Skip to content
NewA calmer, faster ZeroHour

Attack Surface Management in 2026: Why Point-in-Time Scans Can’t Keep Up With Cloud Sprawl

Cybleby Ashish Khaitan ()4 min read1 · 1 read
AI summary · glm-5.3Summaries by Vani AI

Cyble's marketing piece argues point-in-time attack surface scans leave cloud assets exposed for months and promotes its continuous Odin ASM product.

The Cyble vendor blog argues that quarterly or annual external scans cannot keep pace with hourly cloud changes driven by ephemeral assets, decentralized ownership, and configuration drift. It cites CISA Binding Operational Directive 23-01, which requires federal agencies to run automated asset discovery every 7 days and vulnerability enumeration every 14 days, plus FBI 2025 IC3 figures of $20.877 billion in reported losses. The piece promotes Cyble Attack Surface Management, powered by Cyble Odin, as continuous outside-in monitoring ranked by real-world exploitability.

Key facts
  • Ephemeral assets, decentralized ownership, and configuration drift make quarterly scans stale within hours.
  • CISA BOD 23-01 mandates 7-day asset discovery and 14-day vulnerability enumeration for federal agencies.
  • FBI IC3 2025 recorded $20.877 billion in losses and 3,611 ransomware complaints.
  • Cyble Odin pitches continuous, threat-informed external attack surface monitoring.
Analyze this story with Vani AIImpact, who is affected and what defenders should do, in a new chat

From the original article

4 min read at cyble.com

Cloud infrastructure now changes by the hour, yet many security teams still map their external attack surface once a quarter or once a year. That mismatch creates blind spots that can last for months. A developer spins up a test environment on a Tuesday, an engineer opens a storage bucket for a partner on Wednesday, and a marketing team launches a campaign subdomain on Friday.

Cyble

By Ashish Khaitan · cyble.com

Read the full article at Cyble

A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.