Security | Threat Detection | Cyberattacks | DevSecOps | Compliance

In this article Relying on manual risk registers is no longer a sustainable strategy. As organizations face more complex threats, regulatory shifts, and operational changes, static spreadsheets and disconnected documentation fall short. These manual methods often lead to inefficiencies, missed risks, and a lack of real-time visibility, hindering timely decision-making and exposing organizations to greater vulnerabilities.

As AI steadily percolated into a growing number of use cases, adopting it has been a rollercoaster of confusion, chaos, and conundrums. One of the key concerns around AI adoption are the added risks. Issues like sensitive data leakage, AI hallucinations, inability to implement access control, and data breaches lurk the the cloud where LLMs are deployed.

Choosing between HITRUST and SOC 2 isn’t just a compliance decision – it’s a business one. We’ve seen companies burn time and money pursuing the wrong framework simply because “everyone else is doing it.” The right choice depends on who your customers are, what data you handle, and how much rigor you’re prepared to sustain. One size doesn’t fit all – and treating it that way is where most teams go wrong.

We’re happy to announce that Cursor has validated Snyk’s CLI MCP server and added Snyk to their curated set of MCP tools from official providers. At Snyk, we recognized early on that although AI assistants accelerate development, they can inadvertently introduce vulnerable patterns, leverage outdated libraries, or even code with known security flaws. In order to maintain the rapid iteration cycles that AI enables, developers need security to be as agile as AI itself.

Many businesses are using AI to innovate and boost productivity. But to truly benefit from AI, you need to trust it. That's where the Snyk AI Trust Platform comes in. As we announced at the 2025 Snyk Launch, the Snyk AI Trust Platform is designed to unleash innovation, reduce business risk, and accelerate software delivery in the age of AI.

Open-source and third-party packages drive innovation but expose your software supply chain to relentless cyberattacks. Veracode’s 2025 State of Software Security (SoSS) report reveals a chilling truth: 70% of critical security debt originates from third-party code.

Financial services firms operate in a high-risk environment where personal and financial data converge — and errors are expensive. Despite robust back-end controls, many still: GDPR’s complexity — 99 articles and multiple regional interpretations — creates audit friction even for mature teams.

I recently had several conversations about repeat clickers. First with a Forrester analyst and then, shortly after, at KB4-CON Orlando following a presentation on the subject by Matthew Canham, Executive Director of the Cognitive Security Institute. After that, my approach was a little less organic: intrigued by the topic, I spoke with several KnowBe4 customers to find out how they manage repeat clickers.

I am used to repeating some pretty big numbers when talking about the financial impact of cybercrimes. When you look into the data, it is pretty easy to start talking about tens of billions of dollars. I occasionally come across figures that are in the hundreds of billions of dollars in damage across multiple years globally. So, imagine my surprise when I learned the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said Americans lost $158.3B in 2023, one year, to scammers, and that annual figure is getting worse.

Multi-cloud environments have become the backbone of modern enterprise IT, offering unparalleled flexibility, scalability, and access to a diverse array of innovative services. This distributed architecture empowers organizations to avoid vendor lock-in, optimize costs, and leverage specialized functionalities from different providers. However, this very strength introduces a significant challenge: increased complexity in security management.