Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Attack surface

In cybersecurity, the attack surface refers to the collective set of all potential entry points, vulnerabilities, or methods—often called attack vectors—through which an unauthorized actor can attempt to access, manipulate, or extract data from a system, network, or application.^[1] This encompasses both intentional design elements, such as open ports or public-facing APIs, and unintended exposures like misconfigurations or unpatched software, making it a critical concept in assessing and mitigating security risks.^[2] The broader an attack surface, the greater the opportunity for exploitation, as attackers systematically probe these points to identify weaknesses.^[3] Attack surfaces can be categorized into several types, each presenting unique challenges for protection. The digital attack surface includes internet-facing assets like web applications, databases, cloud services, and network interfaces, where threats such as malware injection or remote code execution are common.^[4] In contrast, the physical attack surface involves tangible hardware, devices, and facilities, vulnerable to threats like tampering, theft, or insider access to sensitive equipment.^[5] Additional categories encompass the cloud attack surface, which arises from misconfigured storage or virtual machines in hybrid environments, and the human or social engineering attack surface, exploiting user behaviors through phishing or pretexting to bypass technical controls.^[6] Managing the attack surface is essential for organizational resilience, involving continuous processes of discovery, prioritization, and remediation to minimize exposure without compromising functionality. Attack surface management (ASM) tools and practices adopt an adversary's perspective to inventory assets, monitor for new vulnerabilities, and implement controls like segmentation, encryption, and regular patching.^[7] Effective reduction strategies, such as eliminating unnecessary services or applying least-privilege access, can significantly lower risks, particularly as modern IT environments expand through remote work, IoT devices, and third-party integrations.^[2] By proactively addressing these elements, organizations can transform a sprawling attack surface into a more defensible perimeter.

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition

In cybersecurity, the attack surface refers to the set of all points on the boundary of a system, system element, or environment where an unauthorized user can attempt to enter, cause an effect on, or extract data from the system.^[1] This encompasses various entry and exit points, such as user interfaces, application programming interfaces (APIs), and communication protocols, which collectively represent the system's exposure to potential adversarial interaction.^[8] Formally, it can be modeled as the pair of externally visible system actions and the resources those actions access or modify, providing a quantitative basis for assessing exposure.^[9] The attack surface is distinct from related concepts like the threat surface and vulnerability surface. While the threat surface emphasizes the dynamic range of potential threats and adversaries that could exploit exposures, the attack surface focuses on the static set of access points irrespective of specific threats.^[10] Similarly, the vulnerability surface pertains to known weaknesses or flaws that can be exploited, whereas the attack surface includes all potential entry points regardless of whether vulnerabilities are identified or present.^[11] At its core, the attack surface arises from functionalities designed to enable legitimate access and interaction, which adversaries may abuse to insert, manipulate, or extract data. These exposures include both intentional design elements, such as authentication mechanisms, and unintentional ones, like overlooked configuration settings. For instance, a web application's login form serves as a deliberate entry point for authorized users but can be targeted for credential stuffing attacks, whereas an inadvertently open database port represents an unintentional exposure allowing unauthorized queries.^[8] Understanding the attack surface is fundamental to cybersecurity risk management, as it highlights areas where protective measures can prioritize exposure reduction.^[1]

Historical Context and Evolution

The concept of the attack surface emerged in the early 2000s as software complexity grew, with early formalization occurring through Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle (SDL), introduced in 2004 to address vulnerabilities exposed by increasing interconnectivity and the limitations of traditional perimeter defenses.^[12] This framework emphasized minimizing the attack surface by reducing unnecessary features and exposure points in software, marking a shift from reactive patching to proactive design in cybersecurity practices.^[13] In the 2010s, the concept evolved significantly with the widespread adoption of cloud computing, transitioning from static perimeters to dynamic, expansive attack surfaces that included remote access and multi-tenant environments.^[14] This period highlighted how virtualization and distributed systems amplified potential entry points for adversaries. By the 2020s, supply chain attacks further broadened the scope, as exemplified by the 2020 SolarWinds incident, where malicious code inserted into software updates compromised thousands of organizations and underscored the risks of third-party dependencies.^[15] The integration of attack surface considerations into established standards reflected this maturation. The OWASP Attack Surface Analysis Cheat Sheet, maintained by the Open Web Application Security Project, provides guidance on mapping and reducing exposure, with ongoing updates to address contemporary threats as of its latest revisions.^[8] Similarly, NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5, released in 2020, incorporates controls for continuous monitoring to manage evolving attack surfaces in federal information systems.^[16] Over time, cybersecurity paradigms shifted from the monolithic, siloed systems of the 1990s—focused on isolated mainframes and early networks—to the distributed, API-driven architectures prevalent by 2025, which exponentially increase surface area through microservices, edge computing, and hybrid cloud deployments.^[17] This evolution demands ongoing adaptation, as interconnected ecosystems introduce novel vectors while legacy assumptions about bounded defenses prove inadequate.

Components of an Attack Surface

Software and Application Elements

In software systems, the attack surface encompasses various entry points that adversaries can exploit to gain unauthorized access or disrupt operations. These include application programming interfaces (APIs), user interfaces (UIs), plugins, and external libraries, which serve as potential conduits for malicious input. For instance, APIs often expose endpoints that process user-supplied data, making them susceptible to manipulation if not properly validated.^[18] Similarly, UIs such as web forms or graphical interfaces can introduce risks through unfiltered inputs, while plugins extend functionality but may introduce unvetted code paths.^[19] Libraries, whether native or third-party, further broaden this surface by integrating pre-built components that might harbor latent flaws. Attack vectors tied to software design amplify these entry points, with injection flaws allowing adversaries to embed malicious code into queries or commands, such as SQL injection in database interactions.^[20] Buffer overflows represent another critical vector, occurring when programs write data beyond allocated memory bounds, enabling code execution or denial-of-service attacks.^[21] These vulnerabilities stem from poor input handling or memory management in application logic, underscoring the need for secure coding practices to limit exposure.^[22] Dependencies on third-party libraries and open-source components significantly expand the software attack surface, as these elements are often integrated without full scrutiny of their security posture. A prominent example is the Log4Shell vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228) in the Apache Log4j library, disclosed in December 2021, which enabled remote code execution and affected millions of Java-based applications worldwide due to its widespread use in enterprise software.^[23] Such risks highlight how supply chain dependencies can propagate vulnerabilities across ecosystems, necessitating rigorous vetting and updates.^[24] In mobile and web applications, the attack surface manifests through app permissions, client-side scripts, and backend services, each presenting unique exposure points. Mobile apps request permissions for device features like cameras or location services, which, if overly broad, can leak sensitive data to attackers via malicious intents.^[25] Client-side scripts in web apps, such as JavaScript executed in browsers, are prone to cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks that hijack user sessions.^[26] Backend services, including databases and authentication modules, handle critical logic but can be targeted through insecure deserialization or weak session management.^[27] Microservices architectures fragment the attack surface by distributing functionality into numerous independent services, often interconnected via API endpoints, thereby multiplying potential ingress points for exploitation.^[28] This design enhances scalability but complicates security oversight, as each service's interfaces must be individually secured against threats like broken object-level authorization.^[29] Rough indicators of software attack surface size include lines of code (LOC) and function points, which correlate with complexity and thus vulnerability potential, though they do not capture dynamic behaviors.^[30] For example, larger codebases with higher LOC tend to harbor more entry points, serving as a baseline for risk assessment.^[31]

Network and Infrastructure Elements

Network elements form a critical part of the attack surface, encompassing all points of connectivity that could be exploited by adversaries to infiltrate systems. Open ports on devices and services represent primary entry points, as they allow incoming traffic on specific protocols such as HTTP (port 80), HTTPS (port 443), and SSH (port 22), potentially exposing sensitive data or enabling unauthorized remote access if not properly secured.^[32] Firewalls and VPNs, intended to mitigate these risks, can themselves contribute to the attack surface through misconfigurations; for instance, overly permissive firewall rules may inadvertently expose internal resources, while default credentials on VPN appliances enable easy credential stuffing attacks.^[33] Exposed Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) ports, often left open without multi-factor authentication (MFA), have been a common vector for brute-force attacks, allowing lateral movement within networks.^[33] Infrastructure hardware extends the attack surface through physical and firmware-based vulnerabilities in core devices. Routers and switches, which manage data flow across networks, are susceptible to firmware exploits that grant attackers persistent control, as seen in incidents involving backdoors like VPNFilter on consumer routers.^[34] Servers, including those with baseboard management controllers (BMCs), provide out-of-band access points that bypass operating system protections, enabling remote compromise even if the primary system is hardened.^[34] Endpoints such as laptops, desktops, and mobile devices amplify risks via physical access interfaces like USB ports, which can facilitate malware injection through infected peripherals, or wireless interfaces that may broadcast unsecured networks.^[35] Data centers housing these components face additional threats from physical tampering, such as unauthorized entry to servers or routers, potentially leading to hardware manipulation or data exfiltration.^[36] In cloud environments, infrastructure elements introduce dynamic attack surfaces due to their scalable and virtualized nature. Virtual machines (VMs) create isolated environments but expand exposure through hypervisor misconfigurations or shared resource pools that allow privilege escalation across instances.^[37] Containers, such as those managed by Docker, reduce some overhead compared to VMs but heighten risks from image vulnerabilities and runtime misconfigurations, including overly permissive network policies that expose inter-container traffic.^[37] Load balancers, which distribute traffic across cloud resources, can become attack vectors if not configured with proper access controls, potentially leaking backend service details or enabling denial-of-service amplification.^[38] These elements often interact with software applications, where network-facing APIs further broaden connectivity exposures. A prominent example of global infrastructure vulnerabilities is revealed through tools like Shodan, which indexes internet-connected devices and services. As of 2025, Shodan has indexed over 4.5 billion devices, highlighting the scale of exposed HTTP, HTTPS, and other protocols worldwide.^[32] This vast dataset underscores how misconfigured routers, servers, and cloud endpoints contribute to pervasive risks, with billions of instances potentially accessible to attackers scanning for weaknesses.^[32]

Human and External Elements

Human elements represent a significant portion of the attack surface in cybersecurity, encompassing behaviors and actions by individuals that can be exploited by adversaries. Insider threats, where employees or contractors intentionally or unintentionally compromise security, contribute to breaches by providing internal access points that bypass traditional defenses. For instance, malicious insiders may abuse their positions to exfiltrate data, while unintentional actions, such as falling victim to social engineering tactics, amplify risks. According to the 2024 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report, the human element was involved in 68% of breaches analyzed, highlighting the pervasive role of people in expanding vulnerability exposure.^[39] Social engineering attacks, particularly phishing, target human psychology to elicit sensitive information or actions, such as clicking malicious links or sharing credentials. These tactics exploit trust and urgency, turning users into unwitting vectors for broader intrusions. User behaviors like choosing weak passwords—often short, predictable, or reused across accounts—further widen the attack surface by enabling credential stuffing and brute-force attempts. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) notes that weak security controls, including poor password practices, are routinely exploited for initial access in cyber operations.^[40] Additionally, the 2024 Verizon report identifies social engineering as a factor in approximately 20% of breaches overall, with phishing being a primary vector.^[39] External dependencies introduce risks through interconnected ecosystems, where third-party vendors, supply chains, and integrations create indirect entry points for attackers. Supply chain vulnerabilities allow adversaries to compromise trusted components, such as software updates or hardware, to propagate malware across multiple organizations. Vendor integrations, including APIs from partners, can expose sensitive data if not properly vetted, while shadow IT—unauthorized tools or services adopted by employees—bypasses oversight and introduces unmonitored assets. CISA emphasizes that exploitation of information and communications technology (ICT) supply chains can lead to system reliability issues, data theft, and persistent backdoors.^[41] Similarly, unvetted third-party services expand the attack surface by inheriting their security weaknesses.^[42] Procedural aspects, such as inadequate policies on access and maintenance, perpetuate exposures by allowing persistent vulnerabilities. Excessive privileges, where users retain unnecessary elevated access, violate the principle of least privilege and enable lateral movement during breaches. Outdated patch management leaves software unremedied, providing exploitable flaws that adversaries target systematically. NIST Special Publication 800-40 Revision 4 outlines that failure to apply patches promptly increases risks from known vulnerabilities, recommending enterprise-wide planning to mitigate these procedural gaps.^[43] Likewise, NIST defines least privilege as restricting access to the minimum necessary, reducing the potential impact of compromised accounts.^[44] A prominent example of external elements amplifying the attack surface is the 2023 MOVEit breach, where a zero-day vulnerability in the third-party file transfer software was exploited by the Clop ransomware group, affecting over 2,000 organizations and exposing data of more than 60 million individuals. This incident, stemming from Progress Software's MOVEit Transfer application used in supply chains, demonstrated how reliance on external vendors can cascade risks, leading to widespread data extortion and emphasizing the need for rigorous third-party assessments.^[45]

Assessment and Analysis

Metrics for Measurement

The measurement of an attack surface involves both quantitative and qualitative metrics to quantify its size, exposure, and associated risks, enabling organizations to prioritize security efforts across software, network, and human elements. Key among these is the attack surface metric proposed by Manadhata and Wing, which formalizes the attack surface as the set of resources—entry points, methods, channels, and data items—that can be exploited by an attacker, providing a systematic way to compute a composite score reflecting the surface's breadth and exploitability.^[9] This metric, often expressed as a vector or aggregated value, can be adapted into forms like the Attack Surface Vector (ASV), where ASV approximates (entry points × vulnerability density) / controls to balance potential ingress points against mitigation factors, though exact formulations vary by implementation to suit specific system architectures.^[46] Exposure indicators provide granular, observable data points to assess immediate vulnerabilities within the attack surface. Common metrics include the number of open ports on network interfaces, which represent potential entry channels for unauthorized access, and the count of active services running on systems, each potentially introducing exploitable protocols like HTTP or SSH. Similarly, the tally of unpatched vulnerabilities serves as a critical indicator, highlighting software flaws that remain exposed due to delayed remediation. For prioritization, the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) assigns scores from 0 to 10 based on exploitability, impact, and complexity, allowing teams to focus on high-severity issues (e.g., CVSS ≥ 7.0) that amplify surface risks. Risk-adjusted measures incorporate probabilistic and contextual elements to evaluate the attack surface beyond raw counts, emphasizing potential consequences. Probability-impact matrices map the likelihood of exploitation (e.g., low, medium, high) against the severity of outcomes, tailored to surface elements like network perimeters or third-party integrations, to generate a risk score that guides resource allocation.^[47] These matrices often integrate asset criticality ratings, such as those scaling from 1 (low) to 10 (high) based on business impact, ensuring that measurements account for the strategic value of exposed components rather than treating all assets uniformly.^[48] Standards like ISO/IEC 27001:2022 provide frameworks for integrating these metrics into routine attack surface auditing, with Clause 9.1 requiring the monitoring, measurement, analysis, and evaluation of information security performance, including controls for threat exposure and vulnerability management updated in the 2022 revisions to address evolving digital risks. This standard emphasizes defining relevant metrics for surface auditing, such as those tracking control effectiveness against identified exposures, to support continual improvement in security posture.^[49]

Tools and Techniques for Evaluation

Evaluating the attack surface involves a combination of manual and automated tools that identify exposed assets, vulnerabilities, and potential entry points across networks, applications, and infrastructure. Scanning tools play a foundational role in this process by systematically probing systems to map visible components. For instance, Nmap is widely used for port scanning to discover open ports and services, which represent potential avenues for exploitation, thereby helping administrators reduce the attack surface by closing unnecessary exposures.^[50] Similarly, OWASP ZAP, an open-source dynamic application security testing (DAST) tool, automates the scanning of web applications to detect vulnerabilities such as injection flaws and broken access controls by simulating attacks during crawling and active probing phases.^[51] Burp Suite complements these by enabling detailed API testing through features like request interception and manipulation, allowing security teams to explore and audit API endpoints for misconfigurations or weak authentication that expand the attack surface.^[52] Automated platforms for Attack Surface Management (ASM) extend these capabilities by integrating asset discovery, vulnerability assessment, and risk prioritization into unified workflows. Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management (EASM) continuously discovers and monitors external internet-facing assets, assigning risk scores based on exposure levels to prioritize remediation efforts.^[53] Qualys Attack Surface Management solution similarly provides comprehensive visibility into cloud, on-premises, and external assets, combining scanning with risk scoring to quantify and track attack surface changes over time.^[54] These platforms often incorporate outputs from metrics like exposure counts and severity ratings to generate actionable insights without requiring manual intervention for initial discovery. Techniques for attack surface evaluation blend manual analysis with automated reconnaissance to ensure thorough coverage. Manual mapping through threat modeling, such as Microsoft's STRIDE model—which categorizes threats into Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, and Elevation of Privilege—helps teams systematically identify and document potential risks during system design or review phases.^[55] For automated reconnaissance, Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) tools like Shodan and Censys scan the internet to reveal exposed devices, services, and certificates, enabling organizations to uncover shadow IT or forgotten assets that contribute to an expanded attack surface.^[56] Shodan, in particular, indexes internet-connected devices and open ports, providing data for proactive asset inventory and vulnerability hunting. These techniques reference metrics such as port openness or asset counts briefly in outputs to guide prioritization. Best practices emphasize continuous monitoring cycles to adapt to dynamic environments, with integration into DevSecOps pipelines ensuring security evaluations occur alongside development workflows. This approach fosters a shift-left security model, where early identification via scanning and modeling prevents vulnerabilities from propagating to production.

Reduction and Management Strategies

Technical Reduction Methods

Technical reduction methods for minimizing the attack surface involve targeted engineering practices that eliminate or isolate potential vulnerabilities at the system level, thereby limiting opportunities for exploitation without relying on broader organizational changes. These approaches focus on hardening software, configurations, and networks to enforce minimal exposure, drawing from established security frameworks that emphasize proactive defense. By applying these techniques, organizations can significantly shrink the effective attack surface, as evidenced by reductions in exploitable entry points reported in security benchmarks. At the code level, developers reduce the attack surface by adhering to the principle of least privilege, which ensures that code components operate with the minimum necessary permissions to perform their functions, thereby containing potential breaches if a vulnerability is exploited.^[57] Removing unused libraries and dependencies further minimizes risks, as these elements often introduce unpatched vulnerabilities or unnecessary code paths that attackers can target.^[58] Secure coding practices, such as input validation and error handling without information disclosure, are integral to this process, with guidelines recommending the avoidance of features like debug modes in production to prevent reconnaissance by adversaries.^[59] Configuration hardening techniques disable unnecessary services and ports to eliminate idle entry points that could be probed or exploited, effectively reducing the system's exposure to external threats.^[60] Implementing zero-trust architecture enforces continuous verification of all access requests, assuming no inherent trust within the network and thereby limiting unauthorized lateral movement across software elements.^[61] For containerized environments, isolation via mechanisms like Kubernetes network policies restricts inter-pod communication to only essential traffic, compartmentalizing workloads and preventing propagation of attacks within clusters.^[62] Automated patching and vulnerability management systems play a critical role in closing known entry points by systematically applying updates to address identified weaknesses, with tools prioritizing high-impact fixes to minimize exposure windows.^[63] Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) tools embed security directly into applications, enabling real-time detection and blocking of attacks like SQL injection without altering the underlying code, thus providing dynamic protection against evolving threats. These methods ensure timely remediation, reducing the attack surface by integrating vulnerability scanning with deployment pipelines. Network-specific reductions employ micro-segmentation to divide infrastructure into granular zones, enforcing strict policies that prevent attackers from moving laterally between segments after initial compromise.^[60] API gateways serve as centralized enforcement points, applying authentication, rate limiting, and input sanitization to exposed interfaces, thereby shielding backend services and limiting the blast radius of API-related exploits.^[64] Together, these techniques transform broad network perimeters into fortified, least-privilege boundaries.

Organizational and Policy Approaches

Organizations implement policy frameworks to systematically manage attack surfaces by enforcing structured access controls and evaluating external risks. Role-based access control (RBAC) is a foundational policy that assigns permissions based on user roles, thereby applying the principle of least privilege to minimize unnecessary access points and reduce potential exploitation vectors. This approach limits the attack surface by ensuring that only authorized roles can interact with sensitive resources, as outlined in federal security standards.^[65] Complementing RBAC, vendor risk assessments involve periodic evaluations of third-party providers to identify and mitigate risks introduced through external dependencies, such as insecure software or data handling practices.^[66] These assessments typically include reviews of vendor security postures, contractual obligations, and compliance with standards like those in NIST SP 800-161, helping organizations prioritize high-risk suppliers. Training programs form a critical policy layer by fostering secure behaviors among employees, who represent a significant human element in the attack surface. Comprehensive awareness initiatives focus on recognizing phishing attempts, adhering to secure data practices, and reporting incidents promptly, with studies showing that targeted training can reduce phishing susceptibility by up to 50%.^[67] Such programs are often integrated into broader compliance frameworks, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU, which mandates staff training on data protection to prevent breaches, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the US, requiring workforce education on safeguarding protected health information.^[68] Effectiveness is measured through metrics like training completion rates, which averaged 84% across US government programs, and simulated phishing click rates, demonstrating sustained behavioral improvements when training is ongoing.^[69] Governance models provide oversight for attack surface management through cross-functional teams that integrate security expertise across departments, ensuring regular reviews and alignment with organizational objectives. These teams, comprising representatives from IT, legal, operations, and executive leadership, conduct ongoing assessments of policies and emerging risks, as recommended in frameworks like the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0.^[70] To evaluate policy effectiveness, organizations track metrics such as audit compliance rates, which gauge adherence to security controls, and incident response times, providing quantifiable insights into governance performance.^[69] For instance, federal guidelines emphasize using compliance adherence rates to verify that policies reduce vulnerabilities over time. Supply chain management policies address external attack surfaces by incorporating security requirements into vendor contracts and procurement processes. Organizations mandate third-party security audits to verify supplier compliance with cybersecurity standards, including vulnerability scanning and penetration testing, as specified in NIST CSF controls for supplier assessments.^[71] Following the 2021 US Executive Order 14028, federal agencies and contractors must enhance supply chain security through measures like software bill of materials (SBOM) requirements and rigorous third-party evaluations to mitigate risks from compromised components.^[72] This order has influenced private sector practices, promoting contracts that enforce regular audits and risk-sharing clauses to limit cascading attack surface expansions.^[73]

Modern Applications and Challenges

Cloud and IoT Environments

In cloud environments, the attack surface expands significantly due to the dynamic and ephemeral nature of resources, such as auto-scaling instances that automatically provision and deprovision virtual machines based on demand, creating transient entry points that are difficult to monitor continuously.^[74] These ephemeral assets, often lasting only minutes or hours, can accumulate rapidly and introduce vulnerabilities if base images or configurations are not secured, thereby enlarging the overall attack surface in multi-tenant setups where shared infrastructure heightens risks of lateral movement between tenants.^[74] A prominent example is the misconfiguration of AWS S3 buckets in multi-tenant environments, which contributed to the 2023 Capita breach, exposing sensitive data from UK councils and pension records due to public access settings left enabled.^[75] In Internet of Things (IoT) environments, the attack surface is amplified by the proliferation of connected devices, with approximately 20 billion IoT connections worldwide as of 2025, driven by integrations in consumer, industrial, and urban systems.^[76] These devices often feature embedded firmware with inherent vulnerabilities, such as outdated code lacking patch management, which attackers exploit to gain persistence or propagate malware across networks.^[77] Weak authentication mechanisms, including default credentials or insufficient encryption for device-to-cloud communications, further exacerbate risks, enabling unauthorized access and control.^[78] The Mirai botnet, first prominent in 2016 for hijacking unsecured IoT devices like cameras and routers to launch massive DDoS attacks, has evolved through variants that target modern infrastructure, including smart city systems by 2025, where compromised sensors and gateways disrupt traffic management or public utilities.^[79] Management adaptations in cloud and IoT contexts include serverless architectures, which eliminate traditional server management to reduce certain attack surfaces like persistent OS vulnerabilities, but introduce new exposures at the function level, such as event-driven triggers from untrusted sources that can lead to code injection or data exfiltration if not isolated properly.^[80] To address these, cloud-native security practices like Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) tools are employed, automating the continuous scanning of configurations across providers like AWS and Azure to detect and remediate misconfigurations in real-time, thereby shrinking the effective attack surface in dynamic environments.^[81]

AI and Emerging Technologies

Artificial intelligence introduces novel attack surfaces by exposing vulnerabilities in the training, inference, and deployment phases of machine learning models. Model poisoning attacks occur when adversaries manipulate training data inputs to degrade model performance or embed backdoors, potentially leading to incorrect classifications in critical applications such as autonomous vehicles or fraud detection systems.^[82]^[83] For instance, injecting malicious samples into datasets can cause a model to misidentify threats, amplifying risks in security contexts. Adversarial attacks during inference further expand this surface by subtly perturbing inputs, such as adding imperceptible noise to images to fool computer vision models into erroneous outputs, as demonstrated in experiments where altered stop signs misled traffic recognition systems.^[84] Additionally, API exposures in generative AI systems, like the plugins for ChatGPT, create entry points for exploitation; in 2023, vulnerabilities allowed unauthorized access to third-party accounts and sensitive data through malicious plugin installations, highlighting the risks of unverified integrations.^[85]^[86] Emerging technologies compound these challenges by introducing new vectors that traditional defenses struggle to address. Quantum computing poses a severe threat to encryption surfaces, as algorithms like Shor's could efficiently factor large primes and break widely used public-key systems such as RSA, potentially decrypting vast amounts of stored data harvested today.^[87] In blockchain ecosystems, smart contracts serve as programmable entry points prone to exploits, exemplified by the 2022 Ronin Network hack where attackers compromised validator nodes to drain $615 million in cryptocurrency via unauthorized transactions on the bridge protocol.^[88] These incidents underscore how decentralized codebases can inadvertently widen attack surfaces through logical flaws or poor key management. Mitigation strategies are evolving to counter these AI-specific and emerging risks through proactive, technology-driven approaches. AI-powered attack surface management (ASM) tools leverage machine learning for predictive mapping, continuously scanning for exposed assets and forecasting vulnerabilities in real-time, as seen in platforms that automate threat detection across dynamic environments.^[89] Complementing this, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF), released in 2023, provides a structured voluntary guideline for organizations to identify, assess, and manage AI risks throughout the system lifecycle, emphasizing trustworthiness and bias mitigation.^[90] Looking ahead, the integration of edge AI into devices is poised to further expand attack surfaces, particularly in IoT ecosystems where localized processing on resource-constrained hardware increases endpoints vulnerable to tampering. According to the Verizon 2025 Data Breach Investigations Report, AI-related incidents are surging, with 15% of employees routinely accessing generative AI tools on corporate devices, contributing to a notable rise in associated risks and attacks, projecting heightened exposure as adoption grows.^[91]^[92]

References

[1]
attack surface - Glossary - NIST Computer Security Resource Center
The set of points on the boundary of a system, a system element, or an environment where an attacker can try to enter, cause an effect on, or extract data from.
[2]
What is an Attack Surface? | IBM
An organization's attack surface is the sum of vulnerabilities, pathways, or methods—sometimes called attack vectors—that hackers can use to gain unauthorized ...What is an attack surface? · Digital attack surface
[3]
What is an Attack Surface? Definition and How to Reduce It | Fortinet
The attack surface is the number of all possible points, or attack vectors, where an unauthorized user can access a system and extract data.
[4]
What Is an Attack Surface? Definition & Management Tips - Proofpoint
An attack surface defines cumulative potential entry points through which a system, network, or access sensitive data may be infiltrated.
[5]
What is an Attack Surface in Cybersecurity? - Rapid7
Types of attack surfaces · Digital attack surface: internet-facing and cloud assets · Physical attack surface: hardware and on-prem devices · Social engineering ...
[6]
Types of Attack Surfaces in Cybersecurity (And How to Secure Them)
Digital Attack Surface / Cyber Asset Attack Surface · Physical Attack Surface · Cloud Attack Surface · Social Engineer Attack Surface / Human Attack Surface.
[7]
What Are the Types and Roles of Attack Surface Management (ASM)?
Attack surface management (ASM) involves identifying, monitoring, and reducing potential security vulnerabilities in an organization's IT infrastructure.
[8]
Attack Surface Management 101: Key Concepts & Practices - IONIX
Attack surface management is the process of identifying, analyzing, and mitigating the potential vulnerabilities and attack vectors in a system or network.
[9]
Attack Surface Analysis - OWASP Cheat Sheet Series
Attack Surface Analysis is about mapping out what parts of a system need to be reviewed and tested for security vulnerabilities.
[10]
[PDF] Measuring a System's Attack Surface
The more exposed the attack surface, the more likely the system could be successfully attacked, and hence the more insecure it is. We can reduce the attack ...
[11]
What Is Attack Surface Management? - Palo Alto Networks
The attack surface is broad and relatively static, while the threat surface is dynamic, shifting based on emerging cyber threats and new attack techniques.
[12]
[PDF] Report: Measuring the Attack Surfaces of Enterprise Software
Attack Surface Measurement Method Not all resources contribute equally to a system's attack surface. Manadhata and Wing estimate a resource's con- tribution ...
[13]
[PDF] the security development - Microsoft Download Center
The transition to SDL Version 2.0 was completed by 1 July 2004. ... Program management drives the task of reevaluating your attack surface during the security.
[14]
[PDF] Designing Security into Software - DSpace@MIT
the company to formally establish Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) in early 2004 ... security requirement for IIS 6.0 was to have a minimum attack surface. It ...
[15]
What is Cyber Security (or Cybersecurity)? - BeyondTrust
The 2010s: The Attack Surface Expands Exponentially, Again. In 2009, DevOps emerged and quickly gained momentum in the early 2010's, ushering in a new wave ...Missing: concept | Show results with:concept<|control11|><|separator|>
[16]
Analyzing Solorigate, the compromised DLL file that started a ...
Dec 18, 2020 · In this blog we are sharing insights into the compromised SolarWinds Orion Platform DLL that led to this sophisticated attack.The Backdoor · Endpoint Detection And... · Advanced Hunting<|control11|><|separator|>
[17]
[PDF] NIST.SP.800-53r5.pdf
Sep 5, 2020 · This publication has been developed by NIST to further its statutory responsibilities under the. Federal Information Security Modernization ...
[18]
How Cybersecurity Has Changed from the 90's to Present Day
Advancements in Technology: The rise of cloud computing, mobile devices, and the Internet of Things (IoT) has significantly expanded the attack surface, ...
[19]
API Reconnaissance - WSTG - Latest | OWASP Foundation
Attack Surface Detector. A BurpSuite plugin that uses static code analyses to identify web app endpoints by parsing routes and identifying parameters. Param ...
[20]
[PDF] Developer Guide - OWASP Foundation
Feb 2, 2023 · The attack surface of the software is reduced by keeping the software design and implementation details simple and understandable. Complete ...
[21]
Attacks | OWASP Foundation
Attacks are the techniques that attackers use to exploit the vulnerabilities in applications. Attacks are often confused with vulnerabilities.Missing: flaws | Show results with:flaws
[22]
Buffer Overflow - OWASP Foundation
A buffer overflow condition exists when a program attempts to put more data in a buffer than it can hold or when a program attempts to put data in a memory ...Missing: vectors injection
[23]
https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa21-356a
[24]
Mitigating Log4Shell and Other Log4j-Related Vulnerabilities | CISA
Dec 23, 2021 · Impact. Log4Shell and CVE-2021-45046—rated as critical vulnerabilities by Apache—are severe because Java is used extensively across IT and OT ...
[25]
[PDF] Log4Shell and Endemic Vulnerabilities in Open Source Libraries
Oct 3, 2022 · The recent log4shell vulnerability is an excellent example of why such vulnerabilities can have such longevity. Log4shell (CVE-2021-44228). The ...
[26]
Mobile App Code Quality - OWASP Mobile Application Security
Common vulnerabilities such as SQL injection, buffer overflows, and cross-site scripting (XSS), may manifest in apps when neglecting secure programming ...
[27]
Cross Site Scripting Prevention - OWASP Cheat Sheet Series
This cheat sheet helps developers prevent XSS vulnerabilities. Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) is a misnomer. Originally this term was derived from early versions ...Missing: apps | Show results with:apps
[28]
Session Management - OWASP Cheat Sheet Series
Web applications should provide mechanisms that allow security aware users to actively close their session once they have finished using the web application.
[29]
[PDF] Security Strategies for Microservices-based Application Systems
Further, the presence of multiple microservices exposes a large attack surface. The goal of this document is to outline strategies for the secure deployment ...
[30]
[PDF] The Ten Most Critical API Security Risks - OWASP Foundation
Attackers can exploit API endpoints that are vulnerable to broken object level authorization by manipulating the ID of an object that is sent within the request ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[31]
[PDF] Dramatically Reducing Software Vulnerabilities
Nov 30, 2016 · There are hundreds of proposed software measures, such as lines of code, class coupling, number of closed classes, function points, change ...
[32]
[PDF] Risk-Based Attack Surface Approximation
The goal of this research is to aid software engineers in prioritizing security efforts by approximating the attack surface of a system via crash dump stack ...
[33]
In-Depth Port Exposure Analysis - Data Status
Review port-level statistics for the top 1000 ports observed during scanning, covering transport protocols, mapped services, banner counts, and any associated ...Missing: billions open
[34]
NSA and CISA Red and Blue Teams Share Top Ten Cybersecurity ...
Oct 5, 2023 · NSA and CISA identified the 10 most common network misconfigurations, which are detailed below. These misconfigurations (non-prioritized) are systemic ...
[35]
The Enterprise Hardware Attack Surface and How to Defend It
Oct 14, 2018 · In this paper, we will explore the nature of the risk, why it has become a priority now, and how organizations can protect themselves today.Missing: wireless | Show results with:wireless<|separator|>
[36]
What is an Attack Surface? Examples and Best Practices - TechTarget
Jun 18, 2025 · A physical attack surface includes access to all endpoint devices, including desktop systems, laptops, mobile devices, USB ports and improperly ...Missing: routers | Show results with:routers
[37]
Understanding the Types of Attack Surfaces - Strobes Security
Sep 3, 2025 · The physical attack surface is defined as hardware and physical equipment that might be attacked by an attacker. These include: Data centres, ...Missing: USB wireless
[38]
Managing Security Issues in Software Containers - arXiv
Apr 10, 2025 · Security issues arise from faulty images, misconfigurations in the host machine, network settings, or container pipelines. Additionally, ...
[39]
[PDF] Mitigation of Security Misconfigurations in Kubernetes-based ...
Aug 3, 2024 · However, the presence of security misconfigurations can render Kubernetes-based software deployments vulnerable to security attacks. The goal of ...<|separator|>
[40]
[PDF] 2024 Data Breach Investigations Report | Verizon
May 5, 2024 · For this year's dataset, the human element was a component of 68% of breaches, roughly the same as the previous period described in the 2023 ...
[41]
Weak Security Controls and Practices Routinely Exploited for Initial ...
Dec 8, 2022 · Cyber actors routinely exploit poor security configurations (either misconfigured or left unsecured), weak controls, and other poor cyber hygiene practices to ...
[42]
[PDF] Supply Chain Risks for Information and Communication Technology
Exploitation of ICT supply chain vulnerabilities can lead to: system reliability issues, data theft and manipulation, malware dissemination, and persistent ...
[43]
What is a supply chain attack? | Cloudflare
A supply chain attack uses third-party tools or services to infiltrate a target's system or network. Learn how to stop supply chain attacks.
[44]
[PDF] Guide to Enterprise Patch Management Planning
Apr 4, 2022 · Patching is one of several ways to respond to risks from software vulnerabilities. This publication references four types of risk responses [2]:.
[45]
least privilege - Glossary - NIST Computer Security Resource Center
Definitions: A security principle that a system should restrict the access privileges of users (or processes acting on behalf of users) to the minimum necessary ...
[46]
MOVEit vulnerability and data extortion incident - NCSC.GOV.UK
A number of organisations whose supply chains use the MOVEit app have suffered a data breach as a result, with customer and/or employee data being stolen.Missing: third- party
[47]
An Attack Surface Metric | IEEE Journals & Magazine
Jun 7, 2010 · We formalize the notion of a system's attack surface and introduce an attack surface metric to measure the attack surface in a systematic manner ...Missing: area index
[48]
[PDF] Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments
An asset/impact-oriented approach starts with the identification of impacts or consequences of concern and critical assets, possibly using the results of a ...
[49]
Risk Assessment - Tenable documentation
May 2, 2025 · Asset Criticality Rating (ACR): Rates the criticality of an asset to the organisation. An asset's ACR is expressed as an integer from 1 to 10, ...
[50]
ISO 27001 Clause 9.1: Monitoring & Analysis | ISMS.online
Sep 15, 2025 · Clause 9.1 turns ISMS metrics into action. Discover how to monitor, measure, and improve your security posture with ISMS.online.
[51]
Chapter 4. Port Scanning Overview | Nmap Network Scanning
Security-minded people know that each open port is an avenue for attack. Attackers and pen-testers want to exploit the open ports, while administrators try to ...A Quick Port Scanning Tutorial · Command-line Flags · IPv6 Scanning (-6)Missing: evaluation | Show results with:evaluation
[52]
Getting Started - Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP)
Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP) by Checkmarx is a free, open-source penetration testing tool. ZAP is designed specifically for testing web applications and is both ...Security Testing Basics · The Pentesting Process · Zap Desktop UiMissing: surface | Show results with:surface
[53]
Mapping the visible attack surface with Burp Suite - PortSwigger
To discover locations that are available to audit, you need to map the target application's visible attack surface.
[54]
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management (EASM)
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management (EASM) safeguards the digital experience by identifying all exposed resources across your attack ...Missing: Qualys | Show results with:Qualys
[55]
Attack Surface Management Solutions | Qualys, Inc.
Explore attack surface management solutions from Qualys. Secure your attack surface across cloud, on-prem, IoT/OT, and external assets, including web apps.Missing: Microsoft | Show results with:Microsoft
[56]
Microsoft Threat Modeling Tool threats - Azure - Microsoft Learn
Aug 25, 2022 · Microsoft Threat Modeling Tool threats. Feedback. Summarize this ... Denial of service (DoS) attacks deny service to valid users—for ...
[57]
Censys | The Authority for Internet Intelligence and Insights
Censys empowers security teams with the most comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date map of the internet to defend attack surfaces and hunt for threats.
[58]
[PDF] Guidelines for API Protection for Cloud-Native Systems
Jun 20, 2025 · This document is organized as follows: Section 2 describes risk factors and vulnerabilities associated with APIs and the attack vectors that ...
[59]
Secure Product Design - OWASP Cheat Sheet Series
Least privilege: Use the principle of the least privilege when writing code, such that the code and the system it runs on are given the minimum access rights ...Missing: features | Show results with:features
[60]
[PDF] Fundamental Practices for Secure Software Development - SAFECode
Feb 8, 2011 · Least privilege is important because it can help reduce the damage caused if a system is compro- mised. A compromised application running with.
[61]
[PDF] OWASP Secure Coding Practices Quick Reference Guide
Nov 1, 2010 · A 2009 SANS study1 found that attacks against web applications constitute more than 60% of the total attack attempts observed on the Internet.Missing: minimizing | Show results with:minimizing
[62]
[PDF] Guide to a Secure Enterprise Network Landscape
Nov 10, 2022 · The attack surface is reduced by preventing lateral movement [32] through techniques like microsegmentation, as described in Section 5.1.
[63]
Project Overview — Implementing a Zero Trust ... - NIST Pages
A Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) enables secure access to assets by verifying context for each request, and helps organizations evolve to ZTA.Missing: disabling | Show results with:disabling
[64]
[PDF] Kubernetes Hardening Guide
Aug 29, 2022 · This guide helps organizations handle Kubernetes risks, including supply chain, malicious actors, and insider threats, to enjoy the benefits of ...
[65]
[PDF] Securing the Software Supply Chain - CISA
This guide provides recommended practices for developers to secure the software supply chain, which is vulnerable to cyberattacks. It is for general ...
[66]
[PDF] DOD Zero Trust Execution Roadmap (COAs 1-3)
segmentation using logical network zones that limit lateral movement. Proxy and/or enforcement checks are integrated with the SDN or alternative networking ...
[67]
Access Control (AC) | CMS Information Security and Privacy Program
Ensure the access role is based ... All these processes support the concepts of least privilege and least functionality that reduce the attack surface of systems.
[68]
Information and Communications Technology Supply Chain Risk ...
CISA is committed to working with government and industry partners to ensure supply chain risk management (SCRM) is an integrated component of security and.
[69]
[PDF] Measuring the Effectiveness of U.S. Government Security ...
Aug 7, 2022 · Training completion rates (84%) and phishing simulation click rates (72%) were the most popular measures of effectiveness, followed by program ...<|separator|>
[70]
HIPAA Training and Resources - HHS.gov
May 30, 2025 · Provides a beginners overview of what the HIPAA Rules require, and the page has links to security training games, risk assessment tools, and other aids.
[71]
[PDF] The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0
Feb 26, 2024 · The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 provides guidance to industry, government agencies, and other organizations to manage cybersecurity ...Missing: cross- | Show results with:cross-
[72]
ID.SC-4: Suppliers and third-party partners are routinely assessed ...
Suppliers and third-party partners are routinely assessed using audits, test results, or other forms of evaluations to confirm they are meeting their ...
[73]
https://www.gsa.gov/technology/government-it-initiatives/cybersecurity/executive-order-14028
[74]
https://www.tripwire.com/resources/datasheets/tripwire-enterprise/dynamic-cloud-environment
[75]
Monitoring Ephemeral Assets in Dynamic Cloud Infrastructure
Ephemeral assets add up quickly: Assets that are only briefly used can still easily accumulate. · They can enlarge the attack surface: A misconfigured base image ...
[76]
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1183457/iot-connected-devices-worldwide/
[77]
IoT connections to reach almost 25 billion globally by 2025: GSMA
Mar 5, 2020 · IoT connections will reach almost 25 billion globally by 2025, up from 12 billion in 2019, according to a new report by the GSMA.
[78]
A Review of IoT Firmware Vulnerabilities and Auditing Techniques
Authentication: IoT-ware attacks due to weak authentication mechanisms are rather common [31]. Misconfigured and erroneous authentication routes allow control ...
[79]
Top 10 IoT Security Risks and How to Mitigate Them - SentinelOne
Jul 23, 2025 · The security risks engaging IoT devices include weak authentication mechanisms, unencrypted data transfers, outdated firmware, and insecure ...
[80]
Mirai Botnet Variant Exploits Four-Faith Router Vulnerability for ...
Jan 8, 2025 · A Mirai botnet variant has been found exploiting a newly disclosed security flaw impacting Four-Faith industrial routers since early November 2024.
[81]
Serverless computing: a security perspective
Oct 23, 2022 · Serverless computing exposes a significantly larger attack surface compared to its predecessors for three main reasons: First, as functions are ...
[82]
What is Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)? - Wiz
Oct 12, 2025 · Cloud security posture management (CSPM) continuously scans cloud environments for misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and compliance ...
[83]
ML10:2023 Model Poisoning - OWASP Foundation
Model poisoning attacks occur when an attacker manipulates the model's parameters to cause it to behave in an undesirable way.
[84]
[PDF] Poisoning Attacks Against Machine Learning
Data poisoning attacks con- sider the risk of training data being partially under the control of an adver- sary, while model poisoning attacks consider the risk ...
[85]
What Are Adversarial AI Attacks on Machine Learning? - Palo Alto ...
For example, an attacker could add a few pixels of "noise" to an image of a stop sign, causing a self-driving car to misinterpret it as a speed limit sign. The ...
[86]
ChatGPT Vulnerability - Security Flaws within ChatGPT - Salt Security
Mar 13, 2024 · The first part of the research focuses on a vulnerability found directly in ChatGPT, allowing attackers to install malicious plugins on ChatGPT ...
[87]
ChatGPT Has a Plug-In Problem - WIRED
Jul 25, 2023 · Security researchers say there are some problems with the way that plug-ins operate, which can put people's data at risk or potentially be abused by malicious ...
[88]
What Is Post-Quantum Cryptography? | NIST
Aug 13, 2024 · Post-quantum cryptography is a defense against potential cyberattacks from quantum computers. PQC algorithms are based on mathematical techniques that can be ...Why Are Quantum Computers... · How Does Current... · How Did Nist Design And...
[89]
Explained: The Ronin Network Hack (August 2024) - Halborn
Aug 8, 2024 · In 2022, an attacker exploited poor private key security to approve a malicious transaction that stole $624 million from the cross-chain bridge.
[90]
How AI Is Transforming Attack Surface Management - Cyble
AI-driven monitoring tools can detect unauthorized access, misconfigurations, and other security gaps before they are exploited. 5. Enhanced Attack Surface ...
[91]
AI Risk Management Framework | NIST
On March 30, 2023, NIST launched the Trustworthy and Responsible AI Resource Center, which will facilitate implementation of, and international alignment with, ...NIST AI RMF PlaybookAI RMF DevelopmentResourcesNIST Risk Management ...AI RMF Roadmap
[92]
2025 Data Breach Investigations Report - Verizon
Read the complete report for an in-depth, authoritative analysis of the latest cyber threats and data breaches. Download report. 2025 DBIR Executive Summary.
[93]
AI Cyber Attack Statistics 2025, Trends, Costs, Defense - DeepStrike
Oct 10, 2025 · Breach volume is at record levels. Verizon's 2025 DBIR analyzed 22,052 incidents and 12,195 confirmed breaches, the largest dataset so far ...