Resources

Insights, events, and proof from the field

Latest blogs, whitepapers, webinars, in-person events, podcast episodes, and customer case studies — all in one place.

Blog

Latest posts

Thought leadership, product updates, and technical deep dives from the Elastio team.

View all posts

June 5, 2026

7 Questions the Board Should Ask Before Signing the Next Storage or Backup Renewal

A backup renewal can look like a simple procurement exercise, until the company has to recover from a ransomware attack. The failure mode is simple: the audit committee approves a three-year backup renewal, the company later hits a ransomware event, the team restores the newest recovery point, and the workload comes back carrying the encryptor. Three questions follow: who approved the vendor, what evidence did they review, and why did the contract not require proof that the data inside the backup was clean. The renewal should be a recovery audit, and relying on the vendor brochure is not the answer. Short answer Before a storage or backup renewal, the board should ask whether the vendor can prove which recovery points are clean, how fast that proof arrives, what data the inspection covers, and what evidence the company can produce for regulators, insurers, and internal governance. Key takeaways Immutability protects the backup object. It does not inspect the data inside it. The SEC cybersecurity disclosure rule , DORA , and NYDFS Part 500.16 raise the evidence bar around recovery governance, testing, and restore capability. A retention SLA is not a substitute for tested recovery. Many renewals commit to retention windows, immutability, and restore throughput. Fewer define what evidence proves the restored data is clean. The seven questions below are designed to expose where the vendor’s capability ends before the renewal is signed. Why the renewal is now a board question, not a procurement question The SEC’s final rule on cybersecurity disclosure requires public registrants to disclose material cybersecurity incidents on Form 8-K within four business days of materiality determination, including the material aspects of the incident’s nature, scope, timing, and impact. DORA requires financial entities to test ICT business continuity plans and ICT response and recovery plans at least yearly for systems supporting all functions, with particular attention to critical or important functions. NYDFS 23 NYCRR Part 500.16 requires covered entities to test their incident response and business continuity and disaster recovery plans and their ability to restore critical data and information systems from backups. The common thread is evidence that critical services can be restored securely enough to resume operations. The renewal cycle is the cleanest moment to put that evidence requirement into the contract, while the customer still has negotiating power and the vendor still has to prove fit. The control the renewal usually skips Almost every backup vendor now includes immutability features. Immutability prevents a backup object from being changed for a defined period. AWS’s S3 Object Lock documentation describes Object Lock as a write-once-read-many model that can prevent objects from being deleted or overwritten. That protects object state, but it does not claim to inspect the protected object’s contents. A backup can be immutable, retained, replicated, and still be unsafe to restore. The seven questions below force the vendor to address the part of the recovery contract that the brochure typically does not. 1. Where in the recovery pipeline does the platform actually inspect the contents of the backup? There is a meaningful gap between metadata anomaly detection and content-level inspection. Key Distinction Metadata anomaly detection flags entropy changes, file-count deltas, or write-pattern shifts that suggest something is wrong on the storage layer. Content-level inspection opens the protected objects and tests the data inside them against malware indicators, encryption patterns, and integrity checks. Ask the vendor to draw the architecture on a whiteboard. If the answer is that detection happens entirely through storage-layer metadata signals, the vendor cannot tell the board what is inside the backup. It can only tell the board that the backup looks different from yesterday’s. NIST Special Publication 800-209 , the federal guidance on storage infrastructure security, names data protection and restoration assurance as separate storage-infrastructure security areas. Vendors that conflate the two should be expected to defend the conflation in technical detail, not in marketing terms. 2. What encryption ratios does the detector reliably catch, and what does it miss? Partial and intermittent encryption are documented ransomware tradecraft. CISA and FBI have described Royal ransomware using partial encryption that lets the actor choose how much of a file to encrypt, and the joint RansomHub advisory documents intermittent encryption that encrypts chunks and skips data between them. Those techniques create weak spots for detectors that depend on whole-file entropy jumps or full-file hash changes. Ask the vendor for the smallest encrypted portion of a file that the platform reliably flags, and the detection rate at that threshold. A vendor that cannot answer in numbers is asking the board to take its word for it. 3. How quickly can the platform identify the most recent recovery point that is verifiably clean? Restore throughput is not the first bottleneck during a real incident. Decision speed is. If the team has thirty days of recovery points and the compromise may predate visible encryption, the binding question is which recovery point predates the bad state. The operational version of that metric is clean recovery point age: the gap between now and the newest recovery point with evidence that it is safe to restore. Ransomware Recovery Starts With a Provable Clean Recovery Point walks through how that evidence is produced and why most backup contracts do not require it. Ask the vendor for time-to-identify-clean-recovery-point on a dataset matched to the customer’s production estate. A vendor that quotes restore throughput in TB per hour is answering a different question. The team that has to use the answer at 3 a.m. is not the team that signed the contract. The contract should answer the 3 a.m. question. 4. How does the platform handle dormant malware inside data files such as Office documents, PDFs, archives, and container images? Recovery points contain more than operating system images. They contain user data, application data, archives, and container artifacts that may be reopened, imported, mounted, or pulled after restore. If inspection only covers boot volumes or executable files, it misses content that can carry malware, corrupted state, or unsafe application data into the recovered environment. Ask whether scanning extends inside non-executable file formats, nested archives, and container layers, with which static and behavioral engines, and on what cadence. A vendor that only inspects boot volumes is leaving part of the recovery surface untested. 5. What isolation discipline applies to the validation environment, and what is the blast radius if it is compromised? Validation has to run somewhere. Running it on production carries the risk of executing the malware the validation was meant to detect. Running it in a poorly isolated environment carries the risk of giving the attacker a new vantage point. NIST SP 800-209 names isolation as a distinct storage-infrastructure security area alongside data protection and restoration assurance. The vendor should be able to describe how the validation environment is network-isolated, identity-isolated, and credentialed separately from the production estate. A common operational failure mode is a validation environment that uses production-domain service accounts. Once those accounts are compromised, the validation environment becomes part of the attack surface, not a check on it. 6. What artifact will the vendor produce for a SEC 8-K, DORA, NYDFS, insurer, or board review? The answer should not be “a dashboard screenshot.” The useful artifact is a dated record that ties a verdict to a recovery point, shows what was inspected, lists skipped content, identifies the validation environment, and records who approved the recovery point for use. Our summary of how recovery assurance maps to NYDFS 500.16 and DORA describes the artifact pattern. A companion post on what CISOs must prove about recovery in 2026 walks through DORA-specific recovery evidence expectations. The SEC Item 1.05 clock is not a backup-control requirement; it is a disclosure deadline. But when recovery teams already have artifact-level clean-point evidence, legal and leadership are not reconstructing recovery status while the clock is running. Ask the vendor to show a sample evidence packet, not a screenshot of the console. 7. Can the vendor demonstrate clean-state continuity on the customer’s own data for the last 30 days, before the renewal is signed? Reference datasets and lab demonstrations do not predict performance on the customer’s actual workloads. A platform that catches synthetic encryption on a vendor-supplied corpus may or may not catch a tailored attack on a real customer’s mix of SQL Server dumps, Office documents, application logs, and container images. A 30-day window is not magic. It is a practical test window long enough to expose stale scans, skipped data types, verdict latency, and environment-specific failure modes. Ask the vendor to validate the customer’s own backups, in place, over a representative window, and to produce the resulting evidence. Independent recovery-assurance platforms, including Elastio, can run this assessment against an existing backup estate before signature. A vendor that will not produce customer-specific evidence before signature should not be expected to produce it after. The decision the board is actually making The renewal is not a question about whether the company can take a backup. The renewal is a question about whether the company can prove a clean restore on the worst day of its year. If the vendor cannot answer in technical specifics, with audit-ready evidence, on the customer’s own data, the board is approving retention, not recovery. When the next backup renewal lands in the audit committee packet, can the company produce dated, artifact-level evidence that the newest recovery point is safe to restore, on its own data, this quarter? Bring evidence to the next renewal review Run a 30-day recovery assessment against your existing backup estate and produce the artifact-level clean-point evidence the board, regulators, and insurers expect. Request a Recovery Assessment Sources [1] AWS, Locking objects with Object Lock , Amazon S3 User Guide. [2] CISA and FBI, #StopRansomware: Royal Ransomware , Joint Cybersecurity Advisory AA23-061A, 2 March 2023. [3] CISA, FBI, MS-ISAC, and HHS, #StopRansomware: RansomHub Ransomware , Joint Cybersecurity Advisory AA24-242A, 29 August 2024. [4] European Union, Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 (Digital Operational Resilience Act) , 14 December 2022. [5] Elastio, Ransomware Recovery Starts With a Provable Clean Recovery Point . [6] Elastio, Enhancing Financial Cybersecurity: Aligning Elastio’s Ransomware Recovery Assurance with NYDFS Section 500.16 and DORA Compliance . [7] Elastio, DORA: What CISOs Must Prove About Recovery in 2026 . [8] NIST, Special Publication 800-209: Security Guidelines for Storage Infrastructure , October 2020. [9] NYDFS, Second Amendment to 23 NYCRR 500: Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies , November 2023. [10] SEC, Final Rule: Cybersecurity Risk Management, Strategy, Governance, and Incident Disclosure , Release Nos. 33-11216; 34-97989; July 2023.

Read post →

June 5, 2026

8 Backup Realities Modern Ransomware Has Broken

The phrase “we have backups” used to end the recovery conversation. Today it opens one. Backup teams built a decade of practice around assumptions that were true in 2018 and largely true in 2021: immutable storage was the hard part, the EDR stack would catch any threats, and a green job report meant a recoverable copy. The 2024 to 2026 incident record has cracked each of those assumptions in a specific, measurable way. Sophos research found that organizations whose backups were successfully impacted during a ransomware attack saw median recovery costs eight times higher than those whose backups remained intact . The economic gradient between “had backups” and “had recoverable backups” is no longer a footnote. What follows is eight assumptions to stop relying on, what broke each one, and the control that closes the gap. What Holds, What Broke Immutability, air-gap, retention, EDR, and job-status reporting still hold. The assumption that those same controls also prove a recovery point is clean, current, and safe to restore does not. The missing control is a dated verdict on the contents of the protected data, tied to a specific recovery point and preserved as recovery evidence. Reality 1: Immutability Is Not Recoverability Immutable storage prevents a backup object from being changed for a defined retention period. It does not inspect the data inside the object. That distinction was an academic point ten years ago. It is a recovery-blocking issue now. When attackers write encrypted, partially encrypted, or malware-laden data into a backup window before the lock takes effect, immutability becomes the guarantee that the bad copy will persist for the full retention period. NIST’s Security Guidelines for Storage Infrastructure (SP 800-209) lists data protection, isolation, and restoration assurance as distinct security domains for a reason. Storage that cannot be altered is one of those. Storage that can be safely restored is another. Key Distinction Treat immutability as a write-side control. Treat content inspection of the protected object as the read-side control that proves recoverability. Pair the two, or accept that retention alone is not enough. Reality 2: EDR Sees Production, Not What Is Frozen In Snapshots Endpoint detection and response works by watching processes, syscalls, memory, and behavior on a running host. A snapshot or block-level backup is none of those. It is a frozen file system at a point in time, sitting in storage that the EDR agent does not run on and cannot observe. This gap is widening. Picus Security’s Red Report 2024 documented a 333% increase in “hunter-killer” malware that targets and disables the very EDR, AV, and logging tools defenders rely on. When the production agent is blinded, the snapshot taken under that agent’s watch inherits the silence. The 333% Surge in Hunter-Killer Malware walks through why that pattern moves the integrity check off the host and into the storage layer. Key Distinction A snapshot inherits the trust state of the system that produced it. If the agent could not see the compromise, the snapshot will not flag it. Inspect the data at rest with controls that do not depend on the production endpoint stack. Reality 3: A “Successful Backup” Is A Job Status, Not A Data Verdict The backup console says “Success.” That status confirms that the backup job ran, the files were transferred, the catalog updated, and the retention policy applied. It does not say anything about whether the data inside that backup is clean, recoverable, or already encrypted. Modern ransomware groups have learned to write data that passes every job-level check. The joint Akira ransomware advisory (AA24-109A, updated November 2025) describes Akira’s use of intermittent encryption, where large files are encrypted in chunks with gaps in between, and Linux variants that scan for /dev/mapper backup paths and Veeam configurations. The backup job runs to completion. The verdict on the data inside it never gets rendered. Ransomware isn’t a malware problem anymore. It’s a data integrity problem covers the operational shift this requires. Key Distinction The backup product reports job state. Recovery readiness requires a separate data-state verdict, produced by reading the contents of the protected object after it is written. Reality 4: Air-Gap Does Not Help If The Ransomware Was Already In The Source Air-gapped vaults solve the problem of an attacker reaching the backup over the network. They do not solve the problem of an attacker who was already in the source system when the backup was written. If the recovery point captured an encryptor, a dropper, a tampered application binary, or a compromised dependency, the gap protects that payload at the same fidelity as the rest of the data. Mandiant’s M-Trends 2026 report , based on more than 500,000 hours of frontline investigations in 2025, found a global median dwell time of 14 days, with internally detected intrusions sitting at 9 days and externally notified ones at 25 days. In ransomware cases, Mandiant observed that internal teams identified the compromise only 41% of the time, with adversaries themselves revealing the intrusion in 44% and external entities notifying victims in 15%. The implication for backups is direct: a daily backup schedule with 14 days of retention can sweep right through the dwell window of a quietly running intrusion before anyone inside the organization sees it. By the time you see ransomware, your backups may already be compromised lays out that timeline failure in more detail. Key Distinction An air gap controls write access from outside. It does not validate the integrity of what got written from inside. Validate before the data enters the vault, not only after. Reality 5: Entropy And Metadata Anomalies Miss Encryption-In-Place Anomaly detection on backup data typically watches for entropy spikes, file-count deltas, mass renames, or change-rate jumps. That worked against early ransomware families that encrypted whole files at scale. It does not work against intermittent encryption, partial encryption, or encryption that operates below the change-rate threshold the detector treats as normal. CISA’s BlackSuit/Royal advisory describes a partial encryption capability that lets the operator choose the percentage of a file to encrypt, specifically to evade entropy-based detectors and improve speed. Academic measurement work, including recent research on intermittent file encryption , shows that family-aware encryption coverage can be tuned to sit below the detectability ceiling of histogram and entropy methods. The Accuracy Gap covers the SOC-level consequence: a stream of false positives that gets muted, alongside the real signal that never fires. Off-platform encryption compounds the problem. Some attackers copy files to an unmanaged host, encrypt them outside the storage platform, and write the result back. What happens when attackers encrypt your data off-platform explains why the location of the encryption event does not change the integrity outcome for the data. Key Distinction Statistical inference is one signal. Structural content inspection of the protected object is the signal that produces a verdict. Reality 6: 30-Day Retention Is No Longer A Safety Margin Retention math was once simple: more days back, more chances to find a clean point. The numbers cut differently now because attackers increasingly target the systems that make recovery possible, not only the systems that run production. Verizon’s 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report reports that ransomware is now involved in 48% of breaches. Mandiant’s 2026 M-Trends report describes a related shift: ransomware operators are moving toward deliberate recovery denial by targeting backup infrastructure, identity services, and virtualization management planes. That is the point where a retention window becomes a search problem under pressure. The operational consequence is that 30 days of backups is not a guarantee that the oldest copy predates the compromise. It is a guarantee that 30 days worth of backups exist to inspect. The metric that matters during an incident is the age of the newest backup with affirmative evidence of cleanliness, the clean recovery point. RPO is not enough for ransomware recovery explains why backup frequency and clean-point age are different measures, and what incident response teams see after cloud ransomware describes how that question dominates the first hours of every cloud-side investigation. Key Distinction Retention is the search space. Verified cleanliness is the answer key. Add days only when you can also add evidence per day. Reality 7: Backup Credentials Are Tier 0 Assets, Whether Or Not You Treat Them That Way The CISA, NSA, and ASD ACSC joint guidance on detecting and mitigating Active Directory compromises places backup servers for Tier 0 assets inside the Tier 0 perimeter, alongside domain controllers and identity infrastructure. Many backup environments are still administered as if they were Tier 1: shared service accounts, password vault entries reachable from production, MFA enforced unevenly across the backup admin console. The 2025 update to the Akira advisory documents exactly what attackers do with that gap. Akira operators have been observed exploiting CVE-2024-40711, an unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability in Veeam Backup and Replication , then running PowerShell scripts to dump credentials from backup servers and extract Kerberos tickets. The Linux encryptor enumerates /dev/mapper paths and backup configurations before deleting shadow copies. The compromise of the backup admin path collapses both the production and recovery sides of the incident at once. The Blind Spot of Zero Trust covers the ephemeral and machine-identity angle that makes this harder in cloud environments. Key Distinction Backup administrative paths sit at Tier 0 in the modern threat model. Patch cadence, credential isolation, and access review for the backup stack belong on the same calendar as the domain controllers. Reality 8: One-Time Scans Cannot Keep Up With Dormant Payloads And Late Detonation A scan-at-ingest model produces a verdict at the moment the backup is written. That verdict assumes the threat model the scanner knew about that day. It does not catch payloads whose detection signatures emerge weeks later, dormant scripts that only execute under specific conditions, or attacker-introduced artifacts whose role only becomes clear once additional context arrives. The FBI’s 2024 Internet Crime Report catalogs 67 new ransomware variants observed in a single year. A scan that ran in January against a backup written that day did not have signature coverage for variants that emerged in October. Dormant access tools embedded in office documents, container images, and source repositories compound the problem: the scanner sees the file, finds nothing actionable, and moves on. What Is Recovery Assurance frames the alternative as continuous validation rather than one-shot inspection. Key Distinction Scan-once is point-in-time. Recoverability is a continuous property of the protected estate. Re-inspect existing recovery points against current threat intelligence on a defined cadence, with the same artifact discipline as the original scan. What The Pattern Shows Read the eight realities side by side and one pattern dominates: the controls that protected the container of the backup are still working, while the controls that protect the content inside it either never existed or stopped scaling with the threat. Immutability holds. Air-gap holds. Retention holds. Object integrity, encryption-state verdicts, and clean-point evidence are the parts that broke. That break changes the first decision on the recovery bridge. If the team cannot prove a clean recovery point, it is no longer choosing a restore point. It is deciding whether to restore or rebuild after ransomware . That is a fixable problem. Backup teams do not need to abandon the architecture they have. They need to add the verdict layer the architecture was never asked to deliver: deep file inspection and structural validation of the protected object, produced as a dated artifact, tied to a specific recovery point, retained alongside the data it describes. Our platform builds that verdict layer on top of existing backup, snapshot, and vault infrastructure, agentless and independent of the production endpoint stack. For teams that want to see where the verdict layer would actually land in their environment, the Recovery Assessment runs against an existing backup estate and produces the artifact in the language a board, a regulator, and an incident commander all need to read. See where the verdict layer lands in your environment A Recovery Assessment runs against your existing backup estate and produces a dated, defensible verdict on which recovery points are actually clean. Request a Recovery Assessment Sources [1] CISA, NSA, ASD ACSC, and partners, Detecting and Mitigating Active Directory Compromises , September 2024. [2] FBI, CISA, DC3, HHS, EUROPOL, and partners, #StopRansomware: Akira Ransomware , Joint Cybersecurity Advisory AA24-109A, updated 13 November 2025. [3] CISA and FBI, #StopRansomware: BlackSuit (Royal) Ransomware , Joint Cybersecurity Advisory AA23-061A, August 2024 update. [4] FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center, 2024 IC3 Annual Report , 2025. [5] Mandiant (Google Cloud), M-Trends 2026: Data, Insights, and Strategies From the Frontlines , March 2026. [6] NIST, Special Publication 800-209: Security Guidelines for Storage Infrastructure , October 2020. [7] NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE-2024-40711: Veeam Backup and Replication Deserialization Vulnerability . [8] Picus Security, Red Report 2024: The Rise of “Hunter-Killer” Malware , February 2024. [9] Sophos, The Impact of Compromised Backups on Ransomware Outcomes , 2024 ransomware research. [10] Verizon, 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report , May 2026. [11] arXiv preprint, Intermittent File Encryption in Ransomware: Measurement, Modeling, and Detection , revised February 2026. [12] Elastio, Ransomware Isn’t a Malware Problem Anymore. It’s a Data Integrity Problem . [13] Elastio, The 333% Surge in Hunter-Killer Malware . [14] Elastio, By the Time You See Ransomware, Your Backups May Already Be Compromised . [15] Elastio, The Accuracy Gap: Why Anomaly and Entropy Detection Fail the Ransomware Resilience Lifecycle . [16] Elastio, What Happens When Attackers Encrypt Your Data Off-Platform . [17] Elastio, RPO Is Not Enough for Ransomware Recovery . [18] Elastio, What Incident Response Teams See After Cloud Ransomware . [19] Elastio, The Blind Spot of Zero Trust . [20] Elastio, What Is Recovery Assurance? . [21] Elastio, Restore or Rebuild After Ransomware? A Recovery Decision Framework . [22] Elastio, Platform . [23] Elastio, Recovery Assessment .

Read post →

Unlocking the Power of Cloud Transformation with AWS and Elastio

June 5, 2026

Unlocking the Power of Cloud Transformation with AWS and Elastio

On July 16, 2025, the AWS Summit took over the Javits Center in New York City, gathering cloud leaders, developers, and innovators to discuss how the next phase of cloud computing is shaping industries, transforming infrastructure, and raising the bar on resilience and trust. Two clear themes emerged from the Summit this year: cloud migration and security and compliance . These twin pillars are not just technical imperatives. They are business mandates. Organizations are moving away from legacy systems and embracing AWS cloud infrastructure for its elasticity, scalability, and global reach. With that transition comes heightened responsibility: how do you ensure your workloads remain secure, compliant, and recoverable in an era where threats like ransomware and regulatory scrutiny are on the rise? This is where Elastio , in close alignment with AWS, becomes essential. By offering integrated ransomware recovery assurance and clean restore validation, Elastio delivers exactly what today’s cloud-forward enterprises need: provable control over data integrity and recovery. Cloud Migration: Making the Move with Confidence Despite the maturity of cloud computing, many enterprises are still in the early stages of their cloud journeys or are undergoing complex, multi-phase migrations. The Summit emphasized how AWS continues to evolve its migration playbooks and tooling: AWS Application Migration Service (MGN) simplifies lift-and-shift. AWS Migration Hub provides visibility and control across the migration portfolio. AWS DataSync and Snowball handle large-scale data movement. Migration isn’t just about moving workloads. It’s about making sure those workloads are secure, resilient, and recoverable on day one. That refrain came up across speakers and panelists, and it sets up what Elastio brings to AWS cloud migrations. Recovery Assurance Built Into the Migration Elastio strengthens AWS cloud migrations by ensuring organizations don’t just move data. They validate that the data is safe and restorable post-migration. Ransomware scanning for AWS snapshots and DRS replicas. Elastio automatically scans AWS-native backups, including EBS Snapshots, Amazon S3 backups, and AWS DRS replicas, for indicators of compromise. Recovery points, whether from backup or disaster recovery replicas, are confirmed clean and ready for safe restoration. Recovery assurance for migrated workloads. After migration, Elastio continuously monitors the recoverability of critical assets. It doesn’t wait for a disaster to test recovery, it validates restorability as a regular practice. AWS-native integration. Elastio plugs directly into AWS services. Whether you’re using AWS Backup, EC2, or S3, Elastio works in tandem to validate the integrity of your data without disrupting operations. Cloud migration is ultimately about reducing risk and ensuring future readiness. Elastio aligns with those goals by providing an essential layer of migration hygiene , confirming not only that your data arrived safely but that it’s clean and usable. Security and Compliance: Building Trust at Scale 2025 marks a turning point in how organizations approach cloud security, not just in posture but in provability. With global regulations such as DORA , NYDFS 500 , SEC cybersecurity rules , and CISA cross-sector mandates , the conversation has shifted. The Shift The question is no longer “do we have security?” It is “can we prove it?” AWS addressed this shift with deeper investments in automated Security Hub integrations, Zero Trust architecture support, end-to-end encryption enhancements, and audit-ready compliance frameworks such as ISO, SOC, and FedRAMP. One of the most frequently discussed pain points, however, remains data recovery assurance. As attackers shift tactics and regulatory fines loom larger, companies must validate that they can recover cleanly from incidents rather than just hope they can. Making Recovery a Proven Control Elastio meets this challenge by transforming backup validation into a cybersecurity control . Together with AWS, it enables organizations to: Continuously verify recovery readiness. Elastio automatically validates backups and snapshots in AWS environments, checking for malware, file entropy anomalies, and corruption, so recovery points are both available and trustworthy. Maintain immutable recovery points. Leveraging AWS-native immutability capabilities such as S3 Object Lock and AWS Backup Vault Lock , Elastio ensures recovery artifacts can’t be altered or deleted, satisfying both ransomware protection and compliance requirements. Generate compliance-ready reports. Elastio delivers audit-grade logs and reports showing that every snapshot and backup has been validated for recoverability. These artifacts become powerful tools during regulatory assessments, cyber insurance reviews, and executive board reporting. CISOs are being asked to prove cyber resilience, not just posture. That is where Elastio and AWS deliver the rare combination of proof and performance . The Future of Cloud Demands Clean Recovery The 2025 AWS Summit made one thing clear: cloud adoption is no longer just about innovation. It is about accountability . Enterprises must prove that their infrastructure is resilient, secure, and compliant. That is why the fusion of AWS’s vast infrastructure services with Elastio’s recovery assurance platform matters. As you consider your next cloud migration or evaluate your cyber readiness posture, the question is not “can we recover?” It is “can we prove that our recovery will be clean, fast, and compliant?” With AWS and Elastio, the answer is yes. Prove Your Recovery Is Clean See how Elastio validates AWS-native backups and DRS replicas, so your next migration ships with provable clean recovery. See the Platform Sources [1] AWS Partner Network Blog, Cyber Recovery with AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and Elastio Platform [2] AWS Partner Network Blog, Elastio Integrates with AWS Backup for Secure Backups to Enhance Ransomware Defense

Read post →

When the Attacker Finds the Flaws First: Why Resilience Just Became Mandatory

June 3, 2026

When the Attacker Finds the Flaws First: Why Resilience Just Became Mandatory

In April 2026, Bloomberg reported that the U.S. Treasury Secretary and the Federal Reserve Chair pulled the CEOs of the largest American banks into an unscheduled, closed-door meeting. The reported subject was not monetary policy, liquidity, or capital. It was cyber risk from a single AI model. Anthropic had disclosed Claude Mythos Preview , describing it as a system that can autonomously identify and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities in every major operating system and every major web browser when directed by a user. Anthropic’s documented examples include a four-vulnerability browser exploit chain that escaped both renderer and OS sandboxes, chained Linux kernel exploits, and the fully autonomous exploitation of a 17-year-old remote code execution flaw in FreeBSD’s NFS server. Anthropic initially kept access tightly gated through Project Glasswing, with roughly 50 partners drawn from major technology and critical-infrastructure providers. On 2 June 2026, Anthropic expanded access to approximately 150 additional organizations across more than 15 countries, adding power, water, healthcare, communications, and hardware sectors that were underrepresented in the first cohort. The April meeting was not about a current exploit wave. It was about the possible future risks raised by Mythos and similar models once comparable capability reaches the wider market. Anthropic now expects many other AI companies to have Mythos-class models within 6 to 12 months , and warns that some could release them without safeguards that prevent misuse. The IMF has framed AI-enabled cyberattacks as a financial stability risk , citing the way frontier models compress the cost of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities and the correlated-failure exposure that follows when shared software, cloud, and payment infrastructure carry the same weaknesses. That framing matters. It moves AI-enabled attack capability from an IT problem to a systemic one. Mythos changes attacker economics. DORA and the ECB’s supervisory priorities change what banks are expected to prove about operational resilience. Security and risk leaders now have to connect those two pressures. What Mythos actually changes Mythos does not invent a new category of attack. It removes the constraints that made the existing ones expensive. The work of finding a zero-day, weaponizing it, and chaining it across systems used to require scarce, expensive human expertise. That scarcity was a defensive asset. It limited how many capable adversaries existed and how fast they could move. Mythos-class models compress that work into something faster, cheaper, and repeatable at scale. Scarce human expertise was a defensive asset. Mythos-class models remove that scarcity. The practical consequence is volume and speed. More vulnerabilities found, more exploit paths tested, more targets reached per unit of attacker effort. Anthropic’s internal OSS-Fuzz benchmark is a useful scale marker: with one run on roughly 7,000 entry points, Mythos Preview reached 595 tier 1 and tier 2 crashes, several tier 3 and tier 4 crashes, and full control-flow hijack on ten fully patched targets. The IMF makes the systemic version of the same point: advanced AI models can reduce the time and cost needed to identify and exploit vulnerabilities , raising the chance that shared software and cloud infrastructure expose many institutions at once. The honest framing, and the one that survives a skeptical room: prevention, patching, identity controls, detection, and tested recovery still matter. The fundamentals did not change. The cost of ignoring them did. Why prevention can no longer carry the risk alone Prevention, patching, identity controls, software supply-chain risk management, and detection remain central. The point is not that they stop mattering. The point is that they cannot carry the full weight of the risk once exploit development gets cheap. Most defensive layers inspect something other than the data itself. Key Distinction Endpoint, identity, network, and perimeter controls watch for the attacker on the way in. Backup systems copy data on the way out. In many recovery architectures, no independent control continuously verifies whether the data inside snapshots, backups, and recovery points is clean enough to restore. That is not a new control category invented for Mythos. CISA’s #StopRansomware Guide tells organizations to test backup availability and integrity in disaster recovery scenarios and to avoid reintroducing unverified systems into clean recovery networks. NIST SP 800-184 gives the same operational shape: recovery planning should include a staging system to validate recovered data from backups , and its ransomware recovery scenario calls for inventorying backup systems, checking backup integrity, and restoring only from backups that pass playbook criteria. That gap is where ransomware survives. It is where dormant malware waits. When an attacker can find and exploit flaws faster than you can patch them, the assumption that you will keep every adversary out stops being defensible. The question shifts from “can we prevent this” to “when it happens, can we recover to a known clean state, and can we prove it.” For resilience to be measurable, recovery cannot stop at whether a backup exists or whether a restore job completes. The control has to answer a harder question: what evidence shows this recovery point is safe enough to restore. That is the difference between having backups and having recovery evidence . A CISO is not expected to guarantee zero successful attacks. The defensible standard is whether the organization had reasonable, provable controls across prevention, detection, response, and recovery when one succeeded. Elastio frames that standard for security leaders in Active Cyber Resilience for Security Leaders . Mythos raises the pressure on the assumption that prevention will hold. That is why it raises the bar on recovery, not just defense. For banks, the ECB has already made resilience non-negotiable DORA and the ECB’s 2026-2028 supervisory priorities were drafted on their own logic about systemic operational risk, before Mythos was disclosed. European financial regulators reached the same conclusion through a different door, and they reached it first. Mythos does not create those obligations, but it makes the recovery-evidence problem harder to ignore. For the 2026 to 2028 supervisory cycle , the ECB placed cyber and operational resilience at the center of its agenda. Supervisors no longer treat cybersecurity as a technical control to be checked. They expect banks to demonstrate that critical services survive severe disruption, whether the trigger is a geopolitical event, a technology failure, or the collapse of a key third-party provider. The mechanism is the Digital Operational Resilience Act. DORA entered into force in 2023 and has applied since January 2025, demanding an end-to-end resilience program: full ICT risk governance, incident reporting, resilience testing, lifecycle oversight of third parties, and evidence that the program works in practice. Oversight of critical third-party providers under DORA launched in January 2026 . Three elements of the ECB’s posture should anchor any board conversation: Speed of accountability. Significant institutions across the 20 euro area countries must report a cyber incident within two hours of classifying it as material. Two hours is not a detection window. It is an obligation that assumes you already know your state. Adversarial testing as a requirement. Systemically important banks must perform threat-led penetration testing at least once every three years , using external testers who replicate real-world attacker tactics against live systems. This is not vulnerability scanning. It is a test of whether live systems expose intrusion paths that resemble real attacker behavior. Evidence over assertion. The ECB is running on-site inspection campaigns, deep dives into cloud dependency, and targeted follow-up on banks that report material shortcomings. Stating that you are resilient is not sufficient. You are expected to prove it. The direction of travel is unambiguous. What was a recommended practice is becoming a supervised obligation. Banks that treat resilience as a strategic priority are better positioned to meet the expectation. Banks that treat it as a compliance checkbox risk surfacing findings. The question that connects both The regulator in Frankfurt and the AI model in the headlines are pointing at the same gap. If you were hit today, can you state your actual recovery time, identify which data is clean, and prove it to a board, a regulator, or an insurer? If that answer lives only in meeting-room confidence, it is not evidence. The gap between what a CISO is accountable for and what a CISO can measure is the real exposure. Mythos widens it by making exploit development faster, cheaper, and less dependent on scarce specialists. DORA exposes it by demanding the proof. Resilience is not a backup strategy. It is a security control. Specifically, resilience is the evidence trail that shows which recovery point was inspected, what was checked, and whether ransomware or malware was detected before the restore decision. In practice, that proof is concrete. It is the last-known-clean recovery point. It is Resilience RPO , or R-RPO, which reports the gap between now and the newest recovery point that has passed the relevant validation checks, not the timestamp of the latest backup. In Elastio’s AWS Backup integration, that validation can be wired in at the backup plan: adding elastio:action=scan instructs Elastio to inspect recovery points created by that plan for ransomware and malware , so inspection follows the schedule the backup already runs on. DORA Article 12 does not prescribe a named tool, and it does not require continuous ransomware scanning. It requires documented backup and recovery procedures, periodic testing, and restoration methods that do not jeopardize security or data integrity. The operational version of that requirement is uncomfortable. Consider a recovery that completes against a point dated weeks before the visible intrusion, when the encryptor was already staged in the environment at that point. Without inspection of the recovery point itself, the restore team has less evidence for distinguishing a clean recovery from a re-infection risk before the data comes back online. That is the evidence gap. For teams that want Elastio-operated validation rather than a self-run integrity workflow, the Managed Provable Recovery Service continuously validates backup and recovery data, confirms the last-known-clean recovery point based on validation results, and produces evidence a board, insurer, or supervisor can review. That is the work. Not preventing every attack, which is no longer a defensible promise. Holding provable clean recovery points, so that when an attack succeeds, recovery is a known quantity rather than a hope. DORA raises the evidence expectation. Mythos-class capability raises the pressure on prevention. The only open question is whether you can answer the recovery question with evidence before someone with authority asks it for you. Book a Recovery Assessment Answer the recovery question with evidence: which recovery point would you restore first, and what proof would you bring to the board? Request an Assessment Sources [1] Bloomberg, Anthropic Model Scare Sparks Urgent Bessent, Powell Warning to Bank CEOs , 10 April 2026 [2] Anthropic Red Team, Assessing Claude Mythos Preview’s cybersecurity capabilities , 7 April 2026 [3] Anthropic, Expanding Project Glasswing , 2 June 2026 [4] IMF, Financial Stability Risks Mount as Artificial Intelligence Fuels Cyberattacks , 7 May 2026 [5] CISA, FBI, NSA, and MS-ISAC, #StopRansomware Guide , 2023 [6] NIST, SP 800-184: Guide for Cybersecurity Event Recovery , December 2016 [7] Elastio, RPO Is Not Enough for Ransomware Recovery , 2026 [8] Elastio, Active Cyber Resilience for Security Leaders , 2026 [9] ECB Banking Supervision, Supervisory priorities 2026-28 , November 2025 [10] ECB, What is cyber resilience? , accessed 2 June 2026 [11] ECB Banking Supervision, Upgrading banks’ capacity to deal with digital risks , 24 March 2026 [12] Elastio, Data Detection and Resilience Platform , 2026 [13] Elastio Help Center, Protect AWS Backup Recovery Points , updated 4 March 2025 [14] European Union, Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, Digital Operational Resilience Act , 14 December 2022 [15] Elastio Help Center, Managed Provable Recovery Service , updated 11 November 2025

Read post →

May 31, 2026

Restore or Rebuild After Ransomware? A Recovery Decision Framework

Ransomware recovery has two jobs that pull against each other: bring services back and avoid bringing the attacker back with them. That is why “restore from backup” is not always the right first move. A restore can return encrypted data, malware, unauthorized accounts, altered configuration, poisoned scripts, or compromised identity state. A rebuild can reduce that risk, but only if the team has protected application sources, infrastructure definitions, secrets handling, package repositories, and deployment steps. The decision is not a purity test. It is an evidence test. Restore when you can prove the recovery point and system state are trustworthy. Rebuild when you cannot. Use the decision table before the bridge call Decision factor Restore when Rebuild when Recovery point The clean point is verified and recent enough. The clean point is unknown, suspect, or too old for the business. Identity Directory state and privileged access are trusted. Directory state or privileged access may be compromised. Configuration Configuration baseline matches a known-good reference, with no unauthorized persistence detected. Configuration drift, persistence, or tampering is suspected. Dependencies Service dependencies are mapped and tested. Dependency state is unknown or stale. Business tolerance Speed matters and the evidence supports restore. Risk tolerance requires a known-good build path. Do not invent the decision criteria during the incident An incident bridge is a bad place to create a recovery policy. The pressure is real. Someone will ask for the fastest path, someone else will ask for the safest path, and the team may not have enough evidence to defend either one. NIST’s contingency planning guidance makes one useful point: recovery needs plans, procedures, and technical measures before the disruption, not during it, as described in its contingency planning topic page . NIST CSF 2.0 makes the same point from the risk side: recovery depends on planning and testing across the broader cyber program in the CSF 2.0 core . The practical takeaway is blunt: the restore-or-rebuild criteria belong in the recovery plan before encryption starts. Restore when the evidence is good enough Restore is the right path when speed does not require guesswork. The team needs a recovery point that is recent enough for the business and validated for integrity. AWS Well-Architected recommends periodic recovery tests that verify restored data is available, uncorrupted, accessible, and inside RPO and RTO targets in REL09-BP04 . CIS Control 11 anchors the same standard from the controls side: recovery is not done until assets and data are back in a documented, trusted state, as described in its data recovery control . For restore to be defensible, the team should be able to answer a few uncomfortable questions: Which recovery point is clean? How was that validated? Which identities, secrets, and privileged accounts will be used during recovery? Which tests prove the restored application works? What evidence will be kept for audit, insurance, legal, and post-incident review? If those answers are current and rehearsed, restore can be the fastest path back. If they are being assembled from memory, the team is already late. Rebuild when trust is broken Rebuild is the safer path when the system state is not trustworthy. That usually means the operating system, application binaries, configuration, endpoint management tooling, identity layer, privileged access path, or deployment pipeline might be contaminated. In that situation, restoring a server image may restore the attacker’s working environment. MITRE ATT&CK’s Data Encrypted for Impact technique notes that encryption malware may use valid accounts, credential dumping, and admin shares to propagate. MITRE’s Inhibit System Recovery technique lists behavior that deletes shadow copies, disables recovery, and removes backup catalogs. Those tactics turn a data restore problem into a trust problem. Rebuild needs preparation, not heroics: Clean operating system media or protected base images. Known-good infrastructure definitions. Reproducible application deployment steps. A path to recover data without restoring compromised OS or application state. Tests that prove business function, not only host availability. Rebuild is not slow by nature. It is slow when the organization has never treated it as a recovery path. Settle identity before reconnecting applications Identity is not another dependency on the list. It decides who can recover everything else. Active Directory recovery is where a lot of tidy runbooks get exposed. A domain controller is not just another VM to roll back and reconnect. If the directory state or privileged access path is untrusted, restoring AD can recreate the control plane the attacker used. Microsoft’s Active Directory forest recovery documentation says forest recovery requires restoring at least one domain controller in every domain from an available backup, and that the forest is restored to the state of the last trusted backup in its forest recovery guidance . Microsoft also recommends a dedicated restore domain controller when planning forest recovery. For virtualized domain controllers, Microsoft says system state backups are required for disaster recovery, and that domain controllers should be backed up regularly and at least every 90 days in its virtualized domain controller restore guidance . That 90-day minimum is not a ransomware recovery cadence. It is a floor for having a usable disaster recovery backup at all. Here is the operational detail teams often miss: a clean application restore can still sit idle if the directory path is untrusted, service accounts are suspect, privileged access has not been reset, or nobody can safely use the recovery credentials. Identity recovery needs its own drill, evidence set, and approval gate. Validate in isolation before production return Production should not be the first place a restored system proves itself. An isolated validation path lets the team inspect data, run malware and integrity checks, verify configuration, test application behavior, and confirm dependencies before reconnecting to production networks. Backup teams can prove the copy exists. Security teams can assess whether the recovery candidate is safe enough to advance. Application owners can prove the service actually works. If one of those voices is missing, the recovery decision is under-evidenced. Elastio’s role is to provide recovery-point evidence for that validation gate. Elastio documents that its iScan can scan AWS EBS volumes and snapshots, EC2 instances, AMIs, AWS Backup recovery points, EFS, S3 buckets, Azure VMs, Azure managed disks, snapshots, data protection recovery points, and local paths in Using iScan for Cloud and Local Resources . The same article says AWS snapshot scan results are tagged as clean or infected. When ransomware is suspected, and Elastio had not been configured proactively, Elastio’s Ransomware 911 documentation describes a process to deploy Elastio, run threat hunts against backup recovery points, and identify the last clean backup across assets in Ransomware 911 . Elastio’s model documentation also says its deterministic ransomware model detects ransomware encryption and the ransomware family involved in Elastio’s 7 Layers of Ransomware Protection . That kind of verdict belongs before production return, not after users report that the restored service looks wrong. Objections worth answering Is rebuild always safer than restore? No. Rebuild is the better option when there is no trust in the compromised system state, but it still needs clean data, trusted identity, validated dependencies, protected deployment sources, and tested steps. A poorly prepared rebuild path can be slower and less reliable than a well-tested restore. Why not just restore the VM and let EDR clean it? EDR can be part of validation, but it does not prove the restored data is clean, the directory is trusted, the service accounts are safe, or the recovery point predates the attacker’s changes. Treat it as one signal, not the recovery decision. When should the incident commander stop waiting for more evidence? When the business owner, security owner, and application owner can name the risk they are accepting. If the team cannot identify the clean point, identity path, dependency order, and validation result, the decision is not informed. It is a bet. Run the next ransomware drill around one Tier 1 application. Force the team to choose restore or rebuild using only the evidence it has today. Book a Recovery Assessment Take one Tier 1 application into the next Recovery Assessment and force the restore-or-rebuild decision before the incident does. Request an Assessment Sources [1] NIST, Contingency Planning [2] NIST, Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 , 2024 [3] Amazon Web Services, AWS Well-Architected Framework, REL09-BP04: Perform periodic recovery of the data to verify backup integrity and processes [4] Center for Internet Security, CIS Control 11: Data Recovery [5] MITRE ATT&CK, T1486: Data Encrypted for Impact [6] MITRE ATT&CK, T1490: Inhibit System Recovery [7] Microsoft, AD Forest Recovery: Determine How to Recover the Forest [8] Microsoft, Restore a Virtualized Domain Controller [9] Elastio, Using iScan for Cloud and Local Resources [10] Elastio, Ransomware 911 [11] Elastio, Elastio’s 7 Layers of Ransomware Protection

Read post →

Ransomware Recovery Starts With a Provable Clean Recovery Point

May 29, 2026

Ransomware Recovery Starts With a Provable Clean Recovery Point

A green backup job is not a recovery decision. It is a copy with a timestamp. That distinction matters during ransomware recovery because the latest copy may be the wrong copy. The restore point might include encrypted files, staged malware, altered scripts, or data that was changed before the encryption event became obvious. The useful question is narrower: which recovery point can the team restore without bringing compromised state back into production? If you map the program to NIST CSF 2.0 , RECOVER is not just a box for turning systems back on. It sits in the same risk loop as identify, protect, detect, respond, and govern. NIST SP 800-184 is useful for the same reason: it pushes teams to prioritize resources and test recovery plans before the incident, not while everyone is waiting on the bridge call. Recoverable copy = backup availability + ransomware-free evidence + tested restore path. Doesn’t AWS Backup Vault Lock already protect my backups? Immutability answers one important question: can this recovery point be altered or deleted during the retention window? It does not answer the ransomware question: was the data already bad when the copy was written? AWS Backup Vault Lock can deny deletion or lifecycle changes in a locked vault, including attempts by highly privileged users, according to the AWS Backup Vault Lock documentation . That is valuable protection against backup destruction. It is not a data integrity verdict. Locking a vault after encrypted or tampered data has already been written can give the team a protected archive of recovery points it cannot use. The retention control did its job. The recovery plan still fails. MITRE ATT&CK tracks ransomware and destructive behavior that interferes with recovery, including deleting shadow copies, disabling recovery features, and removing backup catalogs under Inhibit System Recovery . That is why immutable and isolated copies matter. It is also why they are incomplete on their own. Key Distinction If the latest immutable copy contains compromised data, immutability preserves the problem very well. Data resilience has to survive the recovery call Data resilience is not a slogan. In a ransomware event, it means the team can identify the data needed to resume the business, protect it from destructive actions, validate whether it is clean, restore it through a tested path, and explain the decision afterward. CIS Control 11 gets close to the operational standard: recovery should return assets and data to a pre-incident and trusted state, with documented processes, protected recovery data, and recovery testing in CIS Control 11: Data Recovery . The hard part is dependency detail. A database can restore cleanly and still not bring the application back. The service account may be untrusted. DNS may not be ready. Certificate services may be stale. A batch job or integration queue may be the real blocker. None of that shows up in a backup success dashboard. AWS Well-Architected calls out the same failure mode in plainer terms: do not assume a backup exists, do not assume it is operational, and do not restore without checking that the data is usable. Its recovery testing guidance recommends test restores into a new location and checks for data availability, corruption, accessibility, RPO, and RTO fit in REL09-BP04 . Those checks are not paperwork. They are the difference between a restore and a recovery. Recovery sequencing should start with business priority The first recovery decision is usually not technical. It is based on business priority. Which services have to return first? Which data stores do they need? Which identity, DNS, network, certificate, monitoring, and security dependencies must be available before those services can reconnect? NIST SP 800-184 emphasizes prioritized resources and realistic recovery testing in its recovery guidance . In practice, that means the priority list cannot stop at application names. It has to tell the incident commander which services are Tier 0, which data sources they require, which identities they depend on, and which recovery points have current integrity evidence. Boards and risk committees need a cleaner version of the same answer. For public companies, the SEC requires material cyber incident disclosure and annual disclosure of cyber risk management, strategy, and governance processes in its cybersecurity disclosure rule announcement . When an incident can materially affect operations, recovery capability is part of the governance disclosure. The board does not need every backup metric. It needs to know whether critical services have a recent, verified recovery path. Useful recovery evidence includes: Last verified clean recovery point by critical service. Percent of Tier 0 and Tier 1 services validated within policy. Critical dependencies without a tested recovery sequence. Restore tests that check data and application behavior, not just host availability. Time from containment to approved recovery during drills. RPO and RTO still matter. During ransomware recovery, the clean recovery point is often the constraint that decides whether the plan is real. Change the first question in the runbook Most runbooks still start with some version of “do we have a backup?” That is the wrong first question. Which recovery point has evidence that it is clean, current enough for the business, and restorable through a tested path? That question forces backup operations, security validation, identity recovery, and business priority into one decision. It also exposes where the plan is relying on hope. For the next recovery review, do not try to boil the whole program at once. Pick the systems that would make the recovery call hardest. For each one, record the newest clean recovery point, the evidence behind it, the dependencies required to use it, and the owner who can approve production return. If the team can list backups faster than it can list verified clean recovery points, the recovery plan is not ready for ransomware. This is where recovery-point inspection belongs in the runbook. Elastio’s platform page says Elastio identifies whether a backup, snapshot, or object version is clean, finds the most recent recovery point confirmed free of ransomware, separates clean and compromised data before recovery, and logs findings, decisions, and recovery actions with timestamped context in Elastio Platform: Provable Recovery . For AWS Backup workflows, Elastio documents a backup-plan tag, elastio:action=scan , that instructs Elastio to protect recovery points for ransomware encryption and malware in Protect AWS Backup Recovery Points . Elastio also documents an AWS Backup Restore Testing integration that inspects supported recovery points for ransomware, insider threat encryption, and malware as part of restore testing in Protect Recovery Points Via AWS Backup Restore Tests . That gives the recovery review a better starting point. The question is no longer only “which copy exists?” It becomes “which copy has evidence we can defend?” Book a Recovery Assessment Answer one question with your own data: which recovery point would you restore first, and why? Request an Assessment Sources [1] NIST, Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 , 2024 [2] NIST, SP 800-184: Guide for Cybersecurity Event Recovery , 2016 [3] Amazon Web Services, AWS Backup Vault Lock documentation [4] MITRE ATT&CK, T1490: Inhibit System Recovery [5] Center for Internet Security, CIS Control 11: Data Recovery [6] Amazon Web Services, AWS Well-Architected Framework, REL09-BP04: Perform periodic recovery of the data to verify backup integrity and processes [7] U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC Adopts Rules on Cybersecurity Risk Management, Strategy, Governance, and Incident Disclosure by Public Companies , July 2023 [8] Elastio, Elastio Platform: Provable Recovery [9] Elastio, Protect AWS Backup Recovery Points [10] Elastio, Protect Recovery Points Via AWS Backup Restore Tests

Read post →

Events

In-person & virtual

Workshops and leadership panels — register or watch on demand where available.

All events

Podcast

Detonation Point

Conversations with investigators, CISOs, and researchers on the front lines of cybercrime.

All episodes

Webinars

Recent webinars

On-demand and upcoming sessions on ransomware resilience, AWS, and recovery assurance.

Webinars & events

Solution briefs

Architecture deep dives

Technical briefs on how Elastio integrates with AWS Backup, Veeam, and other platforms to deliver provable ransomware recovery.

All solution briefs

Case studies

Customer stories

How enterprises prove recovery readiness and close the data integrity gap with Elastio.

All case studies

Whitepapers

Latest whitepapers

Research, maturity models, and frameworks for boards and risk leaders on provable ransomware recovery.

View all whitepapers