I’m thrilled to sit down with Vernon Yai, a renowned data protection expert with deep expertise in privacy protection and data governance. With a focus on risk management and cutting-edge techniques for safeguarding sensitive information, Vernon has become a thought leader in the cybersecurity industry. Today, we’ll dive into the critical challenges facing the US Defense Industrial Base (DIB), the innovative approaches like the NSA’s Continuous Autonomous Penetration Testing (CAPT) program, and the evolving role of AI in both cyber defense and attacks. Our conversation will explore the unique struggles of small defense contractors, the nature of nation-state threats, and the urgent need for robust security practices in an increasingly complex digital landscape.
Can you explain what the NSA’s Continuous Autonomous Penetration Testing (CAPT) program is and how it’s helping small DoD contractors navigate today’s cyber threats?
Absolutely. The CAPT program, launched by the NSA in 2024, offers free penetration testing services to small Department of Defense contractors who often lack the resources to tackle sophisticated cyber threats on their own. It uses autonomous tools to continuously scan for vulnerabilities in their networks, mimicking how attackers might exploit weaknesses. The program was created because these small businesses are vital to the defense supply chain but are frequently under-equipped to handle the barrage of cyber risks they face. In its first year, it identified 50,000 vulnerabilities across 200 contractors, mitigating 70% of them, which shows how critical and effective this initiative is in bolstering their defenses.
What are some of the biggest hurdles small defense contractors face that make programs like CAPT so necessary?
Small contractors, which make up about 80% of the DIB, often operate with limited budgets and minimal IT staff. Many outsource their IT support or have little awareness of security best practices. They’re not like large defense firms with dedicated cybersecurity teams. These companies might be handling sensitive military data or intellectual property, but they lack the tools or expertise to secure it properly. This makes them prime targets for attackers who know they can exploit basic gaps, like unpatched systems, without much effort. Programs like CAPT step in to bridge that gap by providing high-level testing and actionable insights they wouldn’t otherwise have access to.
Speaking of targets, there’s been a lot of focus on threats from nation-state groups, particularly from China. Can you shed light on why these threats are so alarming for DIB companies?
Nation-state threats, especially from Chinese hacking groups, are a massive concern because their goal isn’t just financial gain—it’s strategic. They’re after intellectual property, research and development data, and military capabilities that can directly enhance their own national interests. We’ve seen actors like Volt Typhoon pre-positioning in critical infrastructure for potential disruption, but they also target the DIB supply chain to steal blueprints or tech that can build their military and economy. Their resources dwarf ours in scale, and they’re adept at using publicly known, unpatched vulnerabilities to gain access without even needing advanced exploits. It’s a persistent, well-funded threat that small contractors are ill-prepared to counter alone.
I’ve heard that many of these attacks exploit simple, unpatched vulnerabilities rather than complex methods. Why do you think these basic issues remain so prevalent among contractors?
It’s really a matter of resources and prioritization. Small contractors often don’t have dedicated staff to monitor and apply patches regularly. When you’ve got a tiny team—or outsourced IT—keeping systems updated can fall through the cracks amid other business demands. There’s also a lack of visibility; many don’t even know they have vulnerable systems until it’s too late. On top of that, patching can sometimes disrupt operations, and without proper planning or testing environments, they hesitate to apply updates. It’s not negligence—it’s often just a lack of capacity to manage the basics while juggling everything else.
With the CAPT program uncovering 50,000 vulnerabilities in its first year, can you walk us through the most common types of weaknesses they found?
From what’s been shared, a lot of the vulnerabilities were tied to misconfigured systems, outdated software, and weak credential management. Things like unpatched internet-facing applications were a huge entry point for attackers. Credential abuse was also rampant—some tests showed domain admin accounts being compromised right out of the gate. These aren’t exotic flaws; they’re foundational issues that persist because of limited oversight. The speed of compromise was staggering too, with full domain takeovers happening in as little as 77 seconds in some cases. It highlights how even basic oversights can lead to catastrophic breaches if not addressed.
There’s also talk about AI playing a bigger role in both attacks and defense. How are adversaries using AI to exploit these vulnerabilities, and what does that mean for defenders?
Adversaries, particularly nation-state actors, are leveraging AI to scale their operations in ways we’ve never seen before. They’re using it to scan for unpatched vulnerabilities across vast networks at lightning speed, identifying weak points faster than humans ever could. AI also helps them craft more targeted phishing campaigns or automate exploit chains with precision. For defenders, this means the window to respond is shrinking—sometimes to mere minutes. It’s pushing us to adopt AI-driven defense tools as well, like those being explored in the CAPT program, to predict and mitigate threats autonomously. The future of cyber warfare is algorithms battling algorithms, with humans stepping in only when absolutely necessary.
Given the speed and scale of these AI-driven attacks, how should defenders rethink their approach to cybersecurity?
Defenders need to shift from reactive to proactive strategies. With attacks happening in seconds, traditional incident response isn’t fast enough. We have to prioritize continuous monitoring and automated remediation—tools that can detect and patch vulnerabilities before they’re exploited. Building a culture of security awareness is also key, especially for small contractors. Training staff to spot phishing or secure credentials can stop an attack before it starts. And collaboration, like through programs such as CAPT, is critical. Sharing threat intelligence and resources can level the playing field. Ultimately, it’s about assuming breach and designing systems to limit damage even if an attacker gets in.
Looking ahead, what’s your forecast for the future of cybersecurity in the Defense Industrial Base over the next few years?
I think we’re going to see an even greater reliance on automation and AI in securing the DIB, especially as threats become more sophisticated and faster. Programs like CAPT will likely expand, covering more contractors and integrating advanced AI agents for pretesting and remediation. But the flip side is that adversaries will also double down on AI, making the cat-and-mouse game more intense. I expect regulatory pressure to increase as well, with stricter cybersecurity mandates for contractors to ensure baseline protections. My hope is that we’ll see stronger public-private partnerships to support small businesses, because they’re the backbone of our defense ecosystem. If we don’t secure them, the whole chain is at risk.
