惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
Jina AI
Jina AI
博客园 - 司徒正美
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
博客园 - 三生石上(FineUI控件)
J
Java Code Geeks
博客园 - 聂微东
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
爱范儿
爱范儿
美团技术团队
腾讯CDC
博客园 - Franky
MyScale Blog
MyScale Blog
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
罗磊的独立博客
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
月光博客
月光博客
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
aimingoo的专栏
aimingoo的专栏
博客园_首页
V
V2EX
Martin Fowler
Martin Fowler
T
The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss

SentinelOne

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 35 Edge Infrastructure Under Siege: What Two Independent Datasets Reveal About Who's Exploiting Your Perimeter The Path to the Autonomous SOC: The Early Returns of AI & What It Means for Cybersecurity The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 34 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 33 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 32 From Input to Impact: Secure AI Where It Runs The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 31 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 30 Your Best Analyst Shouldn't Be a Person. It Should Be a Capability Everyone Can Summon. Mount Here, Read There: Twin Path Traversal CVEs in Kubernetes Storage From Triage Grind to Strategic Operator: The New AI SOC Career Path The Agentic SOC: Transforming Data into Defensive Velocity The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 29 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 28 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 24 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 23 SentinelOne + Claude: Integrations for AI Visibility, Governance, and Defense The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 22 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 21 Sentinels League 2026: Live Rankings for the Threat Hunting World Championship Turn Blind Trust into Verified Control with Prompt Security for Agentic AI SHub Reaper | macOS Stealer Spoofs Apple, Google, and Microsoft in a Single Attack Chain Breaking the Black Box: A Case Study in Red-Teaming a Government Education AI Living Off the Pipeline: Defending Against CI/CD Subversion The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 20 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 15 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Cybersecurity – Week 14 Securing the Supply Chain: How SentinelOne®’s AI EDR Stops the Axios Attack Autonomously The Identity Paradox: The Hidden Risks in Your Valid Credentials
Edge Decay: How a Failing Perimeter Is Fueling Modern Int...
SentinelOne · 2026-04-09 · via SentinelOne

In the first blog of this series, we explored the Identity Paradox and how attackers exploit valid credentials to operate undetected inside enterprise environments. However, identity compromise rarely happens in isolation.

To understand how these attacks begin, we need to look earlier in the intrusion lifecycle at the place many organizations still assume is secure: the edge.

For years, cybersecurity strategy has been built around defending the perimeter to protect the enterprise. Firewalls, VPNs, and secure gateways were designed as the outer boundary of the organization – hardened systems intended to control access and reduce risk. But that model is breaking down. What was once treated as a defensive layer is now a frequent target of modern attacks.

Rather than acting purely as protection, the perimeter increasingly introduces exposure. This shift reflects what can be described as edge decay, a gradual erosion of trust in boundary-based security as attackers focus on the infrastructure that defines it.

The Perimeter Is No Longer a Safe Boundary

The scale of this shift is hard to ignore. Zero-day vulnerabilities often target edge devices, including firewalls, VPN concentrators, and load balancers, all of which are not fringe systems. They are foundational components of enterprise connectivity, and the infrastructure that organizations built to protect themselves has become the infrastructure attackers exploit first.

Yet, unlike endpoints or servers, many edge devices still sit outside traditional endpoint visibility and control. Because these appliances typically cannot run EDR agents, defenders are often forced to rely on logs and external monitoring instead. However, logging can be inconsistent, patch cycles are often slow, and in many environments, these devices are treated as stable infrastructure rather than active risk. This combination creates a persistent visibility gap.

Attackers have recognized this gap and are exploiting it at scale. Rather than targeting hardened endpoints, adversaries are shifting their focus to unmanaged and legacy edge infrastructure and the systems that sit at the intersection of trust and exposure.

Weaponization at Machine Speed

One of the most significant accelerators of edge-focused attacks is the rise of automation and AI-assisted exploitation.

Threat actors are no longer relying on manual discovery. Instead, they use automated tooling to scan global IP space, identify exposed devices, and operationalize vulnerabilities within hours of disclosure. In some cases, exploitation begins within days or even hours of a vulnerability becoming public.

This compression of the attack timeline has important implications for defenders. Traditional patching cycles and risk prioritization models are no longer sufficient when adversaries can move faster than organizations can respond. As a result, edge compromise is increasingly observed as an early step in broader intrusion chains, often preceding identity-based attacks.

Edge Devices as Persistent Beachheads

Adversaries are increasingly prioritizing edge infrastructure because it represents a structural blind spot. Rather than targeting well-defended endpoints, they focus on unmanaged or legacy systems that fall outside standard visibility. Once compromised, these devices become more than just entry points, they provide a stable foothold for continued operations.

Once attackers gain access to a firewall or VPN appliance, that system effectively becomes an internal pivot point rather than a boundary control. From there, adversaries can monitor traffic, capture credentials, and pivot deeper into the network.

Investigations have repeatedly shown how compromised edge devices are used to:

  • Intercept authentication flows and harvest credentials
  • Deploy web shells on internal systems
  • Create unauthorized accounts for persistence
  • Pivot directly into sensitive infrastructure such as virtualization platforms

SentinelOne’s® Annual Threat Report observed a case where attackers leveraged compromised F5 BIG-IP devices to move from the internet-facing edge directly into internal VMware vSphere environments. In another, vulnerabilities in Check Point gateway devices were exploited to gain initial access across dozens of organizations globally.

These incidents reflect a broader pattern where the edge is becoming the attacker’s preferred entry point for lateral movement and identity compromise.

Living Inside the Infrastructure

More advanced campaigns take this concept even further by embedding themselves directly into the firmware of edge devices. The ongoing ArcaneDoor campaign, as noted in the Annual Threat Report, illustrates this evolution. Targeting legacy Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) devices, attackers chained multiple zero-day vulnerabilities to deploy a firmware-level bootkit known as RayInitiator.

This implant is particularly dangerous because it operates below the operating system, allowing it to survive reboots and software updates. Alongside it, attackers deployed LINE VIPER, an in-memory payload capable of capturing authentication traffic and suppressing logging activity to evade detection. In effect, the device itself becomes both the attack platform and the concealment mechanism. When logging is suppressed and monitoring is absent, defenders lose visibility into the intrusion entirely.

The Rise of Untraceable Relay Networks

Compromised edge devices are not just used for internal access, they are also being repurposed as part of global attack infrastructure. State-sponsored actors have begun building Operational Relay Box (ORB) networks from compromised routers and firewalls. These networks allow attackers to route malicious traffic through legitimate but hijacked infrastructure, obscuring the true origin of their operations.

Clusters such as PurpleHaze and activity linked to groups like APT15 and Hafnium demonstrate how these relay networks are used to dynamically rotate attack paths, making attribution more difficult. As a result, malicious traffic can appear to originate from trusted enterprise systems, complicating both detection and response.

This dual use of edge devices as both entry points and relay infrastructure highlights a shift in how adversaries operationalize compromised systems.

Legacy Systems and the Illusion of Patchability

A major contributor to edge decay is the persistence of legacy systems. Many organizations continue to rely on outdated appliances that lack modern security features such as Secure Boot or robust integrity verification. These systems are often considered “patchable,” but in practice, they represent long-term operational risk that is difficult to fully mitigate.

Firmware updates can be disruptive and vendor support may be inconsistent. In many cases, organizations are hesitant to modify systems that underpin critical connectivity. The result is a growing population of edge devices that remain exposed long after vulnerabilities are discovered. In some environments, this problem is compounded by visibility gaps. Devices running unsupported operating systems or incompatible software cannot host modern security tooling, leaving them effectively unmonitored. These “legacy ghosts” become ideal targets for attackers for being stable, trusted, and largely invisible.

The Identity Connection

Edge compromise does not exist in isolation. It is deeply connected to identity-based attacks. Once an attacker controls a gateway or VPN appliance, they gain access to authentication flows, session data, and credential material. This allows them to pivot directly into identity infrastructure, bypassing traditional defenses.

In many intrusions, edge compromise becomes the first step toward identity abuse. This creates a direct connection between edge exposure and the challenges described in the Identity Paradox. Attackers do not need to break authentication if they can intercept it. By observing or capturing identity data in transit, they can operate using valid artifacts without triggering traditional controls.

Conclusion | Securing Edge Infrastructure from the Vanishing Perimeter

The perimeter isn’t failing, it’s already failed. Every unpatched VPN, every legacy firewall running decade-old firmware, every edge device outside your visibility is a door left open and forgot about. The question isn’t whether attackers will find it. It’s whether you’ll see them when they walk through. Once attackers establish a foothold at the edge, they move quickly to compromise identities, escalate privileges, and expand their reach across the environment. This progression from edge access to identity abuse to full-scale intrusion is becoming the dominant pattern in modern attacks.

In this context, defending the edge means both protecting infrastructure and disrupting the earliest stages of the attack lifecycle. Given how dynamic and often unmanaged edge environments have become, they can no longer be treated as a reliable line of defense on their own.

To defend against adversaries who specialize in exploiting these blind spots, the path forward requires a shift in perspective from device-level alerts to attack lifecycle visibility, and from assumed integrity to continuous validation.

SentinelOne's Annual Threat Report

A defender’s guide to the real-world tactics adversaries are using today to abuse identity, exploit infrastructure gaps, and weaponize automation.

Get the Full Report

Third-Party Trademark Disclaimer

All third-party product names, logos, and brands mentioned in this publication are the property of their respective owners and are for identification purposes only. Use of these names, logos, and brands does not imply affiliation, endorsement, sponsorship, or association with the third-party.