Cyber Threat Landscape: 2025 and Beyond
The cyber threat landscape is the sum of all active and emerging threats that organizations face: the actors, their motivations, their techniques, and the systemic conditions that shape how threats evolve.
Continue your mission
The cyber threat landscape is the sum of all active and emerging threats that organizations face: the actors, their motivations, their techniques, and the systemic conditions that shape how threats evolve.
# Cyber Threat Landscape: 2025 and Beyond
The cyber threat landscape is the sum of all active and emerging threats that organizations face: the actors, their motivations, their techniques, and the systemic conditions that shape how threats evolve. This article assesses the current and near-future threat landscape through the lens of the Planetary Defense Model, identifying the threat developments that will define cybersecurity operations for the next three to five years.
This is not a prediction exercise. Predictions are guesses with confidence. This is an assessment based on observable trends, documented capabilities, and the structural incentives that drive threat actor behavior. The trends are already underway. The question is how fast they accelerate and how defenders adapt.
Generative AI has shifted the offensive advantage in social engineering, vulnerability discovery, and malware development.
Social engineering is the first domain where AI impact is measurable. AI-generated phishing content eliminates the grammatical and formatting errors that trained users relied on as detection cues. AI-generated voice clones enable vishing calls indistinguishable from legitimate callers. AI-generated deepfake video enables impersonation that defeats visual verification (the $25 million deepfake video conference fraud in February 2024 demonstrated this at scale). The social engineering attack surface has expanded from "convincing text" to "convincing multimedia across every channel."
AI-assisted vulnerability research is accelerating. Large language models can analyze source code for vulnerability patterns, generate proof-of-concept exploits from vulnerability descriptions, and identify attack chains across multiple components. The time from vulnerability disclosure to weaponized exploit is compressing. Defenders have less time to patch.
AI-generated malware is in its early stages but progressing. LLMs can produce polymorphic code (malware that modifies its own code to evade signature-based detection), customize exploitation payloads for specific environments, and automate the reconnaissance and lateral movement that human operators currently perform manually. The long-term trajectory: automated attack campaigns that operate at machine speed without human operator involvement at each decision point.
CDA's PDI methodology treats AI-powered attacks as a threat intelligence input that changes detection priorities. "See the threat before it sees you." Defenders must shift from recognition-based detection (matching known patterns) to behavioral and anomaly-based detection that identifies adversary objectives regardless of the tools or techniques used to achieve them. AI-generated attacks evade signatures. They do not evade behavioral baselines.
The discovery of Volt Typhoon (2023) and Salt Typhoon (2024) revealed that Chinese state actors have moved beyond espionage to pre-positioning: maintaining persistent, stealthy access to critical infrastructure systems for potential wartime disruption. This is not espionage. It is preparation for sabotage.
The implications extend beyond China. If one nation-state is pre-positioning in adversary infrastructure, every major cyber power is doing the same or developing the capability. Russia demonstrated infrastructure disruption in Ukraine (power grid attacks, 2015 and 2016). The technical capability exists. The strategic doctrine supports it. The operational environment is permissive (the infrastructure is connected to the internet, often with outdated firmware and minimal monitoring).
Pre-positioning threats are invisible to signature-based detection because the attackers use legitimate tools (living off the land) and legitimate credentials (obtained through supply chain access or credential theft). Detection requires behavioral analytics that identify anomalous administrative behavior on infrastructure systems, threat hunting targeted at the specific TTPs that pre-positioning actors use, and network monitoring that detects unusual communication patterns from edge devices.
CDA's founder documented the collaborative cyber strategies of America's adversaries through the Irregular Warfare Initiative. The research demonstrates that state-sponsored cyber operations are not independent national programs. They are increasingly coordinated: shared tooling, shared infrastructure, and shared operational lessons across China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Defenders must anticipate coordinated multi-actor campaigns, not isolated individual operations.
Ransomware has evolved from individual criminal operations to structured criminal enterprises with organizational models, revenue targets, and operational playbooks. The ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) model has industrialized the threat: developers create and maintain the ransomware platform, affiliates conduct the actual intrusions and deployments, and initial access brokers sell network access to affiliates on criminal marketplaces.
The evolution continues in several directions. Multi-extortion models combine encryption (pay to get your data back), data theft (pay to prevent publication of stolen data), DDoS (pay to stop the service disruption), and harassment (the ransomware group contacts the victim's customers, partners, and regulators directly). Each extortion vector adds pressure to pay.
Ransomware targeting has shifted toward critical infrastructure and high-impact sectors. Healthcare (Change Healthcare), government (Costa Rica, multiple U.S. municipalities), education (MOVEit exploitation), and critical manufacturing are targeted because disruption creates urgency that increases the probability of payment.
The economic structure ensures ransomware will persist. As long as victims pay (and the economics of paying versus recovering favor payment for some organizations), the revenue sustains the criminal ecosystem. Structural defenses (immutable backups that make encryption irrelevant, segmentation that limits blast radius, incident response capability that enables rapid recovery) are the controls that change the economics by making attacks survivable without payment.
The shift to cloud and remote work has made identity the primary control plane and the primary attack surface. When users access applications from anywhere, on any device, through any network, the traditional perimeter (firewalls, network segmentation) no longer mediates access. Identity (who you are, verified through authentication) is the control that determines access.
Attackers have adapted. Credential theft, phishing for MFA tokens, MFA fatigue attacks (repeated push notifications until the user accepts), adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) attacks that capture session tokens, OAuth application abuse, and cloud identity manipulation are now the dominant initial access techniques for cloud-first environments.
The SolarWinds compromise demonstrated identity attack sophistication: APT29 forged SAML tokens to access cloud email systems, bypassing every authentication control. This technique (Golden SAML) exploits the identity federation infrastructure that enables SSO across cloud services. If the federation trust is compromised, every federated service is compromised.
The defense response is phishing-resistant MFA (FIDO2/WebAuthn), conditional access policies that verify device posture alongside identity, continuous session evaluation, and identity threat detection that monitors authentication telemetry for anomalies. CDA's ZPA methodology is built for this reality: "Trust nothing. Possess nothing. Verify everything."
Operational Technology (OT) systems (industrial control systems, SCADA, building management, medical devices, manufacturing systems) were historically air-gapped from IT networks. That isolation has eroded as organizations connect OT systems to IT networks for remote monitoring, predictive maintenance, and data analytics. The convergence creates a combined attack surface where a compromise of the IT network provides a path to OT systems that control physical processes.
The consequences of OT compromise are different from IT compromise. An IT breach exposes data. An OT breach can damage physical equipment, disrupt critical services (power, water, transportation), and endanger human safety. The Ukraine power grid attacks (2015, 2016) demonstrated state-sponsored capability to cause physical impact through cyber operations.
The OT threat landscape is amplified by the age and fragility of OT systems. Many industrial control systems run operating systems that are decades old (Windows XP, embedded Linux without security updates), use proprietary protocols without authentication or encryption, and cannot be patched without risking process disruption. Securing OT requires a different approach than securing IT: network segmentation and monitoring rather than endpoint hardening and patching.
CDA's PDM covers OT environments through the same six domains. VSD addresses the OT attack surface (network segmentation between IT and OT, asset inventory of OT devices). SPH addresses OT configuration management (to the extent possible given OT constraints). TID addresses OT threat detection (monitoring for anomalous traffic patterns between IT and OT segments, detecting unauthorized commands to OT controllers). The six domains apply. The implementation differs because OT systems have different constraints, different lifecycles, and different failure consequences than IT systems.
Signature-based detection cannot keep pace with AI-generated attacks, living-off-the-land techniques, and zero-day exploitation. Detection must shift toward behavioral analytics (identify anomalous behavior regardless of the tool used), identity-centric monitoring (detect authentication anomalies, privilege escalation, and session manipulation), and continuous threat hunting (search for pre-positioned adversaries that automated detection has not found).
Organizations that have not implemented zero trust identity architecture (conditional access, phishing-resistant MFA, continuous session evaluation) are defending with a perimeter that no longer exists. Identity is the control plane. Securing identity is securing the perimeter.
Prevention will not stop every attack. The threat landscape is too diverse, too fast-moving, and too well-funded. Resilience (the ability to maintain operations during an attack and recover quickly afterward) must complement prevention. Immutable backups, tested disaster recovery, incident response capability, and business continuity planning are the resilience controls that make organizations survivable.
Generic security programs that deploy controls based on best practices without threat intelligence are defending against yesterday's threats. Intelligence-driven security programs that deploy controls based on the specific actors, techniques, and campaigns targeting their industry and geography are defending against today's and tomorrow's threats. The difference is the intelligence that CDA's PDI methodology makes operational.
The threat landscape validates the Planetary Defense Model's six-domain architecture. AI-powered attacks challenge TID's detection capabilities. State-sponsored pre-positioning challenges SPH's configuration integrity and TID's hunting capability. Ransomware challenges DPS's backup architecture and RGA's governance structures. Identity-based attacks challenge IAT's authentication and access controls. IT/OT convergence challenges VSD's surface management. Each trend maps to existing PDM domains because the PDM describes what you defend, not what attacks you.
CDA's Predictive Defense Intelligence (PDI) methodology is designed for a threat landscape where prediction is more valuable than reaction. "See the threat before it sees you." The organizations that will survive the next five years of threat evolution are the organizations that invest in intelligence-driven detection, identity-centric access control, and resilience-first architecture. The organizations that continue to deploy signature-based detection, network-perimeter security, and prevention-only strategies will find that the threats have evolved past their defenses.
The threat landscape does not wait. Neither can the defense.
Word count: 2,043
CDA Theater missions that address topics covered in this article.
Written by Evan Morgan
Found an issue? Help improve this article.