Logging in, not breaking in: Blackpoint Cyber’s Wil Santiago on the 2026 threat landscape
Wil Santiago, Wil Santiago, chief security and trust officer at Blackpoint Cyber Wil Santiago, chief security and trust officer at Blackpoint Cyber, joins In The Channel to discuss the findings of the company’s 2026 Annual Threat Report – research grounded in thousands of real incidents investigated by Blackpoint’s security operations centre, not surveys. The headline finding: attackers are no longer trying to break in. They’re logging in. Using stolen credentials and commodity remote management tools, threat actors are walking through the front door, hiding in plain sight, and operating with system-level privileges – sometimes for days before anyone notices. Santiago walks through the key trends the SOC identified across 2025: ClickFix and fake CAPTCHA campaigns accounted for more than half of all identifiable incidents, with attackers abusing trusted infrastructure including Azure Blob storage and Cloudflare to deliver payloads. RMM abuse showed up in roughly 30 per cent of triaged incidents – threat actors installing their own version of the same tools MSPs use legitimately, then living off the land with god-mode access. And Adversary-in-the-Middle attacks are now routinely hijacking authenticated sessions even when MFA is in place, by abusing OAuth token handling. The conversation also covers Blackpoint’s detection philosophy: behavioral context over malware signatures. Understanding what normal looks like in an environment – who uses what tool, at what time, from where – is what allows the SOC to catch attackers before they act. It’s a philosophy that is producing results: Blackpoint disrupted 56 per cent of incidents before a payload was ever deployed. Santiago’s closing recommendation for MSPs is straightforward: start with an RMM audit. Know every remote management tool deployed across every endpoint and server you manage. You cannot protect what you don’t know exists. The 2026 Annual Threat Report is available for download on the Blackpoint Cyber website. Read Full Transcript Robert Dutt: Hello and welcome to In The Channel from ChannelBuzz.ca, bringing news and information to the Canadian IT channel community for the last 16 years. I’m Robert Dutt, editor of ChannelBuzz.ca and your host for the show. Wil Santiago is Chief Security and Trust Officer at Blackpoint Cyber, an MDR provider whose SOC monitors and responds to threats in real time across a large base of MSPs and their clients. And unlike a lot of threat research that’s survey-based or derived from external reporting, what Blackpoint publishes comes from live incident data, thousands of actual threat responses they’ve worked through in the SOC. Their 2026 annual threat report has a thesis that cuts right through it. Attackers are no longer trying to break in, they’re logging in, using stolen credentials and legitimate IT tools, the same RMMs, the same cloud platforms that MSPs rely on every day, to walk through the front door, hide in plain sight, and work their way towards payday. It’s a theme we’ve been tracking at ChannelBuzz.ca. If you caught our conversation with Tony Anscombe from ESET, that one dug into the mechanics of how MSP tools are being weaponized against the very clients they’re supposed to protect. This conversation is the data layer behind that story, and the detection philosophy that Wil and the Blackpoint team have built to counter it. Their SOC is disrupting 56% of incidents before a payload even deploys. We talk about how. Let’s get right into it. My chat with Wil Santiago. Wil, thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it. Wil Santiago: Thank you, Robert. Robert Dutt: For people who know Blackpoint primarily as an MDR provider, but maybe haven’t dug into the research side, can you give us a quick sense of what your SOC is actually seeing day to day? When you say this report is based on thousands of real incidents, what does that mean in practical terms, in terms of how you gathered this data? Wil Santiago: That’s a great question, Robert. It really starts at the core of what we focus on at Blackpoint Cyber. In 2025, we focused a lot of our detection efforts in the cloud endpoints, but what we realized is that at the core, at that identity layer, that’s the most important thing. But what we’re protecting at Blackpoint is the identity. What we observed in 2025 is this interesting shift where, yes, there’s vulnerabilities, there will continue to be vulnerabilities. However, threat actors don’t necessarily need to weaponize those vulnerabilities to gain access into an environment. They’re not really targeting customers or companies with any specific new zero-day technology or exploits that are novel. They’re just logging in using stolen passwords. We’re still at that pivotal point, but we’re still talking about the same things we’ve been talking about, password reuse, making sure you’re protecting yourself from phishing emails, so on and so forth. But the reality is that threat actors are getting in. They’re stealing credentials and they’re using legitimate tools to just log in, walking through the front door. Robert Dutt: Yeah, the headline from the report was very catchy with the attackers are no longer trying to break in. They’re just logging in, as you say. And that framing echoes what we’ve seen in other reports elsewhere. People are calling 2025 the year of the abuse of trust in terms of security trends, but your numbers are operational and not survey-based. I’m curious what trusted compromise looks like from where you sit. Is there really a shift away from what you were seeing a couple of years ago or three years ago, or has this always been the playbook and we’re only now measuring it properly? Wil Santiago: Yeah, so if I compare back to, let’s say, 2022, I think we at Blackpoint would still see a trend, the threat actors gaining access into an environment, usually using some type of exploit at that time. You can point to a number of Microsoft Exchange exploits that happened during that time. The Hafnium group was doing a lot of Exchange exploits. The reality is there came a certain time where we were detecting Cobalt Strike, a malware commodity tool, every single day in Blackpoint Cyber’s SOC. And then eventually it became once a week, and then it became once a month. So then we started to think, well, what’s happening with the shift of tactics with the threat actors? And what we found is instead of installing Cobalt Strike, they started to install legitimate IT tools. And that’s the trust component. When they’re installing tools that you use internally, they now can abuse those tools the same way that you use those legitimately. And so we have these threat actors that not only are abusing legitimate tools, but like I said, they’re abusing legitimate identities. So when you have what I call the keys to the kingdom, the passwords, I am you. I am now Robert, for all intents and purposes for this sort of webinar. I think the interesting part that we’ve seen at Blackpoint is that threat actors have really, really focused on leave-behinds. And those leave-behinds are commodity remote management tools. Why do they do that? Because EDRs don’t know how to detect them as malicious, right? These are legitimate IT tools that are being used to service MSPs and their customers. And a threat actor just installs their version of the same exact tool that you’re using legitimately. Right? And so the trust component is you go to review your assets and you see ScreenConnect installed in your environments because you use ScreenConnect, right? But then when you start taking a closer look, you start to realize, wait a second, there’s four different ScreenConnect IDs on this one machine. Now we have a more of a problem, right? And so the attack is a little bit of an invisible signature detection because it’s an authorized tool, right? And so we really have to get to this layer of identifying threat actor activity with behavior context. If you’re an AnyDesk shop, then why do you have TeamViewer installed on your file server that’s publicly facing, right? Let’s start to ask those questions and dig into that a little bit. Robert Dutt: Your SOC found that fake CAPTCHA and ClickFix campaigns accounted for, I think it was 50-odd percent of identifiable incidents. That’s a majority of attacks being driven by a technique that essentially requires the victim to step on the link to execute it themselves. Why is that scaling so fast right now? And especially for an MSP who tends to think, you know, my technicians are too smart to do that. What’s kind of the honest answer for what they need to be looking for and protecting against? Wil Santiago: Yeah. And, you know, ClickFix is such an easy attack when you really get into the root of what it does. But it starts with social engineering. You’re enticing someone, again, just like with phishing, to visit something that you’re going to tell them to do an action. And most of the time, they’re going to do that action. Now, why this is so effective is we’re seeing techniques that really enable the threat actor to deliver the payload. And how do they do that? Search engine optimization, right? These SEO links at the top, when you go look for an OBS installer, because you need your camera to look well, or you get a Google sponsor result. Threat actors are just buying those sponsored results and delivering their payloads on there. You click on it thinking you’re going to download OBS, and then it tells you, hey, wait a second, you have to make sure that you are human. Verify that we’re used to verifying we’re humans to download something. So we go and we click it. But then it says, hey, open up your Windows Run command and maybe run this command on us, on your computer for us. And what happens? Threat actors go and they put the commands on a website. They have this watering hole spread out all throughout infrastructure that’s globally distributed. Google, Microsoft, all these sort of cloud infrastructure hosting providers that exist. Threat actors use those. So when you’re looking at your firewall logs and you’re seeing your internal team going to Microsoft.com, hey, it’s Microsoft, right? But the reality is, it’s likely an Azure Blob site that’s just being hosted on Microsoft, that is a threat actor that’s actually hosting it. And so they’re abusing that trust function to say, hey, you need this OBS installer. You Googled it. I didn’t tell you to go Google that. You were the one that did that. And then they found my link, which I posted a malicious payload there. And so again, that abuse factor is all the things we’ve taught our employees, our customers, our MSPs to do, right? Go to Google, make sure you identify the link. Make sure you look for Microsoft. Make sure you see the end of a URL or domain. Validate that. Well, the adversary goes, okay, they want to play that game. I’m just going to host this on Cloudflare. And now we’re back to this gate where now someone clicks on something. Well, what’s this Cloudflare? That’s a legitimate service. I know that to be true, right? It’s very true. The reality is the infrastructure is very, very easy to set up. And it doesn’t require a lot of action. It just requires someone to take a command and put it on their machine. And all the background work happens in the background, right? And so beyond that, we used to see a lot of threat actors use this sort of technique to download malware onto machines. But again, going back to what I mentioned about RMMs, now they’re just downloading an RMM. And that just looks like a legitimate process to an EDR. Robert Dutt: Right. So for an MSP, especially when training or making sure their technicians are aware, is it just as simple as making sure they’re aware of this threat landscape and this wrinkle in it? Or is there something more that’s sort of the advice there on how to protect yourself as best you can? Wil Santiago: That’s a great question. And really, you know, I would say any MSP watching this show, starting today or tomorrow, the first thing that I always tell people, audit your RMM inventory. Asset inventory is the number one thing that customers should be doing, right? You cannot protect what you don’t know exists. And so every single remote management tool that’s deployed across every endpoint you manage, every server you manage, you need to audit those, right? Like you’re giving direct access to a system. And most of the time, those RMMs run in the system context, which means they have the permissions and privileges of any admin, right? And now you have this adversary that has a foothold. They can deploy tools using admin privileges and permissions. So you have to audit your RMM inventory, right? Making sure that you understand what’s happening across those production servers. And forcing MFA, that’s a big one. We see a lot of incidents that source from RMM abuse because they log into the MSP’s RMM console, the cloud-based consoles. Some of those don’t have MFA involved. Again, keys to the kingdom, MFA everywhere, that needs to be a reality. Then we need to start moving into what I call more resilient engineering, right? Conditional access policies, preventing individuals from logging in from untrusted sources, locations, right? There’s ways that you can lock down access to an RMM and assume a threat actor is able to steal credentials because they maybe installed an info stealer on a user’s machine, stole their browser credentials. They reuse the same credentials for Gmail that they do for their corporate environment. Well, now a threat actor just perusing finds their credentials and says, “Oh, I’ve got IT Glue permissions now. I’m going to go log into this and restore all these configs in IT Glue or whatever tools out there.” Well, now the threat actor has access to that. And so that’s how they’re pivoting across these environments. They’re going from cloud to on-prem, on-prem to cloud. One of the things that we caught at Blackpoint recently, and this was a really cool response, but the threat actor compromised the cloud environment first. They then took that cloud access, deployed an RMM using Intune to the devices, and then they used that on-prem access to go to those machines and do their own work directly from that console. I called it overkill. They didn’t have to do that because they had the cloud environment. But because they did that, that sort of prompted this investigation for this MSP to approach us and say, “Hey, we believe something is happening. We investigated and quickly saw the Intune process was the responsible process for deploying some of this malware. So we told them, “Hey, deploy our cloud response suite. We want to understand what’s happening in your cloud.” And sure enough, seven global admins were compromised. So again, limiting scope is important here, right? Least privilege. Why do we have so many people with admin privileges and permissions? I think there’s 192 admin roles or something like that in Microsoft, but we default to just, you get global admin, you get all the permissions. And so now an adversary compromises a Microsoft 365 tenant. Well, now they have the permissions of a global admin. And unfortunately for us, when we shifted from the on-prem strategy to the cloud strategy, we just started pushing everything in the cloud and we say, “Oh, it’s fine. It’s in SharePoint.” We didn’t realize though that that’s only being protected by a password and an MFA token, both of which can be stolen, right? So the protection is not really there. That’s why we have to move to that resilient engineering. And so it’s moving from that reactive alerting to that posture alerting, right? Why is someone trying to log in from France? We have nobody in France. Robert Dutt: So your report showed almost a third of triaged incidents involved RMM abuse. And that’s something, that kind of trend line is something that we’ve seen in other reports. You know, one of your peers is talking about a 200 plus percent spike in abuse of RMM in attacks. I’m curious, especially since you’re sitting in the SOC there, what does RMM based intrusion actually look like in the SOC here? You know, I’m guessing curious, is there a moment where it’s genuinely hard to tell, you know, is this actually a tech doing a routine task or is this an attacker? And if so, what kind of breaks the tie and causes you to go, “No, no, that’s not right.” Wil Santiago: Yeah. Well, there’s kind of two ways to look at it, right? We have threat actors that are compromising MSP RMM tools. These are tools that are owned, managed by the MSP. They’re usually protected with some cloud login, whether they self-host it or they have the vendor host it for them. Threat actors can log into those systems with a password and a username, right? So we see a lot of brute forcing of those systems, especially if they’re self-hosted systems, they usually don’t have the protections of the vendors. They don’t put a WAF in front of them. And so they’ll try to brute force them and just log in, right? Those are few and far between, to be quite honest. We don’t see those as often, but what we do see often is, again, they gain access into an environment, usually by compromising a VPN. Now they’re on the network. Now they can move throughout that network as they’re on the VPN, and they’ll usually find a foothold. And if they have a credential like a local admin, they’ll take that one foothold and then they’ll distribute their RMM across that entire fleet of the network with one command from that foothold. So for us, when we’re looking at RMM deployments, MSPs deploy RMMs in a certain manner and format. They’re not deploying an RMM at two o’clock in the morning on a Saturday when they’re a US-based company. And oh, by the way, they just logged in from a Chinese-based IP, right? So again, there’s indicators that are very clear cut of like, okay, this deployment of RMM tools absolutely malicious. Most of those cases come to the case of, you know, we have application control within Blackpoint that allows us to alert when someone is installing a new application that’s unauthorized. And so what we tell our MSPs to do is, hey, set up your policies that if you’re a Ninja RMM shop, you cannot have any other installations of any other RMM. ScreenConnect is not going to be involved. And so that allows us and affords us the ability to do is, when we get that alert that says someone’s attempting to install a ScreenConnect, we can go back and sort of recreate the path of how do they get here. And what that allows us to really get into is, again, that response, right? And that response is preventing the installation of the RMM, eradicating the threat actor by isolating the machine, making sure you remove their footholds, getting those SSL VPNs off of the public facing internet, and having that exposure management reduced, right? And so when we look at RMM abuse in practice, once they get that RMM installed, again, they’re living off the land with system privileges. System privileges is something that most people tend to understand, but it’s just keys to the kingdom. You are God mode at that point. You can do whatever you feel to deploy and ultimately spread your access with that level of access, right? And so they’ll use it for backdoors. And oftentimes, they may compromise the environment and say, “You know what? I’m busy.” We’ve actually seen this over the holidays where they go take their breaks. Just like everyone else does. It’s Christmas. I’ve done a lot of hacking. So they leave their leave-behind tools and they come back. That’s their access factor. Again, it’s one of those things where they’re hiding in plain sight. Robert Dutt: You touched on MFA a little while ago and the report flagged the use of adversary-in-the-middle attacks. AiTM attacks that let threat actors hijack authenticated sessions, even when the MFA is there. So I guess what’s the message to MSPs who are thinking, “All right, if we just get MFA everywhere, we’re good, we’re covered.” Wil Santiago: Token protection, right? MFA is great. You have to have it. But understand that there’s flaws in the way that MFA communicates to servers. And so the whole way that an adversary-in-the-middle attack works is by abusing OAuth. And OAuth is a standard protocol of just making sure that we understand how systems should communicate for authentication. And what’s really nice about that is we can take that offensive research and then make defensive practices towards that. And so token protection is really huge there. There are a lot of built-in protections in Microsoft that allow you to invalidate session tokens after a certain period of time. Every hour you could refresh these tokens. You now, again, when you get to this resilient engineering, you start to push the adversary to be a little bit more aggressive. And that’s your detection mechanism. When you allow an adversary to move unfettered throughout a network, they’re going to move unfettered throughout a network. But the moment that you give them that sort of, “Eh, stop here. Let me see your ID.” Then they start to get a little uneasy. They’re like, “Wait a second. I don’t know how to move anymore.” And so specifically in MFA, when we talk about session hijacking and session tokens, the token protection aspect is really important because that’s a conditional access policy that you can implement. And most people do not implement those conditional access policies. Now, there’s a slew of them that work in conjunction with each other. But the idea here is your tokens will likely be compromised at some point. If you are duped into clicking one of these phishing links, it’s very easy to steal a session token. So we have to move past that. Now that we know that’s going to happen, how do we prevent the adversary from actually using those session tokens successfully? And that’s where invalidating the sessions comes in, having the session protection, conditional access policies, protected devices, things of that sort. That prevents them from being able to use those session tokens. Robert Dutt: A stat that I keep looking at in the report was that you guys managed to disrupt in the SOC 55, 56 percent of incidents before a payload was deployed. It’s a real number. That’s pretty significant. I guess what is disrupted before the payload hits mean operationally? And what does it tell us about where the detection opportunity actually lives? Because it sounds like the window isn’t did malware execute? It’s something a lot earlier. Wil Santiago: That’s exactly right. When we look at the cyber kill chain, we want to start pushing our adversaries as far left of boom as possible. Right. And so when you hear about this whole right of boom concept, basically, you’ve met your match. And now boom, you’ve now been impacted. Right. And so there’s a lot of indicators of compromise that we can start to hone in on. That will give us an understanding of whether this is legitimate or illegitimate. Right before an adversary even types the command. And again, that’s the context. And the context is what the SOC is really understanding of a customer. Where do they operate? What are their hours of operation? Where are they globally distributed? What’s the infrastructure they use? What are the tools they use? How did they use those tools? Did they deploy tools every Thursday at 2 p.m.? So there’s this constant checklist that they’re doing every single day to understand this. And so when we talk about living off the land, threat actors are trying to execute commands. Right. They’re just trying to sit there. We’re typing on a keyboard command line. Hey, I’m not going to introduce any new factors to my intrusion. I’m just going to live off the land. Ultimately, they want to deploy a payload at the end of all of that. But if they deploy a payload too early in their kill chain, they risk getting caught. Right. And so what they’ll do is they’ll stage everything. They’ll compromise an endpoint. They’ll add a persistent backdoor user. They’ll deploy some small scripts to enumerate the network. Just to get an understanding of what’s happening. But they’ll usually stage those in like a C:\Users\Music folder. And that’s their staging environment. So you can catch them. And we’ve caught at Blackpoint a number of threat actors where their toolkits are still on the machine because we caught them so early left of boom that legitimately all they did was log into a machine, try to mount a share, but it failed. And then that failed share mount is like, wait a second. They have never tried to mount a share on this file server ever. And then you call the MSP and they’re like, yeah, Monday through Friday, our hours are from eight to three and it’s seven p.m. at Thursday. Right. Well, now the context of the intrusion starts to become a little bit more apparent. And so we have to do this very quickly. The reality is for us, behavioral context, it matters more than ever. That is the true bread and butter for stopping threat adversaries is understanding the behaviors in the context of which they employ to compromise the network or compromise an endpoint. And so we focus a lot of our threat intelligence and our adversarial intrusion analysis based off of what hack or tradecraft is. We always say this internally, you cannot protect what you don’t know how to hack. So we spend a lot of our time recreating these attacks, understanding where do we catch them? And one of the things that we found is in those early development cycles of understanding the behaviors of an adversary, we found key indicators of like, wait, that is a very high fidelity indicator that before an adversary even gets on a keyboard, we’ve already caught them. They don’t know that yet. Right. And so that’s a little bit of our secret sauce there. But the reality is that secret sauce was created because we thought like threat actors and we sort of recreated what they did in controlled environments and testing environments to then to make sure the detection and the efficacy of what they’re doing is caught within our product. Robert Dutt: So this is a bit of a sidebar, but it was a new term, at least to me. You flagged Etherhiding in the report, attackers embedding malicious logic and blockchain smart contracts to manage compromised sites. Can you walk me through that real quick? And how real is this in terms of how widely it’s being deployed today? And why does it matter for detection purposes? Wil Santiago: It’s a newer term. You know, I would like to say that we have way too many terms in security and security, you know, sort of like we’re trying to be cool. The reality is this is a technique that leverages transactions on a public blockchain to basically retrieve malicious payloads. Right. And so this is another sort of trend that an adversary is using where they’re just retrieving a payload from something that is trusted. In this case, cryptocurrency. A lot of people trust cryptocurrency. A lot of people trust public blockchains. And so the idea here is that, you know, threat actors are usually going to utilize some type of social engineering and then that social engineering is going to get you to come to like a WordPress site through that WordPress site. They’re going to basically have scripts that you’re going to download and ultimately run. Innocuously. Now, when that happens, you download something that you think is OBS, like the example I gave earlier, it’s actually a JavaScript payload. Well, that JavaScript payload goes and reaches out and it pulls a malicious payload from the ether blockchain. Right. And so that’s that aspect of there’s function calls that we’ve identified within Blackpoint that are related to that remote management of pulling payloads from that blockchain. My personal opinion of this sort of technique is, you know, it gives a lot of advantage to the threat actors in terms of stealth and flexibility. But it is one of those techniques that is complicated for majority of what we see at Blackpoint. Most threat actors are not getting to that complicated level of compromising. They’re just hosting malware on a compromised WordPress site of a legitimate company that they’ve co-opted the passwords for. Right. And again, we see threat actors from different angles. 90 percent of what we see sort of today is cybercrime related. Right. So you have a lot of the fake CAPTCHA, the ClickFix lures, the Etherhiding stuff. The reality is at the end of that payload, we see everything from Etherhiding to Cobalt Strike to ransomware and compromise. The way that they get to that sort of compromise is kind of the same, though. Robert Dutt: Last one for me, if an MSP is listening to this and they’ve just absorbed that, you know, more than half of the attacks they’re going to see start with legitimate credentials, their own tools are showing up in about a third of incidents. MFA isn’t necessarily a guarantee. Where do you start? You know, what’s the one thing they probably aren’t doing today that would meaningfully move the needle for them in terms of making sure things are as locked down, as protected as is possible? Wil Santiago: That’s a great question. I like to say we should probably be spending most of our time right now really focusing on posture and posture management, reducing the attack surface. Right. How do you how do you start? Where do you start reducing the attack surface? This is where frameworks really come into play. And there’s some really great frameworks that are really prescriptive out there. One of them is the Center for Internet Security Controls, CIS version 8.1. It’s very prescriptive and it starts from the very top, right? External facing assets and applications. How do you lock those down? Cloud assets and applications, internal assets, user accounts, passwords, right? And it gives you a prescriptive way to deal with incidents. Beyond that, there’s kind of this like practical implementation groups that they have, right? And so you can start by implementing the CIS Controls with implementing one Implementation Group, right? You don’t have to implement them all. And so I think there’s a subset of Implementation Groups that can be used, but it’s about identifying, you know, what of these sort of subset groups will really resonate with your organization and your maturity level, right? And so I tell most people, look at IG1, start with the essentials. If you’ve already fit the bill on that, then move to IG2, right? But the reality is IG1 is going to give you that foundational security for organizations. And then IG2 and IG3 are going to be a little bit more advanced for more complex things. Most people are probably in that IG1, but they probably could benefit from some of the things in the IG2, the Implementation Groups there. That’s really going to help you really target your defenses against ransomware. That’s going to help you sort of approach a risk-based approach. That’s another thing that, you know, all risk is not the same, right? Risk is treated differently. And it’s important for anyone running a security team to help understand how should I prioritize my risk, right? Where is my risk going to really give me issues if a threat actor gets into it? And therefore, I always say, start there. We all know what keeps us up at night. So that’s the areas that we need to focus on. Robert Dutt: All right. Some sage advice and some sobering numbers as well. I appreciate your taking the time and walking us through some good stuff. Wil Santiago: Thank you, Robert. I really appreciate it. Robert Dutt: There you have it. Wil Santiago from Blackpoint Cyber. I’d like to thank Wil for his time today and for bringing some real energy to what can sometimes be pretty dense subject matter. And of course, I’d like to thank you for listening. The data in this conversation is worth thinking about. More than half of the attacks Blackpoint’s SOC starts with someone simply logging in, using credentials that were stolen sometimes long ago, and that users are still reusing across platforms. A third of triaged incidents involve RMM tools, the same tools your techs are using right now to manage endpoints. And MFA, as much as we’ve come to rely on it, is no longer the finish line it once appeared to be. The antidote Wil describes is behavioral context, understanding what normal looks like in an environment so you can spot when something legitimate is being done illegitimately. Not “Is this malware?” But “Is this person, using this tool at this hour from this location, doing something they’ve never done before?” That’s a fundamentally different way about thinking of detection, and it’s why the human element in the SOC still matters. And I’ll add one thing that Wil mentioned after we wrapped the recording. It’s a dimension of this fight that doesn’t get talked about often enough. Blackpoint’s work doesn’t stop at detection and response. They’re actively working to identify and disrupt adversary infrastructure, notifying law enforcement, including, he noted, Canadian authorities, with the specific goal of making cybercrime economically painful. The logic is straightforward. If your infrastructure gets taken down every time you try to run a campaign, the math of operating a criminal enterprise starts to change. That’s offense, and it sounds like they’re playing it. If you’re finding the show valuable, I’d encourage you to follow or subscribe to the podcast. You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, all the major directories. A rating review always helps. Until next time, I’m Robert Dutt for ChannelBuzz.ca, and I’ll see you in the channel.
