI investment shifts toward visibility and control This year’s responses mark a sharp contrast to last year. Where last year’s priorities centered on real-time notifications and incident response, this year focus has shifted to AI-powered visibility and risk prioritization (39.1%). Organizations are using AI to map hybrid networks, detect policy drift, and surface anomalies faster. AI-driven compliance and policy enforcement (23.7%) has emerged as the next priority, reflecting growing confidence in machine-led governance for structured, repeatable tasks. In essence, enterprises are applying AI where precision matters more than prediction. Operational hygiene overtakes experimentation While generative AI captured early attention, most organizations are deploying AI to improve operational hygiene rather than innovation. Application-centric security modeling (18.4%) and identification of unused or overly permissive rules (15.8%) rank lower but illustrate a pragmatic trend: using AI to clean up, not reinvent. These controlled, low-risk use cases deliver measurable value while avoiding the unpredictability associated with broader AI automation. The preference for predictability over experimentation signals a cautious but maturing stage of adoption. AI readiness exposes gaps in governance and skills Despite rising adoption, governance and human oversight remain persistent challenges. Many teams lack formal frameworks to validate AI-driven decisions or ensure accountability when automated systems act autonomously. The gap between AI’s technical potential and organizational readiness mirrors the early years of cloud adoption, where enthusiasm outpaced structured implementation. Without parallel investments in training, oversight, and transparent governance, AI-powered defenses risk replicating the same visibility issues they are meant to solve. Which AI cases will have the greatest impact over the next 2 years? Key takeaway AI has become a defining force in network security, driving both threat evolution and defensive transformation. Two-thirds of organizations have already adjusted their strategies, but maturity levels remain uneven. The focus has shifted decisively from detection to visibility, and from experimentation to control. As enterprises refine their governance frameworks and strengthen human oversight, AI will transition from a reactive tool to an operational cornerstone, turning awareness into measurable resilience. Trend 8: Automation maturity continues What began as a gradual shift toward orchestration and policy simplification in previous years has now become a defining operational capability. Our research confirms that automation has matured into a measurable discipline that directly influences efficiency, compliance, and resilience across hybrid networks. Yet while the benefits are increasingly clear, full-scale orchestration across environments remains a work in progress. Automation becomes a measurable benchmark The results show a clear divide: 24% of organizations now operate at a high level of automation, while 30% report moderate automation. Twenty-six percent remain at a low level, and 20% still rely primarily on manual processes. This sprawl validates last year’s prediction that automation would become foundational to network security. It also underscores the persistence of a maturity gap between those leveraging automation strategically and those applying it reactively to reduce workloads. From process acceleration to policy assurance Beyond accelerating workflows, organizations are now using automation to enforce security policy consistently across hybrid environments. This includes automated risk analysis, change verification, and compliance tracking - all areas once dominated by manual oversight. By shifting from speed to assurance, automation has become central to maintaining reliability and reducing configuration drift, particularly in multi-vendor or multi-cloud architectures where consistency is hardest to achieve. How would you describe your organization’s current level of automation in network security management? Operational and cultural barriers persist Despite progress, barriers remain. Many organizations struggle to extend automation across silos, particularly between cloud, network, and application security teams. Legacy approval processes, lack of centralized governance, and limited cross-tool integration continue to restrict scalability. This has resulted in “partial” automation, where specific workflows are automated, but end-to-end orchestration across systems and teams remains difficult to pin down. This mirrors the early adoption curve we saw in cloud migration – progress being built through incremental cultural and procedural change rather than technology alone. A proving ground for AI-enhanced orchestration The intersection between automation and AI is emerging as the next frontier. AI-assisted orchestration tools are beginning to optimize rule management, recommend policy changes, and predict the downstream impact of configuration updates. However, confidence in fully autonomous decision-making remains low. For now, organizations are embracing a human-in-the-loop model, where automation handles execution while humans retain control of validation and governance. This balance is shaping a pragmatic, risk-conscious approach to automation at scale. Key takeaway Automation has evolved from a strategic ambition into an operational benchmark. Nearly half of all organizations now operate with moderate to high levels of automation, validating its role as a core pillar of network security. Yet maturity remains uneven, with cultural inertia and fragmented governance slowing progress. The next leap will come from convergence and uniting automated workflows, AI-assisted orchestration, and unified policy management to deliver the end-to-end agility and assurance enterprises have long aimed for. Trend 9: Consolidation - teams and platforms move toward unified control As hybrid environments expand and the boundaries between cloud, network, and security responsibilities continue to blur, businesses are rethinking not only what they manage but how they manage it. Our findings reveal an industry shifting toward shared accountability, unified visibility, and integrated control. Consolidation is happening at two levels: teams and platforms, and both are accelerating. Team structures shift toward shared ownership The operational model for security is undergoing a quiet but significant transformation. Organizations are moving away from isolated, domain-specific teams and toward structures that promote shared priorities and cross-functional coordination. The findings show that only 19% are currently working in siloed departments, while 36% of respondents report that their cloud, network, and security teams have consolidated around shared tools. A further 25% of respondents have aligned around shared initiatives and 20% have gone further, operating as fully consolidated teams. This represents a substantial step toward unified governance. Instead of managing separate workflows or conflicting priorities, teams are aligning around common frameworks for risk, compliance, and service delivery. As AI and automation become more embedded in operations, this collaborative approach is emerging as the new standard for effective decision-making and consistent policy enforcement. Shared tools become the foundation for cross-team alignment The rise of shared tooling reflects a deliberate move toward standardization. When cloud, network, and security teams use different systems, visibility fractures and operational gaps appear. But when they converge around shared management layers and shared data sources, collaboration becomes frictionless. This year’s results show that shared tools are now the primary mechanism for team alignment, which is the strongest sign yet that consolidation is being built from the ground up through day-to-day operational workflows rather than top-down restructuring. How would you best describe the current alignment of cloud & network security teams? Platform consolidation accelerates as organizations seek While team structures are converging, platform consolidation is accelerating even faster. According to our findings, 75% of organizations have consolidated at least some portion of their security tools or policies under a single platform of management layer. While team structures are converging, platform consolidation is accelerating even faster. According to the 2026 findings, 75% of organizations have consolidated at least some portion of their security tools or policies under a single platform or management layer. Around 30% report partial consolidation, 19% say the majority of their infrastructure now sits under one platform, and 10% have achieved full consolidation. Only a quarter still operate with fragmented tooling. What percentage of your cloud and network security tools are currently consolidated under a single platform or policy engine? This reflects a broader desire for unified visibility and simplified operations. As hybrid and multi-cloud deployments grow in scale, point solutions are becoming operationally burdensome. Organizations increasingly want fewer dashboards, fewer approval workflows, and fewer interfaces to manage, instead preferring integrated platforms that are capable of enforcing policy consistently across environments. Key takeaway Consolidation is redefining how enterprises operate, both structurally and technologically. Teams are aligning around shared tools, shared responsibilities, and, increasingly, shared governance models. At the same time, platforms are consolidating to provide unified visibility and consistent policy enforcement across hybrid environments. Conclusion The state of network security this year is defined by clarity emerging from complexity. After several years of rapid expansion across multi-cloud environments, AI-powered operations, and hybrid architectures, organizations are entering a new phase of consolidation and control. Our survey findings reveal a collective recalibration, with organizations moving away from tool proliferation toward unified management, shared visibility, and measurable automation. Firewalls, SD-WAN, and SASE have all evolved into foundational pillars of a more cohesive network security stack, while Zero Trust and AI continue to mature, bridging the gap between strategy and execution. Compared to last year, we are now seeing a transition from experimentation to optimization. Where last year’s findings reflected a market still expanding in every direction, this year captures a shift toward simplification. The drive for flexibility has given way to the pursuit of consistency, where performance metrics are being replaced by governance and assurance benchmarks. Consolidation of vendors, tools, and even teams, now defines the path forward. Adding layers of protection is not enough – those layers need to operate cohesively. Looking ahead, the next generation of network security will hinge on visibility, automation, and collaboration, not as separate initiatives, but as integrated capabilities that span every layer of the digital ecosystem. For an industry that has long been dominated by complexity and a “more is better” approach, the next year might be quite surprising. As organizations continue to align their cloud, network, and security teams, the most resilient will be those that embrace simplicity rather than complexity, transforming control into confidence. Methodology This report is based on comprehensive research conducted by AlgoSec, gathering insights from security, network, and cloud professionals across a broad range of industries and regions. The data was collected through a global survey carried out in the second half of 2025, designed to capture real-world perspectives on the challenges, priorities, and evolving trends shaping network security in 2026. Survey scope and participants The study reflects responses from 504 professionals representing 28 countries. Participants span a diverse set of roles, including security architects, engineers, and analysts (25%); IT and network managers (21%); CISOs and heads of security (13%); consultants and specialists (9%); CTOs, CIOs, and senior IT leaders (6%); business, program, and product managers (7%); DevOps, cloud, and software professionals (8%); and other or undefined roles (11%). This broad representation ensures a balanced view across enterprise, mid-market, and specialist organizations operating within hybrid and multi-cloud environments. Research objectives The primary goal of this study was to identify key trends and shifts in network security practice, from strategic priorities to operational realities. The research explores: How organizations are consolidating security management across hybrid and multi-cloud architectures The evolving role of automation, orchestration, and AI-driven security in modern frameworks Adoption trends across firewalls, SD-WAN, SASE, and Zero Trust architectures The impact of consolidation on tool selection, team alignment, and visibility How enterprises are adapting to AI-powered threats and increasing operational complexity Data collection and analysis Participants were asked to provide both quantitative and qualitative feedback on their current deployments, planned investments, and primary challenges in managing network security infrastructure. The survey established new baselines in several areas, including AI-powered attack readiness, automation maturity, and consolidation of tools and teams, while tracking multi-year trends from previous editions of the research. Responses were analyzed to identify correlations, emerging patterns, and year-over-year changes in market behavior. By leveraging direct insights from practitioners and decision-makers, this study provides an objective, vendor-neutral snapshot of the global network security landscape. Its findings are intended to help organizations benchmark their progress, assess market maturity, and make informed decisions as they navigate the next stage of digital transformation. About AlgoSec AlgoSec, a global cybersecurity leader, empowers organizations to securely accelerate application delivery up to 10 times faster by automating application connectivity and security policy across the hybrid network environment. With two decades of expertise securing hybrid networks, over 2200 of the world’s most complex organizations trust AlgoSec to help secure their most critical workloads. AlgoSec Horizon platform utilizes advanced AI capabilities, enabling users to automatically discover and identify their business applications across multi-clouds, and remediate risks more effectively. It serves as a single source for visibility into security and compliance issues across the hybrid network environment, to ensure ongoing adherence to internet security standards, industry, and internal regulations. Additionally, organizations can leverage intelligent change automation to streamline security change processes, thus improving security and agility. Learn how AlgoSec enables application owners, information security experts, SecOps and cloud security teams to deploy business applications faster while maintaining security at www.algosec.com . For more information, visit www.algosec.com Get the latest insights from the experts Schedule time with one of our experts Work email* First name* Last name* Company* country* Select country... Short answer* By submitting this form, I accept AlgoSec's privacy policy Continue

Previous Part of the analysis is available here. Next Part of the analysis is available here. Update from 19 December 2020: ‍Prevasio... Cloud Security Sunburst Backdoor, Part II: DGA & The List of Victims Rony Moshkovich 2 min read Rony Moshkovich Short bio about author here Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur. Vitae donec tincidunt elementum quam laoreet duis sit enim. Duis mattis velit sit leo diam. Tags Share this article 12/17/20 Published Previous Part of the analysis is available here . Next Part of the analysis is available here . Update from 19 December 2020: Prevasio would like to thank Zetalytics for providing us with an updated (larger) list of passive (historic) DNS queries for the domains generated by the malware. As described in the first part of our analysis, the DGA (Domain Generation Algorithm) of the Sunburst backdoor produces a domain name that may look like: fivu4vjamve5vfrtn2huov[.]appsync-api.us-west-2[.]avsvmcloud[.]com The first part of the domain name (before the first dot) consists of a 16-character random string, appended with an encoded computer’s domain name. This is the domain in which the local computer is registered. From the example string above, we can conclude that the encoded computer’s domain starts from the 17th character and up until the dot (highlighted in yellow): fivu4vjamve5vfrt n2huov In order to encode a local computer’s domain name, the malware uses one of 2 simple methods: Method 1 : a substitution table, if the domain name consists of small letters, digits, or special characters ‘-‘, ‘_’, ‘.’ Method 2 : base64 with a custom alphabet, in case of capital letters present in the domain name Method 1 In our example, the encoded domain name is “n2huov” . As it does not have any capital letters, the malware encodes it with a substitution table “rq3gsalt6u1iyfzop572d49bnx8cvmkewhj” . For each character in the domain name, the encoder replaces it with a character located in the substitution table four characters right from the original character. In order to decode the name back, all we have to do is to replace each encoded character with another character, located in the substitution table four characters left from the original character. To illustrate this method, imagine that the original substitution table is printed on a paper strip and then covered with a card with 6 perforated windows. Above each window, there is a sticker note with a number on it, to reflect the order of characters in the word “n2huov” , where ‘n’ is #1, ‘2’ is #2, ‘h’ is #3 and so on: Once the paper strip is pulled by 4 characters right, the perforated windows will reveal a different word underneath the card: “domain” , where ‘d’ is #1, ‘o’ is #2, ‘m’ is #3, etc.: A special case is reserved for such characters as ‘0’ , ‘-‘ , ‘_’ , ‘.’ . These characters are encoded with ‘0’ , followed with a character from the substitution table. An index of that character in the substitution table, divided by 4, provides an index within the string “0_-.” . The following snippet in C# illustrates how an encoded string can be decoded: static string decode_domain( string s) { string table = "rq3gsalt6u1iyfzop572d49bnx8cvmkewhj" ; string result = "" ; for ( int i = 0 ; i < s.Length; i++) { if (s[i] != '0' ) { result += table[(table.IndexOf(s[i]) + table.Length - 4 ) % table.Length]; } else { if (i < s.Length - 1 ) { if (table.Contains(s[i + 1 ])) { result += "0_-." [table.IndexOf(s[i + 1 ]) % 4 ]; } else { break ; } } i++; } } return result; } Method 2 This method is a standard base64 encoder with a custom alphabet “ph2eifo3n5utg1j8d94qrvbmk0sal76c” . Here is a snippet in C# that provides a decoder: public static string FromBase32String( string str) { string table = "ph2eifo3n5utg1j8d94qrvbmk0sal76c" ; int numBytes = str.Length * 5 / 8 ; byte [] bytes = new Byte[numBytes]; int bit_buffer; int currentCharIndex; int bits_in_buffer; if (str.Length < 3 ) { bytes[ 0 ] = ( byte )(table.IndexOf(str[ 0 ]) | table.IndexOf(str[ 1 ]) << 5 ); return System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetString(bytes); } bit_buffer = (table.IndexOf(str[ 0 ]) | table.IndexOf(str[ 1 ]) << 5 ); bits_in_buffer = 10 ; currentCharIndex = 2 ; for ( int i = 0 ; i < bytes.Length; i++) { bytes[i] = ( byte )bit_buffer; bit_buffer >>= 8 ; bits_in_buffer -= 8 ; while (bits_in_buffer < 8 && currentCharIndex < str.Length) { bit_buffer |= table.IndexOf(str[currentCharIndex++]) << bits_in_buffer; bits_in_buffer += 5 ; } } return System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetString(bytes); } When the malware encodes a domain using Method 2, it prepends the encrypted string with a double zero character: “00” . Following that, extracting a domain part of an encoded domain name (long form) is as simple as: static string get_domain_part( string s) { int i = s.IndexOf( ".appsync-api" ); if (i > 0 ) { s = s.Substring( 0 , i); if (s.Length > 16 ) { return s.Substring( 16 ); } } return "" ; } Once the domain part is extracted, the decoded domain name can be obtained by using Method 1 or Method 2, as explained above: if (domain.StartsWith( "00" )) { decoded = FromBase32String(domain.Substring( 2 )); } else { decoded = decode_domain(domain); } Decrypting the Victims’ Domain Names To see the decoder in action, let’s select 2 lists: List #1 Bambenek Consulting has provided a list of observed hostnames for the DGA domain. List #2 The second list has surfaced in a Paste bin paste , allegedly sourced from Zetalytics / Zonecruncher . NOTE: This list is fairly ‘noisy’, as it has non-decodable domain names. By feeding both lists to our decoder, we can now obtain a list of decoded domains, that could have been generated by the victims of the Sunburst backdoor. DISCLAIMER: It is not clear if the provided lists contain valid domain names that indeed belong to the victims. It is quite possible that the encoded domain names were produced by third-party tools, sandboxes, or by researchers that investigated and analysed the backdoor. The decoded domain names are provided purely as a reverse engineering exercise. The resulting list was manually processed to eliminate noise, and to exclude duplicate entries. Following that, we have made an attempt to map the obtained domain names to the company names, using Google search. Reader’s discretion is advised as such mappings could be inaccurate. Decoded Domain Mapping (Could Be Inaccurate) hgvc.com Hilton Grand Vacations Amerisaf AMERISAFE, Inc. kcpl.com Kansas City Power and Light Company SFBALLET San Francisco Ballet scif.com State Compensation Insurance Fund LOGOSTEC Logostec Ventilação Industrial ARYZTA.C ARYZTA Food Solutions bmrn.com BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. AHCCCS.S Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System nnge.org Next Generation Global Education cree.com Cree, Inc (semiconductor products) calsb.org The State Bar of California rbe.sk.ca Regina Public Schools cisco.com Cisco Systems pcsco.com Professional Computer Systems barrie.ca City of Barrie ripta.com Rhode Island Public Transit Authority uncity.dk UN City (Building in Denmark) bisco.int Boambee Industrial Supplies (Bisco) haifa.edu University of Haifa smsnet.pl SMSNET, Poland fcmat.org Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team wiley.com Wiley (publishing) ciena.com Ciena (networking systems) belkin.com Belkin spsd.sk.ca Saskatoon Public Schools pqcorp.com PQ Corporation ftfcu.corp First Tech Federal Credit Union bop.com.pk The Bank of Punjab nvidia.com NVidia insead.org INSEAD (non-profit, private university) usd373.org Newton Public Schools agloan.ads American AgCredit pageaz.gov City of Page jarvis.lab Erich Jarvis Lab ch2news.tv Channel 2 (Israeli TV channel) bgeltd.com Bradford / Hammacher Remote Support Software dsh.ca.gov California Department of State Hospitals dotcomm.org Douglas Omaha Technology Commission sc.pima.gov Arizona Superior Court in Pima County itps.uk.net IT Professional Services, UK moncton.loc City of Moncton acmedctr.ad Alameda Health System csci-va.com Computer Systems Center Incorporated keyano.local Keyano College uis.kent.edu Kent State University alm.brand.dk Sydbank Group (Banking, Denmark) ironform.com Ironform (metal fabrication) corp.ncr.com NCR Corporation ap.serco.com Serco Asia Pacific int.sap.corp SAP mmhs-fla.org Cleveland Clinic Martin Health nswhealth.net NSW Health mixonhill.com Mixon Hill (intelligent transportation systems) bcofsa.com.ar Banco de Formosa ci.dublin.ca. Dublin, City in California siskiyous.edu College of the Siskiyous weioffice.com Walton Family Foundation ecobank.group Ecobank Group (Africa) corp.sana.com Sana Biotechnology med.ds.osd.mi US Gov Information System wz.hasbro.com Hasbro (Toy company) its.iastate.ed Iowa State University amr.corp.intel Intel cds.capilanou. Capilano University e-idsolutions. IDSolutions (video conferencing) helixwater.org Helix Water District detmir-group.r Detsky Mir (Russian children’s retailer) int.lukoil-int LUKOIL (Oil and gas company, Russia) ad.azarthritis Arizona Arthritis and Rheumatology Associates net.vestfor.dk Vestforbrænding allegronet.co. Allegronet (Cloud based services, Israel) us.deloitte.co Deloitte central.pima.g Pima County Government city.kingston. City of Kingston staff.technion Technion – Israel Institute of Technology airquality.org Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District phabahamas.org Public Hospitals Authority, Caribbean parametrix.com Parametrix (Engineering) ad.checkpoint. Check Point corp.riotinto. Rio Tinto (Mining company, Australia) intra.rakuten. Rakuten us.rwbaird.com Robert W. Baird & Co. (Financial services) ville.terrebonn Ville de Terrebonne woodruff-sawyer Woodruff-Sawyer & Co., Inc. fisherbartoninc Fisher Barton Group banccentral.com BancCentral Financial Services Corp. taylorfarms.com Taylor Fresh Foods neophotonics.co NeoPhotonics (optoelectronic devices) gloucesterva.ne Gloucester County magnoliaisd.loc Magnolia Independent School District zippertubing.co Zippertubing (Manufacturing) milledgeville.l Milledgeville (City in Georgia) digitalreachinc Digital Reach, Inc. deniz.denizbank DenizBank thoughtspot.int ThoughtSpot (Business intelligence) lufkintexas.net Lufkin (City in Texas) digitalsense.co Digital Sense (Cloud Services) wrbaustralia.ad W. R. Berkley Insurance Australia christieclinic. Christie Clinic Telehealth signaturebank.l Signature Bank dufferincounty. Dufferin County mountsinai.hosp Mount Sinai Hospital securview.local Securview Victory (Video Interface technology) weber-kunststof Weber Kunststoftechniek parentpay.local ParentPay (Cashless Payments) europapier.inte Europapier International AG molsoncoors.com Molson Coors Beverage Company fujitsugeneral. Fujitsu General cityofsacramento City of Sacramento ninewellshospita Ninewells Hospital fortsmithlibrary Fort Smith Public Library dokkenengineerin Dokken Engineering vantagedatacente Vantage Data Centers friendshipstateb Friendship State Bank clinicasierravis Clinica Sierra Vista ftsillapachecasi Apache Casino Hotel voceracommunicat Vocera (clinical communications) mutualofomahabanMutual of Omaha Bank Schedule a demo Related Articles Q1 at AlgoSec: What innovations and milestones defined our start to 2026? AlgoSec Reviews Mar 19, 2023 · 2 min read 2025 in review: What innovations and milestones defined AlgoSec’s transformative year in 2025? AlgoSec Reviews Mar 19, 2023 · 2 min read Navigating Compliance in the Cloud AlgoSec Cloud Mar 19, 2023 · 2 min read Speak to one of our experts Speak to one of our experts Work email* First name* Last name* Company* country* Select country... Short answer* By submitting this form, I accept AlgoSec's privacy policy Schedule a call

Cutting the kill chain Download PDF Download PDF Add a Title Add a Title Add a Title Schedule time with one of our experts Work email* First name* Last name* Company* country* Select country... Short answer* By submitting this form, I accept AlgoSec's privacy policy Continue

The joint offering helps enterprises tighten their security posture, effectively mitigate Ransomware and other Cyberattacks and ensure long-term sustainability Deloitte and AlgoSec Partner to Establish a Joint Network Protection Transformation Solution for Enterprises The joint offering helps enterprises tighten their security posture, effectively mitigate Ransomware and other Cyberattacks and ensure long-term sustainability November 9, 2020 Speak to one of our experts RIDGEFIELD PARK, N.J., November 9, 2020 – The EMEA Telecom Engineering Centre of Excellence (TEE) of Deloitte (located in Portugal) and AlgoSec , the leading provider of business-driven network security management solutions, have entered into an alliance to establish a network protection transformation offer to safeguard clients against complex threats and attacks. The combined team will deliver, operate, and maintain a network protection offer with joint functions managed between Deloitte and AlgoSec. Deloitte TEE will focus on delivering business process transformation capabilities, business and technical advisory and project management to ensure reliability and sustainability on the proposed capabilities, while AlgoSec will provide technical support to customize, deploy and operate the tool to accelerate and automate the network security management, and ensure the offer is aligned with the business’ requirements. The Deloitte and AlgoSec joint offering provides a business-centric approach to network security management across the entire hybrid and multi-vendor environment. The solution offers comprehensive visibility across the network security environment and business applications, agile and secure policy change management via zero touch automation, and continuous compliance assurance. The offering also includes a Network Security Hardening Service, which begins to understand the Client’s network level of exposure, current vulnerabilities and the potential impact of network threats, before performing a transformation strategy to strengthen current capabilities and remediate network risks and vulnerabilities, followed by a Network Security Managed Service to monitor and guarantee long-term sustainability. Deloitte TEE will also become a reselling partner to support AlgoSec in the global market, using a structured offer model with advantages for the partnership and the client. Jade Kahn, AlgoSec CMO said: “Network protection should be a priority for companies to mitigate the damage caused by an increasing number of complex cyber threats. With an appropriate strategy in place, they can identify and contain threats before they are able to move freely across the network. We look forward to working alongside Deloitte and delivering value to its clients.” Pedro Tavares, Partner of Deloitte Portugal and responsible for the EMEA Telecom Engineering Centre of Excellence (TEE): “TEE focus is on delivering high value telecoms engineering consultancy services towards our customers, and under the ongoing digitalization wave and in the advent of 5G, setting up a Network Protection offer to ensure that this improvement in the connectivity, communication and user experience do not bring substantial business risks is a key stepping stone towards this strategy. We expect with this combined offer to support our clients in improving their network security, mitigating their network risks and enhancing their key Capabilities to ensure a sustainable transformation of their business”. About AlgoSec The leading provider of business-driven network security management solutions, AlgoSec helps the world’s largest organizations align security with their mission-critical business processes. With AlgoSec, users can discover, map and migrate business application connectivity, proactively analyze risk from the business perspective, tie cyber-attacks to business processes and intelligently automate network security changes with zero touch – across their cloud, SDN and on-premise networks. Over 1,800 enterprises, including 20 of the Fortune 50, have utilized AlgoSec’s solutions to make their organizations more agile, more secure and more compliant – all the time. Since 2005, AlgoSec has shown its commitment to customer satisfaction with the industry’s only money-back guarantee . All product and company names herein may be trademarks of their registered owners. Media Contacts:Tsippi Dach [email protected] Craig Coward Context Public [email protected] +44 (0)1625 511 966 Olga Neves Media Relations & External CommunicationsDeloitte PortugalTlm: (+351) 918 985 [email protected] About Deloitte Deloitte, us, we and our refer to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (“DTTL”), its global network of member firms, and their related entities (collectively, the “Deloitte organization”). DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) and each of its member firms and related entities are legally separate and independent entities, which cannot obligate or bind each other in respect of third parties. DTTL and each DTTL member firm and related entity is liable only for its own acts and omissions, and not those of each other. DTTL does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about to learn more.Deloitte is a leading global provider of audit and assurance, consulting, financial advisory, risk advisory, tax and related services. Our global network of member firms and related entities in more than 150 countries and territories (collectively, the “Deloitte organization”) serves four out of five Fortune Global 500® companies. Learn how Deloitte’s more than 330,000 people make an impact that matters at www.deloitte.com . About EMEA Telecom Engineering Centre of Excellence (TEE) The EMEA Telecom Engineering Centre of Excellence (TEE) is an operational area specialized in telecom engineering services, managed by Deloitte Portugal, that offers engineering services for mobile, fixed and convergent telecom networks, service platforms and operating support systems (“OSS”) for the Europe, Middle East, Africa region (“EMEA”).

In the previous parts of our blog ( part I and part II ), we have described the most important parts of the Sunburst backdoor... Cloud Security Sunburst Backdoor, Part III: DGA & Security Software Rony Moshkovich 2 min read Rony Moshkovich Short bio about author here Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur. Vitae donec tincidunt elementum quam laoreet duis sit enim. Duis mattis velit sit leo diam. Tags Share this article 12/22/20 Published In the previous parts of our blog ( part I and part II ), we have described the most important parts of the Sunburst backdoor functionality and its Domain Generation Algorithm (DGA). This time, let’s have a deeper look into the passive DNS requests reported by Open-Source Context and Zetalytics . The valid DNS requests generated by the malware fall into 2 groups: DNS requests that encode a local domain name DNS requests that encode data The first type of DNS requests allows splitting long domain names into separate requests. These requests are generated by the malware’s functions GetPreviousString() and GetCurrentString() . In general, the format of a DNS request that encodes a domain name may look like: USER_ID.NUM.COMPUTER_DOMAIN[.]appsync-api.us-west-2[.]avsvmcloud[.]com where: USER_ID is an 8-byte user ID that uniquely identifies a compromised host, encoded as a 15-character string NUM is a number of a domain name – either 0 or 1, encoded as a character COMPUTER_DOMAIN is an encoded local computer domain Let’s try decoding the following 3 DNS requests: olc62cocacn7u2q22v02eu.appsync-api.us-west-2.avsvmcloud.com r1qshoj05ji05ac6eoip02jovt6i2v0c.appsync-api.us-west-2.avsvmcloud.com lt5ai41qh5d53qoti3mkmc0.appsync-api.us-west-2.avsvmcloud.com String 1 Let’s start from the 1st string in the list: olc62cocacn7u2q22v02eu.appsync-api.us-west-2.avsvmcloud.com. In this string, the first 15-character string is an encoded USER_ID : “olc62cocacn7u2q” . Once it is base-64 decoded, as explained in the previous post, it becomes a 9-byte byte array: 86 7f 2f be f9 fb a3 ae c4 The first byte in this byte array is a XOR key: 0x86 . Once applied to the 8 bytes that follow it, we get the 8-byte user ID – let’s take a note and write it down, we will need it later: f9 a9 38 7f 7d 25 28 42 Next, let’s take the NUM part of the encoded domain: it’s a character “2” located at the position #15 (starting from 0) of the encrypted domain. In order to decode the NUM number, we have to take the first character of the encrypted domain, take the reminder of its division by 36 , and subtract the NUM ‘s position in the string “0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz” : num = domain[0] % 36 – “0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz”.IndexOf(domain.Substring(15, 1)); The result is 1 . That means the decrypted domain will be the 2nd part of a full domain name. The first part must have its NUM decoded as 0. The COMPUTER_DOMAIN part of the encrypted domain is “2v02eu” . Once decoded, using the previously explained method, the decoded computer domain name becomes “on.ca” . String 2 Let’s decode the second passive DNS request from our list: r1qshoj05ji05ac6eoip02jovt6i2v0c.appsync-api.us-west-2.avsvmcloud.com Just as before, the decoded 8-byte user ID becomes: f9 a9 38 7f 7d 25 28 42 The NUM part of the encoded domain, located at the position #15 (starting from 0), is a character “6” . Let’s decode it, by taking the first character ( “r” = 114 ), take the reminder of its division by 36 ( 114 % 36 = 6 ), and subtracting the position of the character “6” in the “0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz” , which is 6 . The result is 0 . That means the decrypted domain will be the 1st part of the full domain name. The COMPUTER_DOMAIN part of the encrypted domain is “eoip02jovt6i2v0c” . Once decoded, it becomes “city.kingston.” Next, we need to match 2 decrypted domains by the user ID, which is f9 a9 38 7f 7d 25 28 42 in both cases, and concatenate the first and the second parts of the domain. The result will be “city.kingston.on.ca” . String 3 Here comes the most interesting part. Lets try to decrypt the string #3 from our list of passive DNS requests: lt5ai41qh5d53qoti3mkmc0.appsync-api.us-west-2.avsvmcloud.com The decoded user ID is not relevant, as the decoded NUM part is a number -29 . It’s neither 0 nor 1 , so what kind of domain name that is? If we ignore the NUM part and decode the domain name, using the old method, we will get “thx8xb” , which does not look like a valid domain name. Cases like that are not the noise, and are not some artificially encrypted artifacts that showed up among the DNS requests. This is a different type of DNS requests. Instead of encoding local domain names, these types of requests contain data. They are generated by the malware’s function GetNextStringEx() . The encryption method is different as well. Let’s decrypt this request. First, we can decode the encrypted domain, using the same base-64 method, as before . The string will be decoded into 14 bytes: 7c a5 4d 64 9b 21 c1 74 a6 59 e4 5c 7c 7f Let’s decode these bytes, starting from the 2nd byte, and using the first byte as a XOR key. We will get: 7c d9 31 18 e7 5d bd 08 da 25 98 20 00 03 In this array, the bytes marked in yellow are an 8-byte User ID, encoded with a XOR key that is selected from 2 bytes marked in red. Let’s decode User ID: for ( int i = 0 ; i < 8 ; i++) { bytes[i + 1 ] ^= bytes[ 11 - i % 2 ]; } The decoded byte array becomes: 7c f9 a9 38 7f 7d 25 28 42 25 98 20 00 03 The User ID part in marked in yellow. Does it look familiar? Indeed, it’s the same User ID we’ve seen before, when we decoded “city.kingston.on.ca” . The next 3 bytes marked in red are: 25 98 20 . 2 0x59820 The first number 2 stands for the size of data that follows – this data is 00 03 (selected in green). The number 0x59820 , or 366,624 in decimal, is a timestamp. It’s a number of 4-second periods of time since 1 January 2010. To obtain the real time stamp, we need to multiple it by 15 to get minutes, then add those minutes to 1 January 2010: var date = ( new DateTime( 2010 , 1 , 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , DateTimeKind.Utc)).AddMinutes(timestamp * 15 ); For the number 0x59820 , the time stamp becomes 16 July 2020 12:00:00 AM – that’s the day when the DNS request was made. The remaining 2 bytes, 00 03 , encrypt the state of 8 security products, to indicate whether each one of them is running or whether it is stopped. The 8 security products are: Windows Live OneCare / Windows Defender Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection Microsoft Defender for Identity Carbon Black CrowdStrike FireEye ESET F-Secure 2 states for 8 products require 2 * 8 = 16 bits = 2 bytes. The 2 bytes 00 03 in binary form are: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 11 Here, the least-significant bits 11 identify that the first product in the list, Windows Live OneCare / Windows Defender, is reported as ‘running’ ( 1 ) and as ‘stopped’ ( 1 ). Now we know that apart from the local domain, the trojanised SolarWinds software running on the same compromised host on “city.kingston.on.ca” domain has also reported the status of the Windows Defender software. What Does it Mean? As explained in the first part of our description, the malware is capable of stopping the services of security products, be manipulating registry service keys under Administrator account. It’s likely that the attackers are using DNS queries as a C2 channel to first understand what security products are present. Next, the same channel is used to instruct the malware to stop/deactivate these services, before the 2nd stage payload, TearDrop Backdoor, is deployed. Armed with this knowledge, let’s decode other passive DNS requests, printing the cases when the compromised host reports a running security software. NOTES: As a private case, if the data size field is 0 or 1 , the timestamp field is not followed with any data. Such type of DNS request is generated by the malware’s function GetNextString() . It is called ‘a ping’ in the listing below. If the first part of the domain name is missing, the recovered domain name is pre-pended with ‘*’ . The malware takes the time difference in minutes, then divides it by 30 and then converts the result from double type to int type; as a result of such conversion, the time stamps are truncated to the earliest half hour. 2D82B037C060515C SFBALLET Data: Windows Live OneCare / Windows Defender [running] 11/07/2020 12:00:00 AM Pings: 12/07/2020 12:30:00 AM 70DEE5C062CFEE53 ccscurriculum.c Data: ESET [running] 17/04/2020 4:00:00 PM Pings: 20/04/2020 5:00:00 PM AB902A323B541775 mountsinai.hospital Pings: 4/07/2020 12:30:00 AM 9ACC3A3067DC7FD5 *ripta.com Data: ESET [running] 12/09/2020 6:30:00 AM Pings: 13/09/2020 7:30:00 AM 14/09/2020 9:00:00 AM CB34C4EBCB12AF88 DPCITY.I7a Data: ESET [running] 26/06/2020 5:00:00 PM Pings: 27/06/2020 6:30:00 PM 28/06/2020 7:30:00 PM 29/06/2020 8:30:00 PM 29/06/2020 8:30:00 PM E5FAFE265E86088E *scroot.com Data: CrowdStrike [running] 25/07/2020 2:00:00 PM Pings: 26/07/2020 2:30:00 PM 26/07/2020 2:30:00 PM 27/07/2020 3:00:00 PM 27/07/2020 3:00:00 PM 426030B2ED480DED *kcpl.com Data: Windows Live OneCare / Windows Defender [running] 8/07/2020 12:00:00 AM Carbon Black [running] 8/07/2020 12:00:00 AM Full list of decoded pDNS requests can be found here . An example of a working implementation is available at this repo. Schedule a demo Related Articles Q1 at AlgoSec: What innovations and milestones defined our start to 2026? AlgoSec Reviews Mar 19, 2023 · 2 min read 2025 in review: What innovations and milestones defined AlgoSec’s transformative year in 2025? AlgoSec Reviews Mar 19, 2023 · 2 min read Navigating Compliance in the Cloud AlgoSec Cloud Mar 19, 2023 · 2 min read Speak to one of our experts Speak to one of our experts Work email* First name* Last name* Company* country* Select country... Short answer* By submitting this form, I accept AlgoSec's privacy policy Schedule a call

Learn how automation can simplify the process of rule recertification and help determine which rules are still necessary Webinars Play by the rules: Automation for simplified rule recertification As time goes by, once effective firewall rules can become outdated. This results in bloated security policies which can slow down application delivery. Therefore, best practice and compliance requirements calls for rule recertification at least once per year. While rule recertification can be done manually by going through the comments fields of every rule, this is a tedious process which is also subject to the weaknesses of human error. Automation can simplify the process and help determine which rules are still necessary, if done right. Join security experts Asher Benbenisty and Tsippi Dach to learn about: Rule recertification as part of application delivery pipeline The importance of recertifying rules regularly Methods used for rule recertification The business application approach for rule recertification October 27, 2021 Tsippi Dach Director of marketing communications Asher Benbenisty Director of product marketing Relevant resources AlgoSec Horizon AppViz – Rule Recertification Watch Video Changing the rules without risk: mapping firewall rules to business applications Keep Reading Choose a better way to manage your network Choose a better way to manage your network Work email* First name* Last name* Company* country* Select country... Short answer* By submitting this form, I accept AlgoSec's privacy policy Continue