Tag: CyberSecurity

A Continuation of my Review of the book Systems Programming in Linux

Alright, so I am continuing to review this book, which by the way I find to be excellent so far, and with that in mind I am giving summaries of what you can find in each chapter. Of course, I am not one to give away the contents of a book as I believe everyone should really read it themselves to get the full benefit. With that in mind, you will find a link to a discount on this book at the end of this review if you’re so inclined.

Chapter 6: Overview of Filesystems and Files

So, I believe, chapter 6 is basically the ground floor of understanding Linux. It’s all about files—which, let’s be real, is everything in Linux.

We chat about how Linux treats almost everything as a file: regular files, directories, even hardware devices. The core idea is the file descriptor, which is just a small, non-negative integer the kernel gives you when you open a file (like $0$, $1$, and $2$ for standard input, output, and error, respectively). We cover the classic functions:

  • open() and close(): Pretty obvious, opening and closing the file.
  • read() and write(): How you actually move data in and out.
  • lseek(): This is the cool one! It lets you jump to a specific spot in a file to read or write, making it a random access file instead of just a sequential one.

It also introduces the concept of file metadata—stuff like who owns the file, its size, when it was last modified, and its permissions (read, write, execute). The stat family of functions is what you use to grab all that juicy info.

Chapter 7: The Directory Hierarchy

Building on Chapter 6, Chapter 7 zooms out from a single file to the big picture: how all those files are organized.

This is where we talk about the directory hierarchy—that inverted tree structure starting at the root, /. The chapter walks you through the essential directories (like /bin, /etc, /home, /dev, etc.) and what lives inside them.

The key functions here are about navigating and manipulating this structure:

  • chdir(): Changes the current working directory.
  • getcwd(): Gets the name of the current working directory.
  • mkdir() and rmdir(): Making and deleting directories.
  • link() and symlink(): The difference between hard links and symbolic (soft) links. A hard link is like an alias that points to the data itself, while a symbolic link is just a file containing the path to another file.

Chapter 8: Introduction to Signals

Alright, Chapter 8 is where things get a little more…interesting and asynchronous. Signals are a form of inter-process communication (IPC), but they are very lightweight and often used to notify a process of an event.

Think of a signal like a tap on the shoulder for a running process. For example:

  • SIGINT (Interrupt Signal): What happens when you press Ctrl+C—it tells the foreground process to stop.
  • SIGKILL (Kill Signal): A non-catchable, non-ignorable signal that forces a process to terminate immediately. The brute-force method!
  • SIGCHLD (Child Signal): A parent process gets this when one of its child processes dies or stops.

The chapter explains how a process can deal with a signal:

  1. Ignore it (most signals, not SIGKILL/SIGSTOP).
  2. Catch it, meaning you define a special function (a signal handler) to run when the signal arrives.
  3. Do the default action (usually terminate, dump core, or stop).

Chapter 9: Timers and Sleep Functions

Chapter 9 is all about controlling the flow of time (well, the program’s perception of it, anyway). If you need a program to wait, do something later, or measure performance, this is your go-to chapter.

We talk about different ways to pause or schedule activity:

  • sleep() and usleep() (or nanosleep()): The simple way to pause your process for a set amount of seconds or microseconds. Great for basic delays.
  • Interval Timers (setitimer): These are cooler. They let you schedule an action (like sending a signal, often SIGALRM) to happen repeatedly or after a specific delay. This is how you build something that needs to fire an event every, say, 5 seconds.

It also covers functions for getting the current time and performing basic time arithmetic, which is crucial for things like logging and benchmarking.

Chapter 10: Process Fundamentals

This chapter is the heart of Linux multi-tasking! It dives deep into what a process is and how they relate to each other.

Every running program is a process, and they are defined by their unique Process ID (PID). The chapter introduces the most important function in process creation: fork().

  • fork(): This function creates a nearly identical copy of the calling process (the parent), which becomes the child. They are initially identical, except for their PIDs and the return value of fork().
  • exec family of functions: This is how the child process stops being an identical copy and becomes a new program. The exec functions load a new executable file into the current process’s memory space, effectively replacing the old program with the new one.
  • wait()/waitpid(): A parent process uses these to pause and wait for a child process to terminate, collecting the child’s exit status. This is vital to prevent zombie processes (processes that are dead but still take up a slot in the process table because the parent hasn’t acknowledged their death).

Okay, so with that in mind, this book is fantastic. It has really helped me gain a deeper understanding of how Linux works. Of course, there are other additional books you will need to read and review in order to gain a much deeper and broader understanding but this one should definitely be on your bookshelf.

I can safely recommend that you go out and get this book. With the advent of artificial intelligence it is very necessary to obtain curated knowledge from known subject matter experts. The author of this book is definitely a subject matter expert and I am sad to learn he may have retired.

However, with that in mind, I would recommend you pick up this book if this is something you may need to learn about in the near future.

You can find a discount to this book here from nostarch.com.

The Minnesota Model: What the Digital Fair Repair Act Means for Your Home Network Security

A blinking light. A glacial download speed. The all-too-familiar moment when a crucial piece of your digital life—your Wi-Fi router, your smart home hub, or your backup drive—decides to take an untimely, expensive vacation. What do you do? For years, the answer has been simple, frustrating, and costly: replace it.

We live in an age of astonishing technological interconnectedness. Every year, our homes become smarter, more efficient, and more dependent on a complex web of tiny, powerful digital electronic products. Yet, when these devices fail, we are consistently locked out. Locked out of the necessary parts, locked out of the diagnostic tools, and definitely locked out of the service manuals that could turn a simple $15 component swap into a working machine. This system has created mountains of e-waste and forced consumers into an OEM-controlled (Original Equipment Manufacturer) repair economy.

But a tectonic shift is happening, and it’s being spearheaded by the Upper Midwest. Enter The Minnesota Model.

Officially known as the **Digital Fair Repair Act** (or MN Statutes Section 325E. 72), Minnesota’s landmark legislation is widely celebrated as the most comprehensive, sweeping, and strongest Right to Repair law in the United States. In essence, the Act mandates that manufacturers of digital electronic products must make the necessary parts, tools, and documentation available to consumers and independent repair shops on **”fair and reasonable terms.”** This is a profound victory for consumer autonomy and environmental stewardship, ensuring that everything from your smartphone to your network-attached storage (NAS) drive can be fixed without being held hostage by the original creator.

However, amidst the well-deserved cheers from repair advocates, there is a critical, complex, and often-overlooked question that must be addressed: What does the Digital Fair Repair Act mean for the security of your home network?

The ability to fix your own router, smart camera, or modem is empowering, but it also introduces new variables into the delicate equation of cybersecurity. The shift in control—from the tightly managed, closed systems of manufacturers to the diverse, open-source world of independent repair—comes with a new set of responsibilities. Understanding its security implications is essential for anyone who values a fast, functioning, and, most importantly, safe home network.

Decoding the Act and Your Connected Devices

The core strength of the Minnesota Model lies in its three-pronged mandate, which directly targets the practices that have frustrated consumers for decades:

1.  Parts: Manufacturers must sell replacement parts to independent shops and consumers “on fair and reasonable terms.”

2.  Tools & Diagnostics: Specialized tools, including access to **embedded software and updates** necessary for proper diagnosis and repair, must be available.

3.  Documentation: Service manuals, schematics, and service bulletins must be provided at little to no charge.

Crucially, the law’s definition of “Digital Electronic Equipment” is incredibly broad. It covers everything from laptops and tablets to the vital infrastructure that powers your smart home: Wi-Fi routers, cable modems, network-attached storage (NAS) drives, smart home hubs, security cameras, and smart thermostats.

If your Wi-Fi is the fortress, these devices are the gates, the treasury, and the sentinels. Now, consumers and independent technicians have the legal key to open them.

The Critical Security Carve-Outs

The legislators weren’t oblivious to the cybersecurity debate. Manufacturers argued that providing full access to their proprietary software could make it easier for bad actors to find and exploit vulnerabilities. While the Act pushed back on most of these manufacturer concerns, it did include two important security carve-outs that define the limits of the “Right to Repair” on highly sensitive devices:

1.  Cybersecurity Risk: OEMs are not required to release anything that “could reasonably be used to compromise cybersecurity” or that “would disable or override antitheft security measures.” This is the primary point of tension, as manufacturers may cite this to withhold deeper diagnostic software, claiming it would reveal exploits.

2.  Critical Infrastructure: Equipment intended for use in critical infrastructure is exempt. While this mostly shields business-grade network gear, the definition can sometimes be fuzzy and may be argued in relation to high-end industrial smart home components.

These exemptions acknowledge a fundamental truth: repairability and security often exist in tension.

Repairing Your Network—The Security Double-Edged Sword

The ability to fix your networking gear, rather than replace it, has profound but complex security implications.

The Hardware Lifespan Dilemma

The most immediate benefit of the Act is that it keeps perfectly functional, slightly aged hardware in service. A $300 router with a failed power capacitor no longer needs to become e-waste; it can be repaired.

The Problem: Prolonging the life of older devices also prolongs the life of devices whose firmware support has ended. Manufacturers only guarantee security patches and updates for a limited window (often 5-7 years). An older, repaired router is a financially savvy choice, but it is also a potential unpatched vulnerability waiting to be exploited. If the manufacturer is no longer issuing patches for a newly discovered “zero-day” flaw, your repaired device remains exposed. The Act guarantees access to *existing* software updates, not *perpetual* updates.

The Supply Chain Security Risk

When you get a device repaired by the manufacturer, you are typically guaranteed that the replacement part comes from their tightly controlled, verified supply chain. When an independent repair shop sources a component—say, a memory chip for a component-level repair on a NAS drive—that guarantee is gone.

The Risk of the Malicious Component: This opens the door to the risk of a **supply chain attack**. A counterfeit part, especially an integrated circuit (IC) or memory module, could be loaded with a chip that allows a remote backdoor access. This malicious component could turn your repaired NAS drive or router into an unwitting bot, allowing bad actors to steal data or launch attacks from your network. The consumer now bears the responsibility of trusting the parts sourcing of their chosen repair provider.

The Embedded Software Challenge

The law requires that tools for flashing embedded software and firmware be provided. This is vital for repairing networking gear, as a device is useless without its core operating system.

The Security Protocol: This access is a double-edged sword. While it allows a repair tech to wipe and re-install a certified, secure firmware image onto a repaired component, it also means these flashing tools are now outside the manufacturer’s control. If these tools or the correct firmware files fall into the wrong hands, they could be used to install modified, malicious firmware onto a consumer’s device. For the average user attempting a DIY repair, the danger of installing an unofficial or corrupted firmware version is high, potentially bricking the device or—worse—installing a persistent, undetectable form of malware.

Empowered Users and the Shift in Liability

The Minnesota Model fundamentally shifts the balance of power, but also the balance of responsibility and liability.

The availability of service manuals and schematics is a boon not just for repair, but for security diagnosis. A technically savvy user can now use the documentation to understand which components control network flow, which could help them identify a component overheating due to a malware-driven resource drain. They can use the technical knowledge to spot security issues that are currently hidden by proprietary design.

However, the Act shields the manufacturer, stating: “No original equipment manufacturer or authorized repair provider shall be liable for any damage or injury caused to any digital electronic equipment, person, or property that occurs as a result of repair… performed by an independent repair provider or owner.”

The takeaway is clear: The legal and financial liability for any resulting damage—including a data breach caused by an improperly repaired router—now firmly rests with the person or entity who performed the repair. This is the **greatest security burden** introduced by the law. If a DIY repair on your NAS drive leads to data leakage, the manufacturer is protected.

This legal reality necessitates the rise of the Security-Conscious Repair Technician. Moving forward, a quality independent repair shop will need to treat every post-repair networking device as a fresh security installation, which includes:

  • Verifying and installing the latest official firmware.
  • Running comprehensive diagnostics to check for hardware integrity.
  • Ensuring the device is reset to secure factory defaults, compelling the user to change all default passwords immediately.

Securing the Future of Repair

The Minnesota Model is a monumental victory for consumer choice and the environment. It successfully breaks the manufacturer monopoly on repair, extending the life of our vital home network infrastructure.

But repairability is not a substitute for vigilant security; it simply shifts the responsibility. The new security threat isn’t if your device can be repaired, but who is doing the repair and how they are verifying the security integrity of the repaired device and its components.

As we move into this new era of digital repair, every consumer must embrace the following secure repair checklist:

1.  Always Verify Firmware: Immediately update to the latest official firmware after any repair to ensure critical security patches are applied. Never use unofficial sources.

2.  Source Wisely: When using an independent shop, ask about their parts sourcing and security verification processes. Demand the use of genuine or verified components.

3.  Know the Exclusions: Understand what the law does not cover (the “compromise cybersecurity” clause) to manage expectations about the depth of diagnostic information available for high-security features.

The Minnesota Model has put the power to fix back into the hands of the people. Now, it’s up to us to ensure that power comes with the knowledge to keep our digital fortress secure.

Using Memory Safe Techniques to Build an Operating System and Software.

Recently, the current administration recommended that software developers produce code or rather try to re-write their software in such a manner that uses memory safe languages and techniques. Given this assertion I have some thoughts on this matter and whether or not it is feasible or would the drawbacks on performance outweigh the benefits to overall security of the operating system and installed software.

In the realm of operating systems, security and reliability are paramount concerns. Traditional operating system kernels, while powerful, often rely on languages like C and C++, which are prone to memory-related vulnerabilities such as buffer overflows and dangling pointers. These vulnerabilities can lead to system crashes, security breaches, and even full system compromise. In response to these challenges, there has been increasing interest in exploring the feasibility of developing an operating system kernel using memory-safe techniques or languages. In this article, we’ll delve into the potential pitfalls and advantages of such an endeavor.

Memory-Safe Techniques and Languages

Memory safety is the concept of preventing programming errors that can lead to memory corruption vulnerabilities. Memory-safe languages such as Rust, Swift, and managed languages like Java and C# employ various techniques to ensure memory safety, including:

  1. Memory Ownership: Rust, for example, uses a system of ownership and borrowing to enforce memory safety at compile time. This prevents issues such as dangling pointers and data races.
  2. Automatic Memory Management: Languages like Java and C# feature garbage collection, which automatically de allocates memory that is no longer in use, thus eliminating common memory management errors.
  3. Bounds Checking: Some languages automatically perform bounds checking on arrays and other data structures to prevent buffer overflows.

Advantages of a Memory-Safe Operating System Kernel

  1. Enhanced Security: By eliminating common memory-related vulnerabilities, a memory-safe operating system kernel can significantly improve overall system security. This reduces the likelihood of successful attacks such as buffer overflow exploits.
  2. Improved Reliability: Memory safety techniques can enhance the reliability of the operating system by minimizing the occurrence of crashes and system instability caused by memory corruption issues.
  3. Easier Maintenance and Debugging: Memory-safe languages often provide better tooling and error messages, making it easier for developers to identify and fix issues during development. This can streamline the maintenance and debugging process for the operating system kernel.
  4. Future-Proofing: As software complexity continues to increase, the importance of memory safety becomes more pronounced. By adopting memory-safe techniques early on, an operating system kernel can better withstand the challenges of evolving threats and software demands.

Potential Pitfalls and Challenges

  1. Performance Overhead: Memory-safe languages often incur a performance overhead compared to low-level languages like C and C++. While advancements have been made to mitigate this overhead, it remains a concern for resource-constrained environments.
  2. Compatibility Issues: Porting an existing operating system kernel to a memory-safe language or developing a new one from scratch may introduce compatibility issues with existing hardware, drivers, and software ecosystem.
  3. Learning Curve: Memory-safe languages, especially ones like Rust with unique ownership and borrowing concepts, have a steeper learning curve compared to traditional languages. This may require developers to undergo additional training and adjustment.
  4. Runtime Overhead: Some memory-safe languages, particularly those with garbage collection, introduce runtime overhead, which may not be acceptable for real-time or performance-critical systems.

Developing an operating system kernel using memory-safe techniques or languages presents both significant advantages and challenges. While the enhanced security, reliability, and maintainability offered by memory-safe languages are appealing, concerns such as performance overhead and compatibility issues must be carefully addressed. Nonetheless, as the importance of security and reliability in operating systems continues to grow, exploring the feasibility of memory-safe operating system kernels remains a worthwhile pursuit with the potential to reshape the future of computing.

CyberSecurity Roles: Why you should consider both Blue and Red Team Roles?

As the field of cybersecurity continues to grow, there is a growing demand for professionals who are skilled in both offensive and defensive security tactics. While offensive security (commonly referred to as “red teaming”) is often seen as the more glamorous and exciting side of cybersecurity, it is essential to recognize the critical role of blue team tactics in protecting against cyber threats.

In this article, we will explore why individuals studying offensive security should consider learning blue team tactics and how it can benefit their career in cybersecurity.

What is Blue Teaming?

Blue teaming refers to the defensive side of cybersecurity, which involves protecting systems and networks from cyber-attacks. Blue team members work to identify vulnerabilities in a system, develop and implement security measures, and monitor and respond to security incidents.

Blue teaming tactics involve a wide range of activities, including network monitoring, threat hunting, vulnerability management, incident response, and security assessments. These activities are critical for maintaining the security of a system or network and mitigating cyber threats.

Why Learn Blue Teaming Tactics?

  1. Understanding the Other Side

As an offensive security professional, learning blue team tactics can help you gain a better understanding of the other side of the coin. By understanding how defenders operate, you can better anticipate their responses and create more effective attack strategies. This understanding can also help you develop more robust and resilient systems that can withstand attacks.

  1. Enhancing Your Skill Set

Learning blue team tactics can expand your skill set and make you a more well-rounded cybersecurity professional. Many of the skills and techniques used in blue teaming, such as network monitoring and incident response, are transferable to offensive security. By mastering these skills, you can become a more versatile and effective cybersecurity professional.

  1. Job Opportunities

As the demand for cybersecurity professionals continues to grow, many employers are seeking individuals with both offensive and defensive security skills. By learning blue team tactics, you can increase your employability and stand out in a competitive job market. Additionally, having experience in both offensive and defensive security can lead to higher-paying job opportunities.

  1. Improved Cybersecurity Awareness

Understanding blue team tactics can also help you develop a more holistic approach to cybersecurity. By understanding the methods and techniques used to protect against cyber threats, you can better identify potential vulnerabilities in a system or network. This knowledge can help you develop more effective attack strategies and make you a more effective cybersecurity professional overall.

  1. Ethical Considerations

As a responsible cybersecurity professional, it is essential to consider the ethical implications of your actions. By learning blue team tactics, you can gain a better understanding of the impact of cyber-attacks on individuals and organizations. This understanding can help you develop more ethical and responsible offensive security strategies.

While offensive security is undoubtedly exciting, it is essential to recognize the importance of blue team tactics in protecting against cyber threats. By learning blue teaming, individuals studying offensive security can expand their skill set, gain a better understanding of the other side, increase their employability, and develop a more holistic approach to cybersecurity. Ultimately, by combining offensive and defensive security skills, cybersecurity professionals can become more effective in protecting against cyber threats and making the digital world a safer place.

Ethical and Legal Considerations of War Driving: What you need to know!

As technology continues to advance, the need for ethical hacking has become more important. One such activity that ethical hackers may engage in is “war driving.” Wardriving involves driving around in a vehicle with a laptop or other device that can detect wireless networks, in an attempt to identify vulnerabilities in those networks. While wardriving can be a useful tool for ethical hackers, there are a number of ethical and legal considerations that must be taken into account before engaging in this activity.

Legal Considerations

The first and most important consideration when it comes to war driving is the legality of the activity. In many countries, it is illegal to access wireless networks without authorization. Even if the network is unsecured, accessing it without authorization can still be considered a criminal offense. Therefore, before engaging in war driving, it is important to research the laws in your jurisdiction and ensure that you are not breaking any laws.

In addition to legal considerations, it is also important to consider the ethical implications of war driving. Ethical hackers have a responsibility to act in the best interests of their clients or the public at large. Therefore, it is important to ensure that your actions do not cause harm or violate the privacy of others.

Ethical Considerations

One of the main ethical considerations when it comes to war driving is the potential impact on the privacy of individuals and organizations. By accessing wireless networks without authorization, ethical hackers may be able to access sensitive information that could be used for malicious purposes. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the information obtained during war driving is used only for ethical purposes and that any vulnerabilities identified are reported to the appropriate parties.

Another ethical consideration when it comes to war driving is the potential impact on the stability of wireless networks. By accessing networks without authorization, ethical hackers may inadvertently cause disruptions to those networks. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the tools used for wardriving are used responsibly and that any disruptions are kept to a minimum.

Finally, it is important to consider the potential impact on the reputation of ethical hacking as a profession. If war driving is seen as a nefarious activity, it could damage the reputation of ethical hacking as a whole. Therefore, it is important to ensure that wardriving is conducted in a responsible and ethical manner and that any vulnerabilities identified are used only for the benefit of the clients or the public.

Conclusion

Wardriving can be a useful tool for ethical hackers, but it is important to consider the legal and ethical implications of this activity before engaging in it. By ensuring that the activity is conducted in a responsible and ethical manner, ethical hackers can help to promote the credibility of their profession and contribute to the security of wireless networks.

OS Command Injection – What is it?

OS Command Injection is a type of security vulnerability that occurs when an attacker is able to execute arbitrary system commands on a target machine through a vulnerability in a web application. This type of attack is often seen in web applications that use system calls, system commands, or shell commands to perform various tasks. Attackers take advantage of these vulnerabilities to execute arbitrary code on the target machine, which can result in a variety of security incidents, such as data theft, data corruption, or complete system compromise.

OS Command Injection attacks are typically carried out by manipulating the input data of a web application to include malicious code. For example, if a web application requires a user to input a file name for a file upload operation, an attacker could manipulate the input to include malicious code. If the web application uses the input directly in a system call or shell command without proper validation or sanitation, the attacker’s code will be executed on the target machine.

OS Command Injection attacks can also be carried out by manipulating the parameters of a URL. For example, if a web application provides a URL that is used to execute a system command or shell script, an attacker could manipulate the URL to include malicious code. If the web application uses the URL directly in a system call or shell command without proper validation or sanitation, the attacker’s code will be executed on the target machine.

There are several ways to protect against OS Command Injection attacks. The first step is to validate all user input to ensure that it only contains acceptable characters. This can be accomplished by using regular expressions to match acceptable input patterns and reject input that does not match the pattern. For example, you could use a regular expression to only allow alphanumeric characters in file names or URL parameters.

Another way to protect against OS Command Injection attacks is to use a safe API for system calls or shell commands. Safe APIs provide a layer of abstraction between the web application and the underlying system, and they ensure that only valid input is passed to the system. This can prevent attackers from injecting malicious code into system calls or shell commands.

It is also important to sanitize all user input before using it in a system call or shell command. This can be accomplished by removing or escaping special characters that could be used to inject malicious code. For example, you could remove any instances of the semicolon (;) or pipe (|) characters, which are often used in OS Command Injection attacks.

Another important step in protecting against OS Command Injection attacks is to keep your web application and operating system up to date with the latest security patches. This will help to prevent vulnerabilities in your web application from being exploited by attackers.

OS Command Injection is a serious security vulnerability that can result in the compromise of a target machine. To protect against this type of attack, it is important to validate all user input, use a safe API for system calls or shell commands, sanitize user input, and keep your web application and operating system up to date with the latest security patches. By following these best practices, you can help to secure your web application against OS Command Injection attacks and keep your sensitive data safe.

Remote Code Execution (RCE) – What is it and why you should prevent it?

Remote Code Execution (RCE) is a type of cyber attack in which an attacker can execute malicious code on a target computer system from a remote location. This type of attack is considered to be one of the most dangerous types of cyber threats due to its ability to cause widespread damage to a network and the sensitive data stored within it.

The most common methods of performing RCE attacks include exploiting vulnerabilities in software and operating systems, using phishing scams to trick users into downloading malicious software, and using weak passwords to gain unauthorized access to systems. In some cases, attackers may also use social engineering techniques to manipulate users into providing access to their systems.

Once the attacker gains access to a target system, they can execute any type of malicious code, including malware, viruses, and spyware. This allows the attacker to take full control of the system, steal sensitive information, or even use the system to launch further attacks on other systems.

RCE attacks pose a significant threat to any business that operates on the Internet, as they can result in significant financial losses and harm to a company’s reputation. The consequences of an RCE attack can include loss of confidential data, downtime, and disruptions to business operations. In some cases, the attacker may even hold the victim company’s data for ransom, requiring payment before releasing it back to the company.

To prevent RCE attacks, it is important for businesses to implement strong security measures such as firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and secure authentication and authorization processes. In addition, companies should ensure that all software and operating systems are kept up-to-date with the latest security patches and that employees are trained to recognize and avoid potential threats.

Another important step for businesses to take is to regularly back up their data, so that in the event of an attack, the company can quickly recover and minimize the damage caused. Finally, companies should work with trusted security vendors to monitor their networks and systems for potential threats, and to implement effective incident response plans to quickly respond to any attacks that do occur.

RCE attacks are a serious threat to businesses operating on the Internet, and it is essential for companies to take the necessary steps to protect themselves from these attacks. By implementing strong security measures, training employees, and working with trusted security vendors, companies can minimize their risk of falling victim to RCE attacks and protect their sensitive data and operations.