Elastic A.I CyberSecurity Scoring
Elastic
Company Information
Website:https://www.elasticgroup.com.au/
Employees number:24
Number of followers:7,604
NAICS:541613
Industry Type:Advertising Services
Homepage:elasticgroup.com.au
Elastic Risk Score (AI oriented)
Between 750 and 799
ElasticAdvertising Services
Updated:
29/03/2026
29/03/2026
763/1000
Fair
Baa
Elastic Global Score (TPRM)
xxxx
ElasticAdvertising Services
Score locked

ElasticFair
Current Score
763Baa (FAIR)
01000
2 incidents
0 avg impact
Incident timeline with MITRE ATT&CK tactics, techniques, and mitigations.
JUNE 2026
767
MAY 2026
765
APRIL 2026
765
MARCH 2026
764
FEBRUARY 2026
772
JANUARY 2026
775
DECEMBER 2025
775
NOVEMBER 2025
775
OCTOBER 2025
775
SEPTEMBER 2025
775
AUGUST 2025
775
JULY 2025
775
JUNE 2025
775
Vulnerability
16 Jun 2025 • Elastic
Elastic
Elastic Defend Privilege Escalation Vulnerability (CVE-2025-37735)
774
HIGH-1
ELA0132601111025
Elastic disclosed a critical vulnerability (CVE-2025-37735) in Elastic Defend for Windows, stemming from improper file permission preservation in its SYSTEM-privileged service. The flaw allows local attackers—even with low privileges—to delete arbitrary files, potentially escalating to full administrative control over compromised systems. Affected versions include 8.19.5 and earlier, as well as 9.0.0 through 9.1.5, with patched releases (8.19.6, 9.1.6, 9.2.0) now available. While exploitation requires local access and moderate complexity (CVSS 7.0: High), the risk is amplified in shared or multi-user environments where insiders or compromised accounts could abuse the vulnerability. Organizations relying on Elastic Defend for endpoint security face heightened exposure, as successful exploitation undermines system integrity, enables lateral movement, and could facilitate follow-on attacks like data theft or ransomware deployment. Mitigations include immediate patching or upgrading to Windows 11 24H2, which introduces architectural safeguards. Delayed remediation risks persistent privilege escalation threats, particularly in environments with untrusted local users or legacy Windows versions.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
IMPACT
REFERENCES
JANUARY 2025
770
Vulnerability
01 Jan 2025 • Elastic
Elastic, Deutsche Börse, Confluent and UiPath: AI went from assistant to autonomous actor and security never caught up
AI Security Gaps Expose Enterprises to Rising Risks in 2025-2026
761
CRITICAL-9
CONUIPDEUELA1772541735
AI Security Gaps Expose Enterprises to Rising Risks in 2025-2026, Report Finds
A new briefing from the AIUC-1 Consortium, developed with input from Stanford’s Trustworthy AI Research Lab and over 40 security executives, highlights critical vulnerabilities in enterprise AI deployments as systems shift from pilot programs to production environments handling sensitive data and business transactions. The report, which includes insights from CISOs at Confluent, Elastic, UiPath, Deutsche Börse, and researchers from MIT Sloan, Scale AI, and Databricks, projects escalating risks for organizations in 2026 amid rapid AI adoption.
A 2025 EY survey cited in the briefing reveals that 64% of companies with annual revenue over $1 billion have lost more than $1 million to AI failures, while one in five reported breaches linked to shadow AI unauthorized or unmonitored AI use by employees.
### Three Dominant AI Security Challenges
The briefing identifies three primary risk categories:
1. The Agent Challenge
AI systems have evolved from simple assistants to autonomous agents capable of executing multi-step tasks without human approval. These agents often operate with overprivileged access, leading to unintended consequences 80% of surveyed organizations reported risky behaviors, including unauthorized system access and data exposure. Yet, only 21% of executives have full visibility into agent permissions, tool usage, or data access patterns.
Omar Khawaja (Databricks) noted that AI components frequently change across supply chains, while existing security controls assume static assets, creating blind spots.
2. The Visibility Challenge
63% of employees using AI tools in 2025 pasted sensitive data including source code and customer records into personal chatbot accounts. Enterprises now average 1,200 unofficial AI applications, with 86% lacking visibility into AI data flows. Shadow AI breaches cost $670,000 more on average than standard incidents due to delayed detection and unclear exposure scope.
3. The Trust Challenge
Prompt injection, once an academic concern, has become a recurring production issue, ranking #1 on OWASP’s 2025 LLM Top 10. The vulnerability stems from LLMs’ inability to reliably separate instructions from data input. 53% of companies now use retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) or agentic pipelines, introducing new attack surfaces.
### Existing Frameworks Fall Short
Current AI governance frameworks, such as NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001, provide high-level risk management structures but lack technical controls for agent-specific threats, including tool call validation, prompt injection logging, and containment testing.
Sanmi Koyejo (Stanford Trustworthy AI Lab) found that model-level guardrails alone are insufficient fine-tuning attacks bypassed Claude Haiku (72%) and GPT-4o (57%). Early adopters of technically grounded AI security standards report faster procurement, clearer audits, and reduced friction in regulated environments.
### Mitigation Strategies
The briefing recommends continuous adversarial testing integrated into agent operations. Nancy Wang (1Password) advocates for platform-built guardrails, including sandboxed tool execution, scoped credentials, and runtime policy enforcement, to reduce reliance on custom engineering. She suggests tiering agents by risk level, with high-stakes deployments undergoing continuous testing and lower-risk agents relying on standardized controls.
Koyejo’s lab demonstrated that automated red-teaming (AutoRedTeamer) can cut computational costs by 42-58% while improving vulnerability coverage. For resource-constrained organizations, he recommends automated testing tied to deployment pipelines, runtime guardrails for sensitive agents, and selective human red-teaming for critical systems.
Wang emphasized that least-privilege access, short-lived credentials, and scoped tokens proven in cloud security can similarly limit AI agent risks by restricting unauthorized access.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
IMPACT
DATA BREACH
REFERENCES
Frequently Asked Questions
?
What is the current A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score for Elastic ??
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in May 2026 ??
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in April 2026 ??
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in March 2026 ??
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in February 2026 ??
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in January 2026 ??
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in December 2025 ??
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in November 2025 ??
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in October 2025 ??
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in September 2025 ??
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in August 2025 ??
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in July 2025 ??
What is the average per-incident point impact on Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score over the past 12 months ??
Where can I access detailed records of all cyber incidents associated with Elastic ??
Where can I find a summary of the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ??
Where can I view Elastic's profile page on Rankiteo ??
How accurate is the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ?