Local administrator rights (the ability to install software, modify system settings, and override security controls) are given to end users far more often than the risk warrants. 

The usual reason is efficiency. 

The practical result is the opposite. Machines that drift from baseline, infections that spread before they are caught, and remediation tickets nobody planned for. Revoking local admin rights directly removes the root cause of most of those tickets.

The Admin Rights and Support Ticket Connection

A standard user account limits what software can be installed, what system settings can be changed, and what processes can run at an elevated level. These limits are not arbitrary friction. They are the boundary that prevents most common problems from ever reaching the helpdesk.

When users have admin rights, those boundaries disappear. 

Software conflicts arise because no approval step exists to catch the incompatibility. Security tools get disabled because a user decided they were slowing things down. Network settings get modified during attempted self-fixes that go wrong. Each of those actions is a predictable support ticket in waiting.

Admin rights are not the cause of every request in the queue. They are the cause of most of the expensive ones.

What the Security Data Shows

The connection between admin rights and security incidents is well-documented, and the numbers make the operational argument clearly.

From 2015 to 2020, the BeyondTrust Microsoft Vulnerabilities Report found that removing administrative privileges could have mitigated 75% of all Critical Microsoft vulnerabilities.

The pattern holds because most critical vulnerabilities require elevated permissions to fully execute. 

An attacker who compromises a standard user account gets access to that user’s data and session. An attacker who compromises an admin account gets the machine, and often the network.

The IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 found the average US data breach costs $10.22 million, an all-time high for any region globally.

The remediation cost for breaches that originate through compromised endpoints is consistently higher when the affected user holds elevated system privileges. Revoking local admin rights does not eliminate the risk, but it significantly reduces what an attacker or an infected machine can actually do.

The Three Ticket Categories That Disappear

Malware infections and their cleanup

Most ransomware and many Trojan infections require admin-level permissions to install, disable security tools, and spread. A standard user account does not eliminate phishing risk, but it limits what malware can do after it lands. 

An infection on a standard account is typically contained to that user’s profile. On an admin account, the same infection can encrypt shared drives and require a full OS rebuild. 

A contained malware event might mean one ticket and thirty minutes of work. An admin-level infection often means several tickets and multiple hours of technician time.

Self-inflicted configuration breaks

Users with admin rights occasionally try to fix their own problems by changing settings, uninstalling applications, or modifying network configurations. When it goes wrong, IT inherits the result with little visibility into what changed. 

Standard user accounts remove this category of ticket almost entirely, because those changes are no longer possible without an elevation request.

Patch and compliance drift

Endpoints where users have admin rights tend to diverge from the managed baseline over time. 

Software installed outside the approved process does not receive updates through standard management tools. 

Devices accumulate inconsistencies that create additional work during vulnerability scans, audits, and compliance reviews. 

Revoking admin rights and enforcing managed software deployment closes this drift at the source.

But I Need to Install Things

Just-in-time elevation

The concern is legitimate. As a user on your network, you do occasionally need elevated access for specific tasks. 

The answer is not to restore permanent admin rights. It is just-in-time (JIT) elevation, where you get temporary elevated access for a defined task. The request is approved through an automated policy or by IT, and the elevation expires automatically once the task is complete.

This keeps users productive and IT informed. 

Every elevation request is logged. Unapproved actions do not happen silently. The volume and pattern of requests also becomes useful data in its own right, revealing exactly which tasks genuinely require escalation and which ones users were performing only because nothing was stopping them.

What standard users can already do

Standard accounts support normal application use, browser activity, printing, file access, and the vast majority of day-to-day tasks without any escalation at all. 

The friction you may anticipate is usually larger than the friction you actually experience once the change is made and a JIT process handles the edge cases.

What to Do Before You Flip the Switch

Ready to reduce your support ticket volume and tighten endpoint security for your team at the same time? 

Contact us or schedule a consultation to plan a least-privilege rollout that works for your team.

—

Featured Image Credit

This Article has been Republished with Permission from The Technology Press.

The post Stop the Bleeding: How Revoking Admin Rights Eliminates Support Tickets appeared first on SpeedWise IT Services.

According to the FBI’s 2025 Internet Crime Report, business email compromise (BEC) cost US businesses more than $3 billion last year.

This makes it one of the most financially damaging cybercrimes on record. 

AI has made these attacks harder to detect. The question for AP teams is no longer whether they can identify suspicious requests. It is whether the processes around payments make fraud difficult regardless of how convincing it looks.

Why AP Teams Are in the Crosshairs

Accounts payable sits at the intersection of trust and timing. AP teams process invoices, manage supplier details, and execute payments, often under pressure to keep operations running smoothly. 

For attackers, that combination is ideal.

Most successful fraud does not involve breaking into systems. 

The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)  has consistently found that BEC attacks rely on impersonation. This involves posing as a trusted executive, supplier, or internal colleague to redirect payments or update bank details before anyone notices.

AI has made that impersonation dramatically more scalable. 

Where it once required skill and time to craft a convincing request, tools are now widely available that automate the research, writing, and contextual tailoring that make fraud blend into normal AP workflows.

By mid-2024, an estimated 40% of BEC phishing emails were already AI-generated, with that share expected to grow significantly.

What AI-Enhanced Fraud Looks Like in Practice

Emails that blend into normal workflow

Traditional phishing relied on volume and imperfection. AI has changed that. 

Modern BEC emails are grammatically correct and written in the specific tone of the executive or supplier being impersonated. They reference active projects, current invoice numbers, and upcoming payment runs. 

For AP teams processing high volumes of routine communications, that level of familiarity is exactly what lowers the guard.

Invoice and payment redirection

One of the most common AP fraud patterns involves payment redirection. 

Attackers may intercept a legitimate invoice exchange and quietly alter the destination account. They then send a short message claiming a supplier has updated its banking details, or re-issue a real invoice with minor modifications. 

The surrounding content looks entirely legitimate because, in many cases, it is drawn from real correspondence. 

Voice cloning and executive impersonation

Email isn’t the only channel being exploited. 

AI voice-cloning tools can replicate a person’s voice from a short audio sample. That makes it possible to leave convincing voicemails or place calls that sound like a known executive.

For AP teams accustomed to verbal approvals on high-value or urgent payments, this removes one of the few remaining verification methods that email security alone cannot address. 

Why Traditional Checks No Longer Work

Security awareness training still matters, and investing in it remains worthwhile. But AI has changed what AP teams are up against.

 Attacks no longer contain the signals that training programs once focused on: awkward phrasing, mismatched logos, odd sender addresses, or generic greetings. 

Modern fraud emails can reference the recipient’s organization, active suppliers, and current invoice values drawn from publicly available or previously intercepted sources.

When a fraudulent request is indistinguishable from a legitimate one, placing the burden of detection on the AP team puts it in the wrong place. 

The organizations that reduce risk are not asking staff to be more suspicious. They are building verification processes that work independent of how a message looks.

Building Process Around the Risk

The most effective defense is not sharper instincts. It is removing ambiguity from high-risk actions.

Out-of-band verification as standard

Any request to change supplier bank details or approve an urgent payment outside the normal cycle should require secondary confirmation through a known, independent channel — not a reply to the same email thread. Calling a supplier on a number already on file, or confirming with a colleague directly, breaks the impersonation chain regardless of how convincing the original request appeared. This step does not require technology. It requires a written procedure and the team’s habit of following it.

Layered access and authentication controls

Restricting access to financial systems and enforcing multi-factor authentication limits the damage a compromised account can cause. If an attacker gains access to a vendor’s email, MFA requirements on the receiving end create friction that can slow or stop a fraudulent change before any money moves.

A culture that supports slowing down

Fraud prevention improves when staff feel safe questioning requests, including from senior leadership. 

A team member who pauses a payment to verify it is not being obstructive. They are doing exactly what good process requires. 

Building that culture starts with leadership modeling the behavior and making clear that slowing down on high-risk actions is always the right call.

The FBI’s 2025 Internet Crime Report included a dedicated AI section for the first time, logging more than $893 million in AI-enabled scam losses across more than 22,000 complaints.

When verification is standard and questioning is encouraged, AI-enhanced fraud loses much of its advantage. 

The technology attackers use is advancing quickly, but the process controls that contain the damage do not have to be complicated. They have to be consistent.

Shift the Burden From People to Process

Concerned about AI-enhanced fraud targeting your finance teams or clients? 

Contact us or schedule a consultation to review your current controls and identify where the most important gaps are.

—

Featured Image Credit

This Article has been Republished with Permission from The Technology Press.

The post Is Your Invoice a Deepfake? Securing Your Accounts Payable Process Against Voice and Email Cloning appeared first on SpeedWise IT Services.

That scenario surprises many businesses, particularly those that rely on multi-factor authentication (MFA) to protect cloud accounts. But this is exactly how Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) phishing attacks work. 

Rather than stealing passwords for later use, these attacks silently hijack an already-authenticated session in real time.

MFA remains a core control, and getting it implemented correctly is still a critical first step for any business. 

But AiTM attacks exploit something MFA was never designed to protect: the trusted session that exists after authentication has already completed.

Phishing Has Moved Beyond Passwords

Phishing remains the most common starting point for account compromise, but the objective has changed. 

Traditional phishing collected usernames and passwords. Modern phishing is after something more immediately useful: the authenticated session itself.

Security researchers have documented a significant shift toward session and token theft, where attackers intercept the authentication process as it happens. 

Rather than reusing stolen credentials, which MFA typically blocks, they wait until the user successfully completes login, then steal the session token that proves it already occurred.

The technique has matured quickly. Phishing-as-a-Service (PhaaS) platforms now supply ready-made proxy toolkits that let even low-skilled attackers run AiTM campaigns targeting Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace. 

How AiTM Attacks Actually Work

The fake login page that isn’t fake

An AiTM phishing site is not a basic replica of a login page. It is a live reverse proxy.

The attacker’s infrastructure sits between the user and the real authentication service. Every keystroke, redirect, and server response flows through the attacker’s system in real time. From the user’s perspective, nothing looks wrong. 

The page behaves exactly like the real service, with correct branding, working redirects, and a functioning MFA prompt. In most cases, the only clue is a slightly altered URL that goes unnoticed on a mobile screen or when someone is under time pressure.

Why MFA doesn’t stop it

This is where many security assumptions fall apart.

MFA protects the moment of authentication, not what comes after it. 

Once a user successfully completes MFA, the service issues a session cookie. What this means is that the cookie signals to the application that the user is already verified. From that point, no password or MFA prompt is required. The system trusts the token. Whoever holds the cookie holds the access.

AiTM attacks simply wait for that cookie to be issued then steal it.

Microsoft tracked a 146% rise in AiTM attacks over the past year, as cybercriminals increasingly shift focus to accounts already protected by MFA.

Much of this increase is driven by PhaaS platforms like Evilginx that allow even low-skilled attackers to run convincing reverse-proxy campaigns at scale, targeting major cloud identity providers with minimal setup.

Session cookies

Session tokens act as bearer credentials. So, whoever possesses the token can access the account, with no password or MFA challenge required.

Once the cookie is stolen, the attacker imports it into their own browser and immediately resumes the session. 

This is a session replay attack. The attacker does not log in. They pick up where the legitimate user left off, inside a fully trusted, already-verified session.

What Happens After a Session Is Stolen

The aftermath of an AiTM attack tends to be quiet, which is precisely what makes it dangerous. 

The attacker is operating inside a legitimate, authenticated session. There are no failed MFA attempts, no unusual login alerts, and nothing in standard sign-in logs to signal a problem.

Research from Proofpoint shows that attackers who gain access through session hijacking commonly create hidden inbox rules to redirect mail, register additional MFA methods to lock in persistent access, monitor email threads for financial conversations, and use the trusted account to launch phishing campaigns against internal colleagues or finance teams.

These follow-on actions are a key reason AiTM attacks are frequently uncovered late, after financial fraud, data exposure, or wider network compromise has already begun.

Reducing Your Exposure

MFA is still essential. Building strong authentication practices remains the starting baseline. But reducing AiTM risk requires controls that extend beyond the login event itself.

Adopt phishing-resistant MFA

Methods like FIDO2 hardware keys and passkeys bind authentication to the specific device and the legitimate domain. A proxy in the middle cannot relay them: the process fails if the URL is not the real one. 

The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security analyzed over 100 AiTM campaigns targeting Microsoft Entra ID accounts. It found that phishing-resistant MFA consistently blocked session theft where standard MFA methods (including push notifications and one-time passcodes) did not.

Tighten Conditional Access policies

Risk-based access controls evaluate additional signals, including device compliance, IP location, and session behavior, rather than treating every authenticated session as permanently trusted. 

Configured correctly, these policies can detect and block anomalous access even when a stolen session token appears valid.

Monitor for post-login anomalies

Detecting AiTM compromise typically means watching for activity after login: new MFA method registrations, inbox rules created outside business hours, access from unfamiliar locations, or unusual data activity. 

Authentication logs alone will not surface the problem.

Train users on URL awareness

Employees who understand that a working MFA prompt on an unfamiliar-looking page still represents a risk are better positioned to pause, check the URL, and report before a session is compromised. A brief team walkthrough of what AiTM lures look like in Microsoft 365 contexts can meaningfully reduce exposure.

Stop Protecting Just the Login Screen

MFA is a baseline, not a finish line. The businesses that reduce AiTM risk are the ones that understand how sessions, tokens, and identity trust actually work . And they build controls around each layer, not just the login screen.

Want to review your identity security controls? 

Contact us or schedule a consultation to identify the gaps that matter most before an incident does it for you.

—

Featured Image Credit

This Article has been Republished with Permission from The Technology Press.

The post Adversary-in-the-Middle Attacks: How Phishing Sites Steal Your Active Login appeared first on SpeedWise IT Services.

After you sign in, your browser keeps you logged in using a session token (often stored as a cookie). It’s the digital version of a wristband at an event: once you’ve been checked, the wristband proves you belong there. If an attacker steals that wristband, they may not need to beat your MFA prompt at all.

That’s the core of session cookie hijacking. The attacker isn’t “cracking” MFA. They’re skipping it by replaying your already authenticated session.

This isn’t a reason to stop using MFA. It’s a reason to stop treating MFA as the finish line. 

When sessions can be stolen, the practical defence shifts to layered controls: phishing-resistant sign-ins, device hygiene, tighter session policies, and detection that catches suspicious access early.

Why MFA Isn’t a “Game Over” Control

MFA is still one of the best upgrades most businesses can make, but it doesn’t end an attack on its own. The reason is that attackers don’t always try to beat the login step. They try to go around it.

Cloudflare notes that “attackers are finding new ways to circumvent MFA” and that modern incidents are rarely one isolated technique. They’re “part of a chain of attacks.” 

In other words, MFA can block a lot of credential theft, but it doesn’t automatically protect what happens after a user successfully signs in. 

That’s where session cookie hijacking comes in. 

Microsoft has described adversary-in-the-middle phishing campaigns where attackers use a reverse-proxy site to “steal and intercept” a user’s password and the session cookie that proves they have an authenticated session. 

This is “not a vulnerability in MFA.” The attacker isn’t breaking the MFA. They’re reusing the session. 

What a Session Cookie Is and Why Attackers Want It

When you sign into a web app, the site needs a way to remember that you’ve already proved who you are. That’s what a session is: a temporary “logged-in” state that saves you from entering your password and MFA code on every click. 

Kaspersky explains that session hijacking is “sometimes called cookie hijacking” because cookies are commonly used to store the session identifier that keeps you authenticated. 

Attackers want that session identifier because it’s the shortcut. 

Proofpoint describes session tokens as digital “keys” that let a user stay authenticated. It warns that stealing valid tokens lets attackers impersonate legitimate users and potentially bypass authentication measures “like MFA.” 

That’s why session cookie hijacking is so highly leveraged. 

If an attacker can steal the cookie or token that represents your active session, they’re not trying to defeat the login process. They’re attempting to reuse what you already completed, and access the same apps and data as if they were sitting at your keyboard.

How Session Cookie Hijacking Actually Happens

A lot of teams picture “account takeover” as someone guessing a password or tricking a user into approving an MFA prompt. 

Session cookie hijacking is different. The attacker’s goal is to steal the proof that you’re already logged in, then reuse it, often without triggering another sign-in challenge.

1.) AiTM phishing 

Adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) phishing is the “proxy login” trap. 

You think you’re signing into a normal service, but you’re actually signing into a lookalike page that sits between you and the real site. The attacker relays the login in real time, so everything appears to work, including MFA.

Attackers use AiTM phishing sites to “steal and intercept” a user’s password and the session cookie that proves the authenticated session. This is “not a vulnerability in MFA.” The attacker isn’t breaking the MFA. They’re capturing the session after MFA is completed and reusing it. 

One such campaign “attempted to target more than 10,000 organisations” since September 2021, which shows how scalable this approach has become. 

2.) Browser-in-the-Middle session stealing

Browser-in-the-middle (BitM) is similar in spirit, but it’s even more “hands-on” from the attacker’s side. 

Instead of stealing a password and running away, the attacker effectively places themselves in control of the browsing session.

Google’s threat intelligence says, “Stealing this session token is the equivalent of stealing the authenticated session.” Once the token is stolen, “an adversary would no longer need to perform the MFA challenge.” 

In other words, the attacker isn’t trying to authenticate instead of you. They’re trying to ride along after you’ve authenticated.

3.) Cookie theft from the endpoint

Not every session hijack starts with a fancy proxy. Sometimes the attacker simply steals session data from the device itself.

Stealing valid session tokens allows attackers to impersonate legitimate users. Tokens act like digital “keys.” If an endpoint is compromised, those “keys” can be extracted and reused.

Invicti explains that an attacker steals HTTP cookies and can gain access. The goal is often to obtain sensitive information stored in cookies. 

MFA Is a Baseline, Not a Finish Line

MFA is still essential. It blocks a huge amount of credential theft and makes basic account takeover harder. But session cookie hijacking is a reminder that attackers don’t always try to defeat the login step. Sometimes they reuse what happens after it.

The practical response is layered and realistic. Make phishing harder to pull off, and treat device health as part of identity. Tighten session behaviour for high-risk apps. Watch for suspicious access patterns that suggest a session is being replayed.

When those controls work together, MFA stops being a comforting checkbox and becomes what it should be: a strong baseline that’s backed by protections around the session itself.

Contact us today for help protecting your login sessions from hijacking.

—

Featured Image Credit

This Article has been Republished with Permission from The Technology Press.

The post The “Session Cookie” Hijack: Why MFA Can’t Always Save You appeared first on SpeedWise IT Services.

It’s usually said with a half-joke and a grimace. It refers to the old box that “still works”, runs something important, and has survived so many fixes and workarounds that nobody feels confident changing it anymore.

That’s legacy debt. 

Not just “old tech”, but old tech that’s become a dependency. It’s the kind that quietly accumulates risk until it turns into downtime, security exposure, or an emergency upgrade at the worst possible time.

A legacy debt audit is the fast way to bring that risk back into the light. 

What Legacy Debt Really Looks Like

Legacy debt isn’t “old gear”. It’s old gear that has become normal. 

It’s the server that runs a critical app, the edge device nobody remembers buying, the workaround that turned into a dependency. Over time, that debt stacks up quietly.

Infinite Lambda describes legacy debt as something that “happens even to the best systems,” “silently accruing costs and constraints,” and it can “accumulate basically unnoticed until it is too costly to ignore.” 

That’s why a legacy debt audit isn’t a theoretical exercise. It’s a visibility exercise to bring the oldest, highest-leverage risks back onto the list of things you actively manage.

The security problem shows up when “old” becomes “unpatchable.” 

The UK’s NCSC guidance on obsolete products says, “Ideally, once out of date, technology should not be used,” and “the only fully effective way to mitigate this risk is to stop using the obsolete product.” 

If something can’t be updated, weaknesses don’t age out. They sit there, waiting for the wrong day.

Legacy debt also looks like basic server hygiene slipping.

NIST SP 800-123 frames secure server operations as an ongoing process: “Maintaining the secure configuration through application of appropriate patches and upgrades, security testing, monitoring of logs, and backups…” 

It also calls out foundational hardening steps like “Patch and upgrade the operating system” and “Remove or disable unnecessary services, applications, and network protocols.” 

When those basics become inconsistent, legacy debt turns into a reliability and incident-response problem, not just a security one.

Finally, legacy debt often hides at the edge. If you have end-of-support internet-facing devices, you’ve got high-leverage risk in the most exposed place. 

The 3 Oldest Risks to Find First

These three categories are where “old” most often turns into outsized risk, because they combine age with leverage: they either sit at the front door, can’t be fixed anymore, or have quietly drifted out of a safe baseline.

Risk #1: End-of-support edge devices

If you’re looking for high-leverage legacy debt, start at the edge. Firewalls, VPN gateways, routers, and other internet-facing devices are the front door to your environment. 

When they reach end-of-support (EOS), they don’t just become outdated. They become harder to defend because security fixes stop arriving.

What to check in your audit

• List every edge device (firewall, VPN, router) and the support status for each one
• Confirm which ones are internet-facing and which services are exposed
• Identify devices that can’t run the current firmware or no longer receive updates.

Risk #2: Obsolete products that can’t be fixed anymore

Obsolete products are the purest form of legacy debt: things that are still operating but no longer receive security updates. That means every new vulnerability becomes permanent.

In other words, there’s no clever workaround that makes an unsupported system “safe”. There are only risk reductions until you can replace it.

What to check in your audit

• Identify anything past support: server OS versions, appliances, old hypervisors, and line-of-business apps
• Flag systems that require exceptions, like the ones with old protocols, weak auth, and special firewall rules
• Find the “business-critical but unsupported” systems
  

Risk #3: “It still works” servers with neglected basics

This is the sneakiest risk because it looks normal. 

The server is supported. The hardware runs. Nobody’s complaining. But the basics have drifted: patching is inconsistent, unnecessary services are still running, and backups haven’t been proven under pressure.

SP 800-123 Guide to General Server Security frames secure server operations as an ongoing discipline, including “patches and upgrades,” “monitoring of logs,” and “backups.” 

It also calls out core hardening steps like “Patch and upgrade the operating system” and “Remove or disable unnecessary services, applications, and network protocols.” 

Those are the unglamorous fundamentals that stop small problems from turning into long outages.

What to check in your audit

• Patch reality: what’s the current patch level and how often do updates slip?
• Service sprawl: what’s running that doesn’t need to be running?
• Admin and service accounts: where are the broad permissions and shared credentials?
• Backup confidence: when was the last restore test and did it succeed?
• Change control: who can make changes, and how are they tracked?

Stop Carrying Silent Risk

Legacy debt doesn’t announce itself. It sits quietly in the background until the day it becomes downtime, exposure, or an emergency upgrade you didn’t plan for.

A legacy debt audit gives you control back by turning “we should deal with that someday” into a shortlist you can act on. Start with the highest-leverage risks: end-of-support edge devices, obsolete products that can’t be patched, and servers where the basics have drifted. Then assign owners, set dates, and move one item at a time from “too scary to touch” to “handled”.

Contact us for help running your next legacy debt audit.

—

Featured Image Credit

This Article has been Republished with Permission from The Technology Press.

The post The “Legacy Debt” Audit: Identifying the 3 Oldest Risks in Your Server Room appeared first on SpeedWise IT Services.

The problem is that the first real test of a SaaS relationship isn’t the onboarding. It’s the exit. 

For many small businesses, the front door is wide open, but the emergency exit is bolted shut: exports are incomplete, key data sits in proprietary formats, and leaving requires expensive vendor help.

That’s more than inconvenient. It’s a business risk. 

As teams move toward a workforce blended with humans and Agentic AI in 2026, your advantage will come from data you can move, reuse, and trust. If your data can’t leave a vendor cleanly, you don’t fully control your processes. Then your options, timelines, and costs are controlled for you.

Why This Gets Worse in 2026

The “backup exit strategy” question is getting sharper in 2026 because SaaS sprawl and third-party dependence are now normal. 

Your business data isn’t sitting in one system. It’s spread across platforms, integrations, plug-ins, and automation. When one vendor changes pricing, terms, features, or risk profile, you don’t just “switch tools.” You either move your data cleanly or you stay stuck.

The breach environment also raises the stakes. Verizon’s 2025 DBIR Executive Summary says it analysed 22,052 security incidents and 12,195 confirmed breaches, calling it “the highest number of breaches ever analysed in a single report,” across 139 countries. 

That volume matters because exits and migrations often happen under pressure. A backup exit strategy is what prevents “we need to move” from becoming “we can’t move.”

Attackers are also increasingly focused on credentials and data pathways. These are the same pathways you rely on during exports and migrations. 

Microsoft’s Digital Defense Report 2025 notes that credential and access key theft attempts are up 23%, and attempts to extract sensitive data from storage accounts and databases increased 58%. 

Microsoft also reports that data collection showed up in 80% of reactive engagements, which is a reminder that “getting the data” is now a common objective. 

If you can’t export your data safely and predictably, you end up trapped. You can’t rotate away from a risky platform quickly. And you can’t migrate without creating new exposure. 

Finally, being stuck is expensive even before you factor in vendor fees. IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 puts the global average cost of a breach at USD 4.4M.

That’s not a “lock-in” statistic, but it is a useful reality check: data incidents cost real money. A clean exit strategy reduces the chance that a vendor becomes an added cost multiplier during an already expensive situation.

In 2026, the question isn’t whether you’ll ever need to move data. It’s whether you’ll be able to do it without vendor hand-holding, surprise costs, or emergency timelines. 

The Financial Cost of the “Proprietary Trap”

A weak exit plan doesn’t just slow innovation. It quietly increases operating costs because you end up paying for a setup you can’t easily change.

When you’re locked into a vendor, spending becomes sticky. You can’t right-size quickly, consolidate tools, or move workloads to a better-fit platform without turning it into a major project. 

That’s how waste hangs around.

The real cost isn’t the monthly invoice. It’s the lack of options. When your data can’t move easily, every renewal, pricing change, or product shift becomes a forced decision instead of a strategic one.

A true backup exit strategy flips that dynamic. It gives you the ability to migrate on your timeline, reduce duplicate tooling, and make cost decisions based on value rather than inertia. In practical terms, it turns “we can’t leave” into “we can compare, choose, and move when it makes sense.”

Securing the Move

Once you decide to move your data, the migration itself becomes a high-risk moment. Not because migrations are inherently unsafe. But because they concentrate exactly what attackers want: 

• High-privilege access
• Lots of open sessions, 
• A lot of data moving at once

During a data move, your team is often signed into multiple admin-level tools at the same time. That’s where session cookie hijacking becomes relevant. An attacker doesn’t need to “crack” your password if they can steal the session token that proves you’re already authenticated. 

Microsoft has described adversary-in-the-middle phishing campaigns that intercept session cookies so attackers can reuse an authenticated session and bypass the MFA prompt. 

Cloudflare also notes that attackers are finding ways to circumvent MFA as part of broader attack chains, which is why the safest approach is layered rather than relying on one control. 

To protect your backup exit migration:

• Use phishing-resistant sign-ins where possible for migration and admin accounts.
• Tighten session controls so privileged sessions expire sooner and re-authentication is required for risky actions.
• Treat device health as part of access: run the migration from a managed, patched, protected device.
• Monitor for suspicious access during the move.

Ownership is a Discipline

The businesses that thrive over the next few years won’t just adopt new tools. They’ll stay flexible as tools change. 

In a world of SaaS sprawl and AI-driven workflows, that flexibility comes from clean data, clear processes, and the ability to move when you need to.

If you’d like help building an exit-ready baseline across your vendor stack, contact us for a technology consultation. 

—

Featured Image Credit

This Article has been Republished with Permission from The Technology Press.

The post The “Backup Exit” Strategy: Can You Move Your Data Without the Vendor’s Help? appeared first on SpeedWise IT Services.