European governments are facing a digital nightmare after hackers breached high security agencies by exploiting fresh cracks in a popular software product. The attacks happened fast, leaving security teams racing to plug holes while sensitive data leaked out the back door. The speed of these intrusions exposes a terrifying weakness in how nations protect their secrets, and the worst might not be over yet.
Critical Security Flaws Revealed
The trouble began on January 29 when Ivanti disclosed two major weaknesses in its Endpoint Manager Mobile (EPMM) solution. Security experts labeled these flaws CVE-2026-1281 and CVE-2026-1340. Both issues allow attackers to execute code remotely. This means a hacker can take control of a system from anywhere in the world without needing physical access.
Both vulnerabilities received a severity score of 9.8 out of 10. This is almost as bad as it gets. Ivanti admitted in a security advisory that a small number of customers had already been exploited before the public knew about the problem. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) wasted no time. They added the first flaw to their list of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities immediately.
This warning likely alerted other cybercriminals to the opportunity. Hackers who had not yet discovered the flaws on their own suddenly had a roadmap. The attacks that followed showed just how quickly threat actors can move when a door is left ajar.
Government Agencies Under Fire
The warning bell had barely stopped ringing when the attacks began. Just one day after the disclosure, hackers struck the European Commission. This body helps run the European Union, yet its central infrastructure for managing mobile devices fell victim to the breach. The attack lasted for nine hours. While the hackers did not manage to compromise specific mobile devices, they did steal staff names and mobile numbers.
Finland felt the sting on the same day. Valtori serves as the public managed services provider for the Finnish government. They suffered a breach of the exact same nature. This attack was far more damaging in terms of scale. It affected roughly 50,000 people connected to the central government. The hackers made off with names, email addresses, phone numbers, and other device details.
Both organizations waited until February 5 to tell the public what happened. Neither explicitly named the Ivanti software as the cause in their initial statements. However, Valtori noted the breach came through a vulnerability in a commercial mobile device management service. That service had a public disclosure on January 29. The timeline matches perfectly.
Two Dutch government agencies also admitted to breaches on February 6. Unlike the others, they were direct. They named Ivanti EPMM as the culprit.
Table: Timeline of Major Breaches
| Date | Victim | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 30 | European Commission | Staff names and mobile numbers compromised over 9 hours. |
| Jan 30 | Valtori (Finland) | Data of 50,000 individuals leaked, including emails and phone details. |
| Feb 6 | Dutch Agencies | Breaches confirmed, explicitly linked to Ivanti EPMM flaws. |
Hackers Strike Before Defense
The speed of these attacks highlights a dangerous trend. Researchers at watchTowr published a proof of concept exploit on the same day the attacks began. This showed exactly how the vulnerability worked. Once that information is out in the wild, it becomes a race. Defenders try to patch their systems while attackers try to break in. In this case, the attackers won several races.
Attacks against edge devices have been rising for nearly three years. These devices sit on the boundary between a secure internal network and the open internet. They are prime targets. If a hacker cracks the edge, they are inside the castle.
Several major vendors have struggled with this recently:
- Fortinet has faced numerous attacks against its products.
- SonicWall edge devices have contended with zero day threats.
- WatchGuard firewalls were hit with a zero day exploit recently.
Attackers are opportunists. They see that edge networking is often harder to monitor than internal servers.
Data from Shadowserver showed another massive wave of attacks around February 9. This appeared to be a coordinated campaign against European targets. Greynoise researchers found something interesting about this spike. The indicators did not match what Ivanti had published. instead, 83% of the attacks came from a single IP address. This address belonged to a bulletproof hosting service. As of February 12, that digital gun was still smoking and active.
Moving Beyond Patch and Pray
The current strategy for defense is clearly failing. Organizations wait for a vendor to release a fix, then they rush to apply it. Douglas McKee, director of vulnerability intelligence at Rapid7, believes this “patch and pray” method is obsolete. He suggests a shift in thinking.
McKee argues that companies must design their perimeter with the assumption that it will eventually be compromised. This is a proactive measure rather than a reactive one.
He urges security teams to minimize exposure. This means getting rid of public interfaces that are not needed. It also means strict access controls before anyone can even try to log in. He believes perimeter systems should be treated like Tier 0 critical infrastructure. They are just as sensitive as the deepest database in the network. If these systems are monitored properly, a breach can be detected quickly. The goal is to stop the hacker before they can pivot from the edge device into the internal network.
Despite these warnings, high level organizations continue to fall victim. This raises a tough question. Why do they keep using Ivanti products if these issues keep happening?
Benjamin Harris, CEO of watchTowr, explains that it is not simple to just switch vendors. Ivanti is deeply embedded in the corporate world. They have a client base of 40,000 enterprises. Their software handles remote access, patching, and endpoint management. Removing that kind of technology is a slow and painful process.
Harris also points out a sad reality of the market. He asks which competitor has a better track record. The bar for security in this specific sector remains disappointingly low. Attackers know this, and they will continue to exploit it until the fundamental architecture changes.
This series of breaches serves as a wake up call. We entrust our most sensitive government data to software that is frequently broken by foreign hackers. It is time for a serious conversation about how we vet the tools that guard our digital borders. If we don’t demand better, we will just be reading the same headline next month with different victim names.
What do you think about governments relying on vulnerable software? Should there be stricter penalties for vendors who release flawed products? Share your thoughts and this article with your friends on social media.
