Hackers News Hackers News
  • CyberSecurity News
  • Threats
  • Attacks
  • Vulnerabilities
  • Breaches
  • Comparisons

Social Media

Hackers News Hackers News
  • CyberSecurity News
  • Threats
  • Attacks
  • Vulnerabilities
  • Breaches
  • Comparisons
Search the Site
Popular Searches:
technology Amazon AI
Recent Posts
Chinese APT Exploits Microsoft Exchange to Breach Energy Networks
May 14, 2026
Sandworm Targets Critical OT Assets, Pivoting from
May 14, 2026
New Malware Framework: Screen Control, Browser & Enables Artifact
May 14, 2026
Home/Threats/31 High-Impact Vulnerabilities Exploited in March as Interlock
Threats

31 High-Impact Vulnerabilities Exploited in March as Interlock

March 2026 proved a highly active month for vulnerability exploitation, standing out as one of the year’s most significant periods for observed threats. Security researchers tracked 31...

Sarah simpson
Sarah simpson
April 16, 2026 5 Min Read
8 0

March 2026 proved a highly active month for vulnerability exploitation, standing out as one of the year’s most significant periods for observed threats.

Security researchers tracked 31 high-impact vulnerabilities that were actively used against real-world systems, touching products from more than 20 major vendors including Cisco, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Langflow, ConnectWise, Citrix, and others.

Among those vendors, Microsoft and Apple together accounted for roughly 32% of the affected products, reinforcing how widely used platforms continue to draw the heaviest targeting from threat actors.

Of the 31 vulnerabilities identified this month, 29 carried a “Very Critical” Recorded Future Risk Score, meaning the probability of exploitation was already high at the time of discovery.

Attackers did not wait long, as the every single one of these vulnerabilities saw active exploitation during March, a pace that gives security teams very little room to respond.

What makes this month stand out even further is the presence of a zero-day at the center of one of the most damaging campaigns tracked in recent months — one that targeted a widely deployed Cisco network security platform before a patch was even available.

One of the most striking data points in this month’s landscape is the inclusion of CVE-2017-7921, a vulnerability affecting Hikvision that is approximately nine years old.

Attackers are still actively exploiting it in environments where patching has never happened. That detail alone tells a larger story about the real state of vulnerability management across enterprises: age does not reduce risk when systems remain unpatched and exposed.

Defenders should never dismiss an older CVE based on its date alone — what matters is whether it can still be reached and exploited.

Recorded Future analysts identified all 31 vulnerabilities and noted that ten of them had publicly available proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits at the time of discovery.

Insikt Group also created Nuclei templates for two new high-severity vulnerabilities this month — a path traversal flaw in MindsDB (CVE-2026-27483) and a critical missing authentication issue in Nginx UI (CVE-2026-27944) — as part of their ongoing effort to help security teams test exposure quickly.

A previously published template for CVE-2025-68613 in n8n was already in circulation in December before attackers began using it in March.

Two vulnerabilities stood out in terms of linkage to organized threat actor activity. Nine of the 31 CVEs enabled remote code execution across products from Google, Langflow, Craft CMS, Laravel, Microsoft, n8n, SolarWinds, and Apple.

Additionally, two vulnerabilities and a multi-component exploit kit were directly connected to active malware campaigns, including a sophisticated iOS full-chain exploit called DarkSword that delivered the GHOSTKNIFE, GHOSTSABER, and GHOSTBLADE payloads.

However, the most consequential event this month centered on the Interlock Ransomware Group and a zero-day in Cisco’s Secure Firewall Management Center.

Interlock’s Exploitation of CVE-2026-20131

The Interlock Ransomware Group’s exploitation of CVE-2026-20131 began on January 26, 2026 — weeks before Cisco published its security advisory on March 4.

This means the group had been operating inside enterprise networks using a vulnerability that defenders had no official patch or public knowledge of at the time.

The flaw exists in Cisco’s Secure Firewall Management Center (FMC), a centralized platform used by administrators to manage firewall policies, monitor network security events, and control device configurations across enterprise environments.

The vulnerability is classified as a critical deserialization of untrusted data issue (CWE-502) and carries a Recorded Future Risk Score of 99 — the highest possible.

# CVE ID Risk Score Affected Vendor / Product Vulnerability Type Public PoC
1 CVE-2026-20131 99 Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center (FMC) CWE-502 – Deserialization of Untrusted Data Yes
2 CVE-2026-21262 99 Microsoft SQL Server (2016, 2019, 2022, 2025) CWE-284 – Improper Access Control No
3 CVE-2026-26127 99 Microsoft .NET (9.0, 10.0) & Microsoft.Blazor.Memory CWE-125 – Out-of-bounds Read No
4 CVE-2026-39094 99 Google Skia CWE-787 – Out-of-bounds Write No
5 CVE-2026-39104 99 Google Chromium V8 CWE-119 – Improper Restriction of Operations within Bounds of Memory No
6 CVE-2026-35645 99 ConnectWise ScreenConnect CWE-347 – Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature No
7 CVE-2026-33017 99 Langflow CWE-94 / CWE-95 / CWE-306 – Code Injection / Missing Authentication Yes
8 CVE-2026-30554 99 Citrix NetScaler CWE-125 – Out-of-bounds Read Yes
9 CVE-2026-30083 99 Enlow / Citrix ADC CWE-306 – Missing Authentication for Critical Function Yes
10 CVE-2026-33364 99 Aquasecurity Trivy CWE-506 – Embedded Malicious Code Yes
11 CVE-2026-25187 94 Microsoft Windows CWE-59 – Improper Link Resolution Before File Access (Link Following) No
12 CVE-2026-33032 94 Nginx UI CWE-306 – Missing Authentication for Critical Function No
13 CVE-2026-21385 89 Qualcomm (Multiple Chipsets) CWE-190 – Integer Overflow or Wraparound No
14 CVE-2026-30335 99 Jungle Scout UI CWE-306 – Missing Authentication for Critical Function Yes
15 CVE-2026-21213 99 Qualcomm (Multiple Chipsets) CWE-190 – Integer Overflow or Wraparound No
16 CVE-2025-38421 99 F5 BIG-IP CWE-121 – Stack-based Buffer Overflow No
17 CVE-2026-32521 99 Google Chrome / Chromium Browser CWE-416 – Use After Free No
18 CVE-2026-29451 99 Apple macOS / iOS / iPadOS CWE-787 – Out-of-bounds Write No
19 CVE-2026-20982 99 Ivanti Connect Secure CWE-22 – Path Traversal No
20 CVE-2026-27483 99 MindsDB CWE-22 – Path Traversal Yes
21 CVE-2026-27944 99 Nginx UI CWE-306 – Missing Authentication for Critical Function Yes
22 CVE-2026-33021 99 Craft CMS CWE-94 – Code Injection No
23 CVE-2026-31015 99 SolarWinds Web Help Desk CWE-502 – Deserialization of Untrusted Data No
24 CVE-2025-68613 99 n8n (Workflow Automation) CWE-94 – Code Injection Yes
25 CVE-2026-33044 94 Broadcom VMware vCenter CWE-284 – Improper Access Control No
26 CVE-2026-20415 94 Cisco IOS XE CWE-20 – Improper Input Validation No
27 CVE-2026-24021 99 Laravel Framework CWE-94 – Code Injection No
28 CVE-2026-32183 99 Apple iOS / iPadOS (DarkSword Chain) CWE-119 – Memory Corruption No
29 CVE-2017-7921 94 Hikvision IP Cameras CWE-287 – Improper Authentication No
30 CVE-2026-31022 99 Craft CMS CWE-502 – Deserialization of Untrusted Data No
31 CVE-2026-20976 99 Ivanti Connect Secure CWE-287 – Improper Authentication No

The attack mechanism is straightforward but highly effective. An unauthenticated threat actor sends a specially crafted HTTP request to the FMC web-based management interface.

Since the platform fails to properly validate user-supplied Java byte streams, the attacker can inject a serialized Java object that the application processes and executes as root-level code.

The attacker then pulls a malicious ELF binary from a staging server at 37[.]27[.]244[.]222 to support follow-on operations inside the network.

Once inside, the Interlock group uses custom Java- and JavaScript-based remote access trojans (RATs), a memory-resident web shell, and proxy infrastructure to stay hidden and move across the network.

Post-compromise activity includes active reconnaissance, data collection, lateral movement, and the use of legitimate tools such as ConnectWise ScreenConnect, Volatility, and Certify for credential theft and privilege escalation. 

The end goal of these operations is ransomware deployment, but the initial foothold through the FMC zero-day is what makes the campaign so dangerous — network security infrastructure itself becomes the entry point.

On March 11, 2026, a GitHub user shared an alleged PoC for CVE-2026-20131. That PoC uses the open-source tool ysoserial to generate a malicious Java-serialized payload, submits it to candidate endpoints that accept serialized Java data, and interprets an HTTP 500 response as confirmation that deserialization triggered command execution.

Insikt Group has not tested this PoC for accuracy or confirmed its reliability, and vulnerability management teams should exercise caution before testing any PoC in a production or staging environment.

Disclaimer: HackersRadar reports on cybersecurity threats and incidents for informational and awareness purposes only. We do not engage in hacking activities, data exfiltration, or the hosting or distribution of stolen or leaked information. All content is based on publicly available sources.

Tags:

AttackCVEExploitMalwarePatchransomwareSecurityThreatVulnerabilityzero-day

Share Article

Sarah simpson

Sarah simpson

Sarah is a cybersecurity journalist specializing in threat intelligence and malware analysis. With over 8 years of experience covering APT groups, zero-day exploits, and advanced persistent threats, Sarah brings deep technical expertise to breaking cybersecurity news. Previously, she worked as a security researcher at leading threat intelligence firms, where she analyzed malware samples and tracked cybercriminal operations. Sarah holds a Master's degree in Computer Science with a focus on cybersecurity and is a regular contributor to major security conferences.

Previous Post

Critical Chrome Flaws Allow Arbitrary Code Execution –

Next Post

Chrome Privacy Analysis: Fingerprinting & Header Leaks

No Comment! Be the first one.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Posts
Critical Canon MailSuite Flaw Allows Remote Code Execution
May 14, 2026
Anthropic Mythos AI Finds macOS Flaws B Anthropic’s Reportedly
May 14, 2026
Hackers Compromise 170 npm Packages to Steal GitHub
May 14, 2026
Top Authors
Marcus Rodriguez
Marcus Rodriguez
Jennifer sherman
Jennifer sherman
Sarah simpson
Sarah simpson
Let's Connect
156k
2.25m
285k

Related Posts

Jennifer sherman
By Jennifer sherman
Threats

GlassWorm Attacks macOS via Malicious VS Code…

January 1, 2026
Emy Elsamnoudy
By Emy Elsamnoudy
Attacks

ClickFix Attack Hides Malicious Code via Stegan Security

January 1, 2026
Sarah simpson
By Sarah simpson
Vulnerabilities

MongoBleed Detector Tool Detects Critical MongoDB CVE-

January 1, 2026
Emy Elsamnoudy
By Emy Elsamnoudy
Breaches

Conti Ransomware Gang Leaders & Infrastructure Exposed

January 1, 2026
Hackers News Hackers News
  • [email protected]

Quick Links

  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of service

Categories

Attacks
Breaches
Comparisons
CyberSecurity News
Threats
Vulnerabilities

Let's keep in touch

receive fresh updates and breaking cyber news every day and week!

All Rights Reserved by HackersRadar ©2026

Follow Us