Daily Signal Note: Perimeter Infrastructure | Coordinated Collapse

Welcome reader, here’s today’s Cyber Briefing Note.

Brought to you by:

Smallstep – Secures Wi-Fi, VPNs, ZTNA, SaaS and APIs with hardware-bound credentials powered by ACME Device Attestation

 LockThreat – AI-powered GRC that replaces legacy tools and unifies compliance, risk, audit and vendor management in one platform

About CybersecurityHQ

CybersecurityHQ delivers analyst-grade cyber intelligence used by CISOs and security leaders inside the Fortune 100. Each briefing diagnoses structural security failures across identity, machine trust, third-party access, and enterprise attack surfaces—designed to inform executive judgment, not react to headlines.

—

Subscriber access includes weekly CISO briefings, deep-dive intelligence reports, premium research, and supporting tools. Corporate plans available.

Listen to the 2-minute Daily CISO Briefing on Spotify.

Executive Snapshot

Four distinct attack campaigns are simultaneously targeting enterprise perimeter security infrastructure this week. Cisco email security appliances compromised by Chinese APT via unpatched zero-day. WatchGuard Firebox firewalls under active exploitation via new zero-day (CVE-2025-14733). Fortinet FortiGate devices targeted through authentication bypass (CVE-2025-59718/59719) three days after disclosure. Palo Alto Networks GlobalProtect and Cisco SSL VPNs hit by coordinated credential-stuffing campaign from centralized cloud infrastructure. The perimeter is not failing in isolation. It is failing everywhere at once.

Scope Lock

Signal 1: Cisco AsyncOS zero-day (CVE-2025-20393) exploited by Chinese APT UAT-9686 since late November Signal 2: WatchGuard Firebox zero-day (CVE-2025-14733) under active exploitation via IKEv2 VPN Signal 3: Fortinet FortiGate auth bypass (CVE-2025-59718/59719) exploited within 72 hours of disclosure Signal 4: Palo Alto GlobalProtect and Cisco SSL VPN credential attacks from 3xK GmbH infrastructure

Time Window: December 10-19, 2025 Theme: Simultaneous multi-vendor perimeter infrastructure compromise

Signal 1: Cisco Email Security Becomes Chinese APT Control Plane

Chinese APT UAT-9686 has been exploiting a maximum-severity zero-day (CVE-2025-20393, CVSS 10.0) in Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Secure Email and Web Manager since late November. Cisco discovered the campaign December 10. The attackers deployed AquaShell backdoors, tunneling tools, and log-clearing utilities to maintain persistence. There is no patch. Cisco states the only confirmed remediation for compromised appliances is a complete rebuild. CISA added to KEV with December 24 deadline.

Signal 2: WatchGuard Firebox Zero-Day Enables Unauthenticated Takeover

WatchGuard disclosed active exploitation of CVE-2025-14733 (CVSS 9.3), an out-of-bounds write in the iked process handling IKEv2 VPN negotiations. The flaw allows remote unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code and seize control of affected firewalls. Attack traffic originates from known threat actor IPs that overlap with Fortinet exploitation campaigns. Patches available in Fireware OS 2025.1.4, 12.11.6, and 12.5.15. Compromised devices require full secret rotation after patching.

Signal 3: Fortinet Auth Bypass Exploited Within 72 Hours of Disclosure

Arctic Wolf observed exploitation of CVE-2025-59718 and CVE-2025-59719 (CVSS 9.8) beginning December 12, three days after Fortinet's December 9 disclosure. The flaws allow unauthenticated attackers to bypass FortiCloud SSO authentication via forged SAML assertions. Attackers targeted admin accounts, authenticated successfully, and exported device configurations including hashed credentials. FortiCloud SSO is auto-enabled when registering devices to FortiCare, exposing more devices than administrators realize. CISA added to KEV with December 23 deadline.

Signal 4: Coordinated Credential Campaign Targets VPN Infrastructure

GreyNoise observed 1.7 million sessions targeting Palo Alto Networks GlobalProtect portals over 16 hours, with over 10,000 unique IPs attempting logins on December 11. The campaign shifted to Cisco SSL VPNs on December 12, with daily attacking IPs rising from baseline 200 to 1,273. Almost all traffic originated from 3xK GmbH hosting infrastructure, indicating centralized cloud-hosted attack infrastructure rather than distributed botnets. Palo Alto confirmed the activity involves automated credential probing, not vulnerability exploitation.

Structural Analysis

These four signals converge on a single failure mode: perimeter security devices are the least defensible components in enterprise architecture, yet the most trusted.

Cisco email security appliances are trusted to protect email infrastructure. The trust model assumes the appliance operates with integrity. Zero-day exploitation violates that assumption by granting nation-state actors root access to the security control itself.

WatchGuard firewalls are trusted to enforce network boundaries. The trust model assumes VPN negotiation is safe. Memory corruption in IKEv2 parsing violates that assumption by converting authenticated protocol handling into unauthenticated code execution.

Fortinet devices are trusted for network security and SSO. The trust model assumes SAML validation is cryptographically sound. Signature bypass violates that assumption by granting admin access to anyone who can forge an assertion.

VPN gateways are trusted to authenticate remote users. The trust model assumes credential attacks are manageable at scale. Coordinated cloud-based brute forcing violates that assumption by industrializing login attempts beyond rate-limit thresholds.

The common thread: perimeter devices must be internet-facing by design, run complex protocol parsers, store privileged credentials, and rarely receive the same security scrutiny as internal systems. Attackers have recognized that compromising the perimeter device is faster than bypassing it.

Executive Verdict

Perimeter security appliances are not security controls. They are attack surface with privileged access. The assumption that firewalls, VPN gateways, and email security appliances operate outside the threat model is now empirically false across four major vendors in a single week. Organizations that treat perimeter infrastructure as trusted have misclassified their highest-risk assets as their most reliable defenses.

This week's signals force a doctrinal correction: any device positioned to enforce network boundaries must be reclassified as adversary-adjacent execution context. Perimeter appliances are not utilities. They are Tier-0 risk surfaces that require the same threat modeling rigor as the assets they protect. The security assumption that must be removed: "the perimeter protects itself." It does not. It becomes the adversary.

Framework: Collapse Loop

Element 2 (Simultaneous Multi-Vendor Failure): Cisco, WatchGuard, Fortinet, and Palo Alto all experienced active exploitation or mass targeting within the same week. The failure is architectural, not vendor-specific.

Element 6 (Trust Boundary Inversion): Devices positioned to enforce network boundaries became the entry point. The perimeter did not fail. The perimeter became the adversary.

Element 10 (Patch Lag Weaponization): Fortinet exploitation began 72 hours after disclosure. WatchGuard and Cisco zero-days emerged as active exploits before patches existed. Attackers operate inside the vulnerability-to-patch window by design.

Author
Daniel Michan is the founder of CybersecurityHQ, a CISO-grade intelligence platform read weekly across the Fortune 100. He analyzes identity-centric risk, machine identity failures, SaaS integration breakdowns, and emerging AI-speed threats, producing executive briefings and deep-dive research used by enterprise security leaders for decision support.