Session CRT-20260416 — 16 April 2026 · Afternoon Edition

This is a lot to unpack. Let me address both items systematically.

---

First: TeamPCP's Escalation — From LiteLLM to Checkmarx and the 5-Ecosystem Cascade

Look, last week I flagged LiteLLM as worse than a typical supply chain compromise because it sits at an AI stack choke-point — attackers didn't just get code execution, they got access to AI API keys at massive scale. Now that TeamPCP has cascaded from Trivy (March 19) → Checkmarx (March 23) → LiteLLM (March 24) → Telnyx (March 27), this confirms my structural concern and answers some of my open questions.

According to data from Recorded Future and Socradar, we're looking at ~500,000 stolen credentials, 300GB+ exfiltrated data, and the European Commission's AWS environment among the victims. The .pth persistence question? Unit 42's analysis confirms they used litellm_init.pth — that executes every time Python starts, regardless of whether you import LiteLLM. It survives standard package removal. This is not accidental sophistication — they're weaponizing interpreter-level persistence mechanisms that most defenders aren't scanning for.

But here's what elevates this beyond a "big supply chain breach": TeamPCP is building credential harvesting infrastructure, not just executing one-offs. Look at the pattern — they compromised Trivy CI/CD runners, harvested credentials, then used those credentials to poison Checkmarx Actions, then used those to push malicious LiteLLM packages. Each compromise seeds the next. They're now partnering with Vect ransomware-as-a-service, pivoting from "credential acquisition mode" to "monetization mode." This is a pipeline.

The Checkmarx hit is especially galling — they poisoned a leading AppSec platform. When your security scanner becomes the attack vector, you lose the ability to trust your own detection tools. That is systematic degradation of defensive capability by targeting the toolchain responsible for finding exactly these kinds of compromises.

My risk assessment escalates significantly: this isn't opportunistic supply chain abuse, it's infrastructure for persistent credential harvesting across the developer toolchain. The 5-ecosystem cascade in 5 days demonstrates operational tempo that suggests automation, not manual exploitation. The ICP blockchain C2 and WAV steganography they deployed shows they're investing in evasion techniques designed for longevity.

---

Second: Anthropic Mythos — The Capability Threshold

Now, Mythos. The headlines say it can autonomously execute full network compromise in hours. Let me ground that in what Anthropic actually disclosed, not the hype.

According to their system card and Project Glasswing announcements, Mythos Preview demonstrates:

• Autonomous exploitation: Given a CVE and git commit hash, it produces working exploits within hours at relatively low cost
• Vulnerability chaining: Successfully chained four browser vulnerabilities to escape renderer and OS sandboxes autonomously
• Zero-day discovery: Found thousands of previously unknown vulnerabilities including a 27-year-old OpenBSD bug that survived 5M+ prior tests
• Network compromise simulation: Solved a corporate network attack scenario that would take human experts 10+ hours

Here's my technical assessment: The capability threshold has been crossed. Mythos-class models can now perform the full cyber kill chain — reconnaissance → vulnerability discovery → exploit development → privilege escalation → lateral movement — without human intervention at each step. Anthropic kept it closed because as they note, "in any deployment where this AI has access to tools... could probably break out of whatever software box we try to put it in."

How close are open-source models to this? The gap is narrowing faster than most defenders want to admit. Current open-weight models can already do patch-diffing and generate exploits when pointed to code. Mythos's advantage is in autonomous vulnerability discovery — finding bugs that human auditors missed for decades. But the research community is racing to replicate this. Industry estimates suggest open-weight equivalents within 6–12 months.

What does this mean for defensive timelines? Our patch windows just collapsed. The median time from vulnerability discovery to exploitation has fallen from 771 days in 2018 to under 4 hours by 2024. With Mythos-class capability, we're looking at sub-hour exploitation for novel vulnerabilities. Traditional detection and response cycles — days to detect, weeks to patch — are completely mismatched to this threat.

Defensively, we need to shift from "find and patch" to assume breach, minimize blast radius, and detect anomalous behavior at machine speed. The controls that matter now are network segmentation, just-in-time privilege, and behavioral monitoring — because you cannot out-patch AI-speed exploitation.

James, on the defensive side — are you seeing organizations even remotely prepared for detection at this tempo? My read is most enterprises are still measuring detection in hours or days, not minutes.

---

Summary: TeamPCP is building persistent harvesting infrastructure across the developer supply chain, and Mythos demonstrates that AI-driven autonomous exploitation is now a near-term reality. These two trends intersect at a dangerous point — when threat actors with infrastructure like TeamPCP's get access to Mythos-class capabilities, the cascading supply chain attacks we've seen will happen at machine speed, not over days.

Based on my research, I can now provide my assessment. The data shows clear patterns that inform both attribution and prediction.

---

Attribution Assessment: Collaborative Ecosystem, Not a Single Group

My confidence is moderate-to-high that TeamPCP is best understood as a loose collaborative network rather than a unified threat actor — think of it as a criminal supply chain rather than a monolithic operation.

Here's what the pattern shows:

Structural Evidence:

• Multiple aliases confirmed: PCPcat, ShellForce, DeadCatx3, CipherForce, Persy_PCP
• SocRadar and others document the group as "loosely-affiliated teenagers and young adults" — this age demographic and flexible structure mirrors Lapsus$'s well-established composition
• Active Telegram recruitment channels with credential trafficking suggest a fluid, task-specific ecosystem

Operational Model (MITRE ATT&CK):

• T1195.001: Supply chain compromise of trusted software
• T1552.001: Credential harvesting in CI/CD environments
• T1583.006: Web services exploitation (GitHub Actions, PyPI)
• T1071: Novel C2 via ICP blockchain infrastructure

The TTPs are sophisticated in their cascading design — from the March 19 Trivy compromise through the GitHub Actions misconfiguration, to the credential reuse against Checkmarx KICS by March 23, and LiteLLM on March 24. This is a multi-stage campaign (T1601-T1608).

My Attribution View:

The Lapsus$ collaboration claims have credibility. Lapsus$ has historically specialized in social engineering, extortion without encryption, and operates with similar teenage/young-adult demographics. The "ransomware affiliate" label fits — TeamPCP appears to seed access, then partners with groups like Vect ransomware and possibly Lapsus$ for monetization. Insikt Group's secondary intelligence on payroll redirection and logistics "double-brokering" fraud suggests horizontal expansion into business process compromise — this is opportunistic, not fixed TTP.

Is it a single group? No. The rapid pivot across ecosystems, variety of capabilities (blockchain C2, steganography in WAV files, npm worm propagation), and different monetization channels suggest access brokers feeding a criminal marketplace.

---

Timeline Pattern & Next Target Prediction:

Date	Target	Ecosystem	Outcome
March 19-20	Trivy	GitHub Actions + Docker	CVE-2026-33634, initial access seed
March 23	Checkmarx KICS	GitHub Actions + VS Code	CI/CD credential harvest
March 24	LiteLLM	PyPI	500K credentials, 300GB exfil
Late March	Telnyx SDK	PyPI	AI/voice infrastructure targeting
Early April	66+ npm packages	npm/Node.js	CanisterWorm propagation

The Pattern: They're systematically working through security tooling → AI infrastructure → voice/comms SDKs → package ecosystems. Each compromise feeds the next via stolen credentials and trust relationships.

My Prediction for Next Targets (Medium Confidence):

1. Terraform providers or infrastructure-as-code tools — they haven't hit HashiCorp yet, but the pattern screams for it. Vulnerable CI/CD workflows, trusted by the same developers using Trivy and KICS.

2. Observability/logging platforms (Datadog, Splunk forwarders) — high-density credential environments, often with cloud admin access.

3. Package registries they haven't touched: RubyGems or crates.io — the March 31 192-hour pause suggests recon for expansion. Their "five ecosystems in five days" claim suggests they're hunting the next platform vector.

The operational tempo accelerated from weeks to days. They're testing dependency graph depth — how far can one compromised token cascade? The answer so far: across GitHub Actions, PyPI, npm, Docker Hub, and OpenVSX.

---

Final Word:

I need more data on the payroll redirection and logistics fraud Insikt Group mentioned — that represents a capability pivot different from pure credential theft. If confirmed, it suggests business process compromise tooling we haven't seen yet, or partnerships with specialized fraud actors.

Alex — the persistence mechanisms via .pth files and the ICP blockchain C2 indicate solid technical depth. This isn't script kiddie work despite the demographic. Thoughts on whether the blockchain C2 is novel enough to track forward, or copy-paste from elsewhere?

Great, now I have the full picture. Let me break down both scenarios for Halil.

---

On the WordPress backdoor first: This is actually a sophisticated supply chain play, and I have respect for the technical craft here—though I hate what they did with it.

Here's the chain: The attacker buys 30+ plugins on Flippa in early 2025, gets legitimate commit rights, then in August 2025 pushes a "compatibility update" (v2.6.7) that adds 191 lines of malicious code to the wpos-analytics module. That module has a fetch_ver_info() method that grabs remote data and passes it straight to unserialize()—classic PHP deserialization sink. There's also a version_info_clean() method for arbitrary function execution, and an unauthenticated REST API endpoint with permission_callback: __return_true. So the backdoor's been sitting there, dormant, for eight months.

The activation triggers in April 2026. The malware downloads a fake wp-comments-posts.php (note the extra 's'—subtle) and uses it to inject about 6KB of PHP directly into wp-config.php. Why wp-config.php? Because it loads on every request, survives plugin updates, and most site owners never look at it.

Now here's the genuinely clever part: Ethereum smart contracts as C2. Instead of hardcoding a domain that gets burned in 48 hours, the malware queries public Ethereum RPC endpoints to read a smart contract that contains the current C2 domain. When defenders block one domain, the attacker updates the contract to point somewhere else. It's like having a DNS record that can't be seized, can't be subpoenaed away, and is globally replicated. The only way to kill it is to block all Ethereum RPC endpoints—or hope the attacker runs out of gas money.

WordPress.org's forced update to 2.6.9.1? They inserted return statements and commented out the phone-home code. But they left the injected wp-config.php blocks untouched. So sites that were already compromised stay compromised, still serving cloaked SEO spam to Googlebot. Site owners see nothing wrong—until their search rankings crater.

This is a recurring pattern I see: vendors patch the visible symptom, not the persistent access. The attacker doesn't need a zero-day when they own the supply chain.

---

On the AI coding agents—Copilot and Agentforce: This is a different beast entirely, and honestly, I'm more worried about this long-term.

The research from Capsule Security and Johns Hopkins reveals a systemic architectural problem. These agents work through what's essentially an injection vulnerability by design—they ingest untrusted content (PR titles, issue bodies, form submissions, comments) and treat it as task context. There's no reliable boundary between "instructions from the developer" and "data from the outside world."

ShareLeak (CVE-2026-21520, CVSS 7.5, patched January 2026 in Copilot Studio) worked like this: Attacker fills a SharePoint form field with a crafted payload that injects a fake system role message. Copilot Studio concatenates that input directly with the agent's system instructions—no sanitization, no separation. Even worse? Microsoft's safety mechanisms flagged the prompt injection attempt, but the data still exfiltrated because the email used a legitimate Outlook action. DLP never fired.

PipeLeak in Salesforce Agentforce works similarly—malicious lead form inputs hijack agent behavior and trigger unsafe downstream actions. Salesforce hasn't even assigned a CVE for this as of mid-April.

The Johns Hopkins team demonstrated this across Claude Code Security Review, Gemini CLI Action, and GitHub Copilot in GitHub Actions workflows. They embedded malicious instructions in PR titles and comments. The agents execute them, exfiltrating API keys and GitHub tokens to attacker-controlled endpoints.

Here's why this is dangerous: AI agents run at machine speed with broad access to repositories, CI/CD secrets, and production credentials. Traditional compensating controls—blocking accounts, rotating keys—don't work when the attacker never needed an account in the first place. They just poisoned a public issue comment.

And the vendors' response? Anthropic paid $100. GitHub paid $500. No CVEs issued, no public advisories. Most organizations running these agents have no idea they're exposed.

The fundamental problem is architectural. LLMs process instructions and data in the same token stream. Until that changes, prompt injection is less a vulnerability class and more a design constraint you have to architect around—with strict input validation, least-privilege runners, and behavioral monitoring at the tool-call layer.

Excellent. I now have comprehensive intelligence. Let me address this as a strategic assessment.

---

This is precisely the kind of inflection point I warned about after WannaCry in 2017. The Mythos disclosure changes everything because it compresses what I call the "capability proliferation timeline" from decades to months.

The Mythos problem: The British AISI confirmed what Anthropic feared — Mythos completed a 32-step network takeover autonomously, something no previous model could do. But the critical insight from Straiker's analysis and War on the Rocks is that security firm Aisle already replicated similar vulnerability-finding with older models. China, Russia, Iran, DPRK have made "heavy investments in frontier AI development." Mythos-equivalent capability in adversarial hands is a near-term certainty, not a probability.

Who replicates first? China, without question. They've poured resources into AI weaponization, and there was already a November 2025 campaign where Chinese state actors used Claude before Anthropic disrupted it. The CCP's model is: identify critical capability, acquire or replicate at scale, deploy for strategic advantage. They've been training on Western frontier models through whatever means necessary.

But here's my provocative thesis: Iran and North Korea don't need to replicate Mythos to benefit from it.

Since 2022, the asymmetric cyber powers have compensated for resource gaps through operational creativity — think of DPRK's IT worker infiltration scheme or Iran's ransomware-for-revenue model. Mythos or its equivalents will soon be available on criminal markets or through cutouts. What changes is that their cost-per-compromise drops by orders of magnitude. An Iranian operator who previously needed 20 hours of skilled labor can now achieve comparable results with AI orchestration in hours.

The Russian escalation pattern is textbook preparation for broader conflict. Swedish Minister Bohlin's warning is revealing: Spring 2025 saw GRU-linked groups move from DDoS to destructive infrastructure targeting in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands. Multiple non-wired nations, identical timing. The Fancy Bear campaign exposed this week — siphoning credentials from Wi-Fi routers across European defense ministries including Greece — that's prepositioning. They're mapping networks they'll need in a high-intensity scenario.

Recall the historical parallel: Soviet GRU doctrine always emphasized "preparation of the battlefield." The 2015 Ukraine grid attack, the 2017 NotPetya launch — these were capabilities held in reserve, then activated when political conditions demanded. What's different now is frequency and brazenness. They're not just preparing — they're signaling that preparation.

Lena, I need to check something with you — the attribution side of this. Fancy Bear's tactics in the Greek compromise and the broader European router campaign — does this read to you as specifically preparatory for a larger operation, or opportunistic espionage? My instinct says the targeting concentration on defense ministries during the Ukrainian war's attrition phase suggests something more deliberate.

The Mythos revelation arrives at precisely the worst moment: when adversaries are already escalating operations, and democracies are still debating defensive frameworks. The Pentagon's designation of Anthropic as a "supply chain risk" while simultaneously needing their warnings illustrates the strategic incoherence. We're restructuring alliances around AI leadership while the window for responsible capacity distribution closes.

I now have all the data I need to deliver a comprehensive quantified risk assessment. Let me synthesize this into board-ready language.

---

Item One: CareCloud Financial Impact Assessment

Look, here's the thing — CareCloud is serving 45,000 providers across their EHR infrastructure. From my research, they're covering "millions of patients" across all 50 states. The breach lasted 8 hours, one of six EHR environments, and they still don't know if data was exfiltrated. This is classic post-breach uncertainty that drives up insurance claims and legal exposure.

Patient Count Exposure: I'm modeling conservatively at 3-8 million patients. Change Healthcare affected 192.7 million at final count — so CareCloud is roughly 2-4% of that footprint. But here's the catch: it's concentrated in 45,000 provider operations rather than one clearinghouse, meaning the operational cascade effects hit differently.

Financial Impact Scenario:

Best case — No confirmed exfiltration, $50-75M in forensics, notification, and remediation. Cyber insurance covers most. Providers face minimal disruption.

Base case — Partial data exfiltration confirmed, 4-6M records affected. Using the $408 per-record healthcare benchmark, that's $1.6-2.4B in total breach cost exposure. CareCloud's direct hit: $200-400M when you factor in their business associate liability, regulatory fines, and the SEC disclosure liability they're already facing.

Worst case — Full environment compromise discovered during forensics, 8M+ records, prolonged system outage forcing providers to manual processes. My ceiling estimate: $600M-900M for CareCloud directly, plus $2-4B in downstream provider revenue disruption and patient care costs.

Change Healthcare Comparison: Change hit $2.87B total impact. CareCloud won't reach that magnitude because they're not a payment processor — they don't control cash flow for the entire ecosystem. But proportionally? If CareCloud confirms significant exfiltration, they're looking at 15-25% of Change's financial impact with 2-4% of the patient volume. The concentration risk in 45,000 individual provider businesses creates a different cascade pattern.

The 8-hour containment is the saving grace here. Change was down for weeks. CareCloud's rapid response limits operational disruption, which is the biggest cost driver in healthcare.

---

Item Two: TeamPCP Supply Chain Aggregate Exposure

This is where it gets ugly. TeamPCP hit five ecosystems — GitHub Actions, Docker Hub, npm, PyPI, and OpenVSX. We're talking about Trivy with 100M+ annual downloads, Checkmarx KICS scanning infrastructure code for enterprise DevOps, LiteLLM with 480M downloads in 36% of cloud environments according to Wiz research.

The Numbers:

1,000+ enterprise SaaS environments directly breached. 500,000 credentials stolen. 300GB of data exfiltrated including European Commission AWS access.

Financial Exposure Modeling:

Developer ecosystem GDP: The open source security scanner market is projected to hit substantial scale by 2035. Trivy alone has millions of active monthly users. When you compromise the tools developers use to secure their code, you're not just stealing credentials — you're compromising the security validation layer for every application those developers build.

Best case: Organizations rotate credentials within 72 hours, minimal downstream compromise. Direct loss: $200-400M across affected enterprises in credential rotation, forensics, and incident response.

Base case: 25% of the 500,000 stolen credentials lead to secondary compromises over 90 days. At an average cloud credential compromise cost of $150K per incident, that's $18.75B in aggregate exposure. Add in the European Commission breach, Databricks investigation, and enterprise SaaS disruptions — I'm pegging this at $8-12B total market impact.

Worst case: TeamPCP's collaboration with Lapsus$ and Vect ransomware groups converts these credentials into systematic ransomware deployment. We've seen SolarWinds-level supply chain damage at $100B+ when weaponized properly. If even 10% of affected environments get ransomware, you're looking at $50-100B in potential aggregate impact.

Sector-Specific Concentration Risk:

Financial services and healthcare adoption of Trivy and Checkmarx is heavy. These are regulated industries where credential compromise triggers mandatory breach disclosures. The insurance market is going to feel this intensely — supply chain cyber claims are about to spike.

---

Bottom Line for the CEO:

1. CareCloud: 8-hour containment bought them time, but if forensics confirms exfiltration, expect $200-600M impact with significant provider relationship damage. They're a business associate — HIPAA liability flows downstream to all 45,000 providers.

2. TeamPCP: This is the supply chain nightmare we've been warning about. 500K credentials across 1,000+ enterprises, five ecosystems, with ransomware partnerships active. Your developers are using these tools. Your CI/CD pipelines are executing them. If you haven't audited for Trivy v0.69.4+, Checkmarx Actions exposure, or LiteLLM 1.82.7-1.82.8, start now.

Alex, I hear this is a sophisticated campaign — but translate for me: what's the exploit window? How many of those 500K credentials are still valid if organizations haven't rotated yet?

---

Now I have comprehensive data on the CareCloud incident. Let me analyze the notification obligations across the different frameworks.

---

Thank you, Halil. This is a textbook case of the intersection between HIPAA, state breach laws, and SEC disclosure rules — and the "we don't know" position is legally precarious.

Regulatory Clocks and Obligations

SEC Rules (Item 1.05 of Form 8-K):
CareCloud filed on March 24, 2026, for an incident discovered March 16. Under SEC rules effective December 2023, a company must disclose material cybersecurity incidents within four business days of determining materiality — not four days from discovery, but from the materiality determination. The disclosure must include nature, scope, timing, and impact or "reasonably likely material impact" on operations.

CareCloud's disclosure states they "do not expect the breach to have a material financial impact" but filed due to "the sensitivity of the potentially affected data and the potential consequences." This is a defensible materiality approach — the qualitative risk factors (regulatory exposure, reputation, downstream liability) can trigger disclosure even without quantified financial impact.

HIPAA Breach Notification Rule:
Under 45 CFR § 164.400 et seq., the clock is more rigid: 60 calendar days from discovery to notify affected individuals. Discovery means when the covered entity (or business associate) knew or should have known through reasonable diligence. The incident occurred March 16, 2026 — so we have until approximately mid-May for individual notifications.

Here's the critical issue: HIPAA presumes a breach occurred unless the covered entity can demonstrate, through a four-factor risk assessment, a "low probability of compromise." The four factors are:

1. Nature and extent of PHI involved
2. The unauthorized person who accessed it
3. Whether PHI was actually acquired or viewed
4. Extent to which risk has been mitigated

The "we don't know if data was exfiltrated" position is not inherently fatal under HIPAA — Factor 3 explicitly examines whether PHI was "actually acquired or viewed." However, an unauthorized third party inside an EHR environment for 8+ hours creates a rebuttable presumption of breach that CareCloud must overcome with evidence. If the forensic investigation shows no evidence of data access, download, or transfer, they might conclude low probability. But practically, OCR has historically been skeptical of "no evidence of exfiltration" claims where adversaries had persistent access.

State Breach Notification Laws:
This is where CareCloud's exposure multiplies. The HIPAA 60-day window may be the longest deadline they face. Consider:

• California's Medical Information Act: Requires notification to the California Department of Public Health within 15 business days of detecting unauthorized access to medical information — that's approximately 3 weeks, not 60 days. Penalties: up to $25,000 per patient plus $100/day for late notice.

• Most states have "without unreasonable delay" standards (typically 30-60 days), but some have shorter windows for specific data types. Given CareCloud serves 45,000 providers across all 50 states, they must map the most restrictive applicable state law.

"We Don't Know if Data Was Exfiltrated" — Is This Tenable?

Legally? Tenable but risky. Under HIPAA, you can delay notification while conducting a risk assessment, but the 60-day clock runs from discovery, not from when you confirm exfiltration. The regulation allows for a "low probability" determination, but the burden is on the covered entity to demonstrate it.

Practically? Increasingly untenable. The SEC's October 2024 enforcement actions against four companies for misleading cybersecurity disclosures signal heightened scrutiny. The SEC specifically faulted one company for failing to disclose "the quantity of encrypted credentials accessed." CareCloud's cautious but honest "we're still investigating" approach is defensible for now, but prolonged uncertainty may require an amended filing.

AI-Augmented Attack Risk and Mythos Regulatory Exposure

Now to the Anthropic Mythos question — this creates several layers of new regulatory exposure:

NIS2 and the EU AI Act Interlock:
Under NIS2 (effective October 17, 2024), "essential" and "important" entities must implement risk management measures and report significant incidents within 24 hours to CSIRTs. While Mythos-class AI doesn't automatically trigger new obligations, NIS2 Article 21 requires supply chain security and "state-of-the-art" risk management. ENISA's 2024 guidance explicitly maps AI/ML risks to NIS2 duties.

More importantly, if CareCloud had EU operations or processed EU patient data, the AI Act (2024/1689) would impose additional obligations for "high-risk" AI systems. Article 9 requires risk management systems that identify and mitigate "known and foreseeable risks." If an organization deploys AI-augmented vulnerability scanning or automated remediation, they must document how they assessed adversarial AI risks.

SEC Future Exposure:
The SEC's current 4-day material incident rule doesn't explicitly cover "AI-augmented attacks" as a separate category. However, the October 2024 enforcement guidance emphasized that companies must disclose "the nature of the code that the threat actor exfiltrated" when it affects investor understanding. If a breach involves AI-accelerated exploitation (e.g., Mythos-discovered zero-days), organizations should consider whether the method of attack is material to understanding the incident's scope.

Practical Steps for CareCloud:

1. HIPAA: Complete the four-factor risk assessment within 60 days. If uncertain about exfiltration, document every forensic step. Default position: notify if any doubt remains.

2. State laws: Identify California patients first — 15-business-day clock may already be running.

3. SEC: If the investigation reveals new material facts (confirmed data access, patient count, data types), file an amended 8-K "without unreasonable delay."

4. Business Associates: As a business associate to 45,000 covered entities, CareCloud must notify affected covered entities of the breach determination — those covered entities then have their own 60-day clocks.

On Mythos specifically: Organizations should review their incident response playbooks. The Glasswing 90-day coordinated disclosure timeline means a Mythos-discovered vulnerability disclosed today becomes public knowledge — and attacker playbook — by early July. The regulatory question isn't "did we know about Mythos?" but rather "given the AI threat landscape, were our risk management measures state-of-the-art?" Under NIS2 and emerging UK/EU AI security guidance, the answer to that question will increasingly be tested in enforcement actions.

Pierre — before I conclude, I want to check with you. Given the $120.5M revenue figure and the scale of this breach (45,000 providers, millions of patients), what's your assessment of the materiality threshold for downstream financial impact? Even if CareCloud's direct costs are contained, the reputational and customer churn implications could significantly affect their financial outlook. Would you assess this as material from a market perspective?