This article examines the widespread collection of personal data and the legal challenges individuals face from third-party subpoenas. It discusses key court rulings on government access to personal information and highlights the complexities of data privacy in the digital age.

The post How the Supreme Court’s “Third Party” Subpoena Doctrine Empowers Governments to Seize Sensitive Information Without Your Knowledge appeared first on Security Boulevard.

MIND extends its data loss prevention platform to secure agentic AI, enabling organizations to discover, monitor, and govern AI agents in real time to prevent sensitive data exposure, shadow AI risks, and prompt injection attacks.

The post MIND Extends DLP Reach to AI Agents appeared first on Security Boulevard.

By Vijender Yadav, CEO & Co-founder, Accops  The cybersecurity industry is currently grappling with a paradox: encryption, compliance, and spending are at record highs, yet data privacy remains fragile. This stems from a reliance on a 2021 playbook to fight a 2026 war.  Historically, data protection was a static discipline focused on "data at rest" and "data in transit." However, in an era where automated discovery tools can map an enterprise's entire data footprint in minutes, traditional walls have become irrelevant. The perimeter has shifted; it no longer resides at the edge of the network, but at the precise moment of access. 

The Death of the "Safe" Zone 

By now, the concept of a "trusted network" is an architectural relic. In 2026, data is a fluid asset distributed across multi-region SaaS, edge computing nodes, and sovereign clouds rather than sitting in a central vault.  The primary challenge today is the "Identity-Data Gap." While the transition away from the physical office is complete, the assumption of trust associated with it often remains. If a user connects to a resource, legacy systems frequently grant broad, persistent visibility. This level of exposure facilitates near-instant lateral movement across the network and connected devices, making such visibility a direct threat to data privacy.  Protecting data privacy in this environment requires a shift from storage-centric security to visibility control. Resources must remain "dark" to everyone except the authenticated, authorised user throughout a continuously verified session. 

Data Privacy Week 2026: Defending Against the "Identity Hijack" 

In 2026, the primary threat to data privacy is the weaponisation of legitimate access rather than sophisticated software exploits. While a user’s identity can be verified with near-total certainty, organisations remain remarkably vulnerable to the context of that identity—specifically the what, how, and when of the access request. In this model, identity has become a false proxy for trust.  As identity remains under constant siege, secure access must move beyond a "gatekeeper" event to become a Continuous Adaptive Risk and Trust Assessment (CARTA). Securing the new perimeter requires the validation of three distinct pillars through persistent, 24/7/365 monitoring:

1. Validate the Human (Identity & Presence): Progressive organisations are adopting a multi-modal approach that combines phishing-resistant hardware verification with biometric-first identity signals. By anchoring identity in physical hardware (such as FIDO2-compliant keys) and augmenting it with continuous monitoring of liveness and presence, it is possible to ensure that the authorised individual remains physically present at the keys throughout the interaction. This layered verification prevents session hijacking or "shoulder surfing" in real-time. 

1. Validate the Device (Integrity & Posture): It is no longer safe to assume a device is secure simply because it is corporate-owned. The technical integrity of the endpoint must be evaluated before and during access. This involves continuous checks for managed status, OS vulnerabilities, and security software health to ensure the tool used to access data is not a compromised gateway. 

1. Validate the Behaviour (Intent & Monitoring): This final layer of the perimeter involves monitoring user actions for deviations from established norms. Detecting anomalies in navigation speed, timing, and data consumption allows for an assessment of whether a device is acting like a human-operated workstation or an automated exfiltration bot. The perimeter thus functions as a dynamic response system that adapts based on 'Contextual Intelligence'—the real-time risk of the intent. 

Privacy-First Architecture: Micro-Segmentation of Access 

The defining transition for 2026 and beyond is the shift from "Access to Resources" to "Entitlement within Resources."  Under a Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) 2.0 framework, this is achieved through a "Privacy of Exclusion" model. Connecting a user to an application is no longer sufficient; granular actions within that application must be managed. By default, no user sees any data. Only when a specific request is validated is a "one-to-one" encrypted tunnel created, restricting the user to the precise dataset required for the task.  This approach is necessary to satisfy the rigorous "Need-to-Know" requirements of global regulations like the GDPR or India’s DPDPA. Data privacy cannot be maintained if a network architecture allows a marketing executive to even ping an HR database. Secure access enforces privacy by making the unauthorised invisible. 

Looking Ahead: The Invisible Perimeter 

The mandate for technology leaders is to de-couple security from the underlying infrastructure of the internet.  Data privacy is not a checkbox; it is a continuous state of being. It is maintained only when access is granular, just-in-time, and verified with every single click. The "Castle and Moat" has been replaced by an invisible guard made of identity and intent—ensuring that privacy is a default setting rather than a manual effort. 

Authentication determines who gets in and who stays out. Getting this right means fewer breaches, less downtime, and stronger trust with customers.

The post Top Authentication Methods for Preventing Data Breaches appeared first on Security Boulevard.

💾

F5 AI Guardrails and F5 AI Red Team extend platform capabilities with continuous testing, adaptive governance and real-time protection.

The post F5 Strengthens, Scales & Sustains AI Security With Integrated Runtime Protection  appeared first on Security Boulevard.

This week, The Cyber Express takes a closer look at the events shaping the global cybersecurity landscape as we transition from 2025 to 2026. Throughout this week, we covered new cybersecurity laws, insider jobs involving ransomware, AI-driven disinformation, and data protection enforcement.   Coverage includes China’s updated cybersecurity law with stricter reporting and executive liability, Poland’s request for an EU investigation into TikTok’s AI-driven disinformation, and GDPR enforcement in France, with Nexpublica fined €1.7 million.  Insider threats remain a concern, highlighted by U.S. BlackCat ransomware convictions, while global ransomware campaigns by groups like CL0P continue to exploit third-party software vulnerabilities.   Here are the key stories from this week’s global cybersecurity landscape: 

The Cyber Express Weekly Roundup 

China’s New Cybersecurity Law: A Global Game-Changer 

As of January 1, 2026, China’s amended Cybersecurity Law has come into effect, representing the most significant update since 2017. The law drastically tightens reporting timelines, accountability, and enforcement, including near-real-time incident reporting for critical infrastructure operators—ranging from 60 minutes for severe incidents to four hours for major breaches. Read more.... 

TikTok Under the Microscope in Poland 

Poland has formally asked the European Commission to investigate TikTok over an AI-generated campaign promoting “Polexit,” the idea of Poland leaving the EU. Officials claim the platform failed to meet obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA), putting democracy at risk, especially among younger users. Read more... 

Insider Threats: BlackCat Ransomware in the U.S. 

In the United States, two cybersecurity professionals pleaded guilty to deploying ALPHV BlackCat ransomware against five companies, extorting over $1.2 million. The attackers exploited privileged access in healthcare, pharmaceutical, and tech sectors. Read more... 

GDPR Enforcement: Nexpublica Fined €1.7 Million 

France’s CNIL imposed a €1.7 million fine on Nexpublica France for failing to secure sensitive personal data in its PCRM system. A 2022 breach exposed information about disabilities and other personal details. CNIL emphasized that awareness of vulnerabilities without timely remediation constitutes a serious lapse in responsibility. Read more... 

CL0P Expands Ransomware Assault on Oracle EBS 

The CL0P ransomware group continued targeting Oracle E-Business Suite systems globally, affecting institutions like the University of Phoenix and Korean Air. Millions of employees' and personal records were compromised, largely via third-party software vulnerabilities, underlining the risks of vendor dependencies in cybersecurity. Read more... 

MongoBleed and ASEAN: Trust as a Cyber Asset 

A critical MongoDB vulnerability, “MongoBleed” (CVE-2025-14847), allows attackers unauthenticated access to server memory, exposing credentials and confidential data. Meanwhile, a review of ASEAN cybersecurity in 2025 by Salleh Kodri, Sr Presales consultant, Cyble, found that brand abuse, executive impersonation, and digital reputation attacks caused more damage than traditional breaches. Read more... 

Governance and Corruption Spotlight: Georgia 

Former Georgian security chief Grigol Liluashvili was arrested on bribery and corruption charges involving energy contracts and public procurement. Prosecutors continue an active investigation into millions of dollars in illicit payments. Read more... 

Weekly Takeaway 

From AI-driven disinformation in Europe to insider ransomware attacks in the U.S., GDPR enforcement, and critical vulnerabilities worldwide, 2025 has underscored that cybersecurity is no longer just about technology. Protecting trust, brand integrity, and personal data is now as vital as firewalls and encryption; a lesson organizations must carry into 2026.

Shashank Bajpai, CISO & CTSO at Yotta 2026 is the execution year for India’s Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) regime , the Rules were notified in November 2025 and the government has signalled a phased enforcement timeline. The law is consent-centric, imposes heavy penalties (up to ₹250 crore for the most serious security failures), creates a new institutional stack (Data Protection Board, Consent Managers), and elevates privacy to boardroom priority. Organizations that treat compliance as a strategic investment, not a cost centre, will gain trust, operational resilience, and competitive advantage. Key themes for 2026: consent at scale, data minimization, hardened security, vendor accountability, and new dependency risks arising from Consent Manager infrastructure.

Why 2026 Matters

The DPDP Act (2023) becomes operational through Rules notified in November 2025; the result is a staggered compliance timetable that places 2026 squarely in the execution phase. That makes 2026 the inflection year when planning becomes measurable operational work and when regulators will expect visible progress. The practical effect is immediate: companies must move from policy documents to implemented consent systems, security controls, breach workflows, and vendor governance.

The High-Impact Obligations

• Explicit consent architecture: Consent must be free, specific, informed and obtained by clear affirmative action. Systems must record, revoke and propagate consent signals reliably.
• Data minimization & purpose limitation: Collect only what’s necessary and purge data when the purpose is fulfilled.
• Reasonable security safeguards: Highest penalty bracket (up to ₹250 crore) for failures to implement required security measures. Encryption, tokenization, RBAC, monitoring and secure third-party contracts are expected.
• Breach notification: Obligatory notification to the Data Protection Board and affected principals, with tight timelines (public guidance references 72-hour reporting windows for board notification).
• Data subject rights: Access, correction, erasure, withdrawal of consent and grievance mechanisms must be operational and auditable.
• Children’s data: Verifiable parental consent and prohibitions on behavioural profiling/targeted advertising toward minors; failures risk very high penalties.
• Consent Managers: New regulated intermediaries where individuals may centrally manage consent; only India-incorporated entities meeting financial/operational thresholds (minimum net worth indicated in Rules) can register. This constructs a new privacy infrastructure and a new dependency vector for data fiduciaries.

Implementation Challenges & Strategic Opportunities

1. Key Implementation Challenges

Challenge Area	What Will Break / Strain in 2026	Why It Matters to Leadership	Strategic Imperative
Regulatory Ambiguity & Evolving Interpretation	Unclear operational expectations around “informed consent,” Significant Data Fiduciary designation, and cross-border data transfers	Risk of over-engineering or non-compliance as regulatory guidance evolves	Build modular, configurable privacy architectures that can adapt without re-platforming
Legacy Systems & Distributed Data	Difficulty retrofitting consent enforcement, encryption, audit trails, and real-time controls into legacy and batch-oriented systems	High cost, operational disruption, and extended timelines for compliance	Prioritize modernization of high-risk systems and align vendor roadmaps with DPDP requirements
Organizational Governance & Talent Gaps	Privacy cuts across legal, product, engineering, HR, procurement—often without clear ownership; shortage of experienced DPOs	Fragmented accountability increases regulatory and breach risk	Establish cross-functional privacy governance; leverage fractional DPOs and external advisors while building internal capability
Children’s Data & Onboarding Friction	Age verification and parental consent slow user onboarding and impact conversion metrics	Direct revenue and growth impact if UX is not carefully redesigned	Re-engineer onboarding flows to balance compliance with user experience, especially in consumer platforms
Consent Manager Dependency & Systemic Risk	Outages or breaches at registered Consent Managers can affect multiple data fiduciaries simultaneously	Creates concentration and third-party systemic risk	Design fallback mechanisms, redundancy plans, and enforce strong SLAs and audit rights

 2. Strategic Opportunities: Turning Compliance into Advantage

Opportunity Area	Business Value	Strategic Outcome
Trust as a Market Differentiator	Privacy becomes a competitive trust signal, particularly in fintech, healthtech, and BFSI ecosystems.	Strong DPDP compliance enhances brand equity, customer loyalty, partner confidence, and investor perception.
Operational Efficiency & Risk Reduction	Data minimization, encryption, and segmentation reduce storage costs and limit breach blast radius.	Privacy investments double as technical debt reduction with measurable ROI and lower incident recovery costs.
Global Market Access	Alignment with global privacy principles simplifies cross-border expansion and compliance-sensitive partnerships.	Faster deal closures, reduced due diligence friction, and improved access to regulated international markets.
Domestic Privacy & RegTech Ecosystem Growth	Demand for Consent Managers, RegTech, and privacy engineering solutions creates a new domestic market.	Strategic opportunity for Indian vendors to lead in privacy infrastructure and export DPDP-aligned solutions globally.

DPDP Readiness Roadmap for 2026

Time Horizon	Key Actions	Primary Owners	Strategic Outcome
Immediate (0–3 Months)	• Establish Board-level Privacy Steering Committee •Appoint or contract a Data Protection Officer (DPO) • Conduct rapid enterprise data mapping (repositories, processors, high-risk data flows) • Triage high-risk systems for encryption, access controls, and logging • Update breach response runbooks to meet Board and individual notification timelines	Board, CEO, CISO, Legal, Compliance	Executive accountability for privacy; clear visibility of data risk exposure; regulatory-ready breach response posture
Short Term (3–9 Months)	• Deploy consent management platform interoperable with upcoming Consent Managers • Standardize DPDP-compliant vendor contracts and initiate bulk vendor renegotiation/audits • Automate data principal request handling (identity verification, APIs, evidence trails)	CISO, CTO, Legal, Procurement, Product	Operational DPDP compliance at scale; reduced manual handling risk; strengthened third-party governance
Medium Term (9–18 Months)	• Implement data minimization and archival policies focused on high-sensitivity datasets • Embed Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) into product development (“privacy by design”) • Stress-test reliance on Consent Managers and negotiate resilience SLAs and contingency plans	Product, Engineering, CISO, Risk, Procurement	Sustainable compliance architecture; reduced long-term data liability; privacy-integrated product innovation
Ongoing (Board Dashboard Metrics)	• Consent fulfillment latency & revocation success rate • Mean time to detect and notify data breaches (aligned to regulatory windows) • % of sensitive data encrypted at rest and in transit • Vendor compliance score and DPA coverage	Board, CISO, Risk & Compliance	Continuous assurance, measurable compliance maturity, and defensible regulatory posture

Board-Level Takeaway

DPDP compliance in 2026 is not a one-time legal exercise, it is an operating model change. Organizations that treat privacy as a board-governed, product-integrated, and metrics-driven discipline will outperform peers on regulatory trust, customer confidence, and incident resilience.

The Macro View: Data Sovereignty & Trust Infrastructure

The Rules reinforce India’s intention to control flows of citizen data while creating domestic privacy infrastructure (DPB + Consent Managers + data auditors). This is not just regulation; it is an economic strategy to build domestic capability in cloud, identity, security and RegTech, and to position India as a credible participant in global data governance conversations.

Act Strategically, Not Reactively

DPDP is a structural shift: it will change products, engineering practices, contracts, and customer expectations. 2026 will reveal winners and laggards. Those that embrace privacy as a governance discipline and a product differentiator will realize measurable advantages in trust, operational resilience, and market value. The alternative, waiting until enforcement escalates, risks fines, reputational harm and erosion of customer trust. (This article reflects the author’s analysis and personal viewpoints and is intended for informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal or regulatory advice.)

Encryption can protect data at rest and data in transit, but does nothing for data in use. What we have are secure enclaves. I’ve written about this before:

Almost all cloud services have to perform some computation on our data. Even the simplest storage provider has code to copy bytes from an internal storage system and deliver them to the user. End-to-end encryption is sufficient in such a narrow context. But often we want our cloud providers to be able to perform computation on our raw data: search, analysis, AI model training or fine-tuning, and more. Without expensive, esoteric techniques, such as secure multiparty computation protocols or homomorphic encryption techniques that can perform calculations on encrypted data, cloud servers require access to the unencrypted data to do anything useful.

Fortunately, the last few years have seen the advent of general-purpose, hardware-enabled secure computation. This is powered by special functionality on processors known as trusted execution environments (TEEs) or secure enclaves. TEEs decouple who runs the chip (a cloud provider, such as Microsoft Azure) from who secures the chip (a processor vendor, such as Intel) and from who controls the data being used in the computation (the customer or user). A TEE can keep the cloud provider from seeing what is being computed. The results of a computation are sent via a secure tunnel out of the enclave or encrypted and stored. A TEE can also generate a signed attestation that it actually ran the code that the customer wanted to run.

Secure enclaves are critical in our modern cloud-based computing architectures. And, of course, they have vulnerabilities:

The most recent attack, released Tuesday, is known as TEE.fail. It defeats the latest TEE protections from all three chipmakers. The low-cost, low-complexity attack works by placing a small piece of hardware between a single physical memory chip and the motherboard slot it plugs into. It also requires the attacker to compromise the operating system kernel. Once this three-minute attack is completed, Confidential Compute, SEV-SNP, and TDX/SDX can no longer be trusted. Unlike the Battering RAM and Wiretap attacks from last month—which worked only against CPUs using DDR4 memory—TEE.fail works against DDR5, allowing them to work against the latest TEEs.

Yes, these attacks require physical access. But that’s exactly the threat model secure enclaves are supposed to secure against.