How Malware-Free Attacks are Exposing Organisations to Wider Risk

According to AV-TEST, the independent IT security institute, every day sees at least 450,000 new malware variants added to its database. In June this year, for example, cybercriminals are thought to have used malware to steal over 16 billion login credentials across various major platforms in what is thought to have been the largest breach of its kind in history. For security teams, this represents a relentless challenge that demands constant attention and consumes significant resources.

Malware-Free Attacks

As if that wasn’t enough, malware-free attacks are increasingly favoured by cybercriminals as a way to circumvent organisational security. Typically using legitimate programs and tools, these stealth attacks are particularly complex to detect. And they are invisible to most automated security protection options that are available to buy.

With no obvious malware signatures to detect, automated defences are often powerless to respond. And without robust security foundations, even advanced detection tools offer limited protection once an attacker gains a foothold. When that happens, the consequences can be significant.

At the heart of the matter are the limitations of many traditional security tools, which are simply not designed to stop what they cannot see. Malware-free attacks do not rely on external payloads or binaries with known malicious signatures. This renders many automated detection systems, including standard antivirus solutions, effectively useless. As a result, the burden falls elsewhere.

For most organisations, that means having the right expertise in place to recognise unusual behaviour, supported by technologies that can identify behavioural anomalies quickly. Endpoint detection and response (EDR) platforms offer some of these capabilities. But even the most advanced solutions rely on proper configuration and human oversight to be effective. In an ideal world, every business would have round-the-clock monitoring in place, but in reality, very few do.

Challenging Assumptions Around Risk

So, how can organisations fill the gap? When assessing how to protect against malware-free attacks, many organisations begin with the assumption that they will need to buy new tools or licenses. This can form part of a rounded solution. However, leading with this mindset often overlooks a more fundamental and cost-effective question: What can be improved with the tools already in place?

Reviewing existing capabilities should be the first step. For example, most environments already have some level of EDR, behavioural monitoring or identity protection deployed. Yet these are often underutilised or misconfigured. This can result from a lack of understanding around tool capabilities (and limitations), paying for the wrong level of license coverage, and failing to ensure configurations support behavioural analysis rather than just malware scanning. In many cases, even minor adjustments can significantly increase effectiveness without any additional spend.

Cost vs Risk

Organisations should also reconsider how they approach the question of investment. The cost vs risk conversation needs to shift from what they should buy to what they should fix. Even the most expensive detection tools can be rendered ineffective if attackers can exploit basic oversights such as poor configuration, excessive access rights or the absence of multi-factor authentication. In contrast, identifying and addressing these gaps in existing systems is not only more cost-effective but also more impactful in stopping attacks before they gain momentum.

This kind of review process is also an opportunity to identify gaps and prioritise actions that reduce risk without escalating costs. For example, many organisations find that network segmentation, strict privilege controls and enforcing least-access policies can help prevent lateral movement and minimise credential misuse – two of the most common techniques used in malware-free attacks. Putting these capabilities in place are security fundamentals that often determine whether an attack is stopped early or is able to spread.

In this context, a best practice approach matters more than ever. Not as a one-off initiative, but as a continuous effort to close the windows of opportunity that attackers rely on. This includes reducing privilege levels, adopting MFA by default, limiting binary access and educating users on social engineering techniques. All of which are good examples of cost-effective steps that can limit the opportunity for malware-free attacks to take hold. These are not headline-grabbing technologies, but they remain the strongest defence against attacks that thrive on poor hygiene and overlooked gaps.

So, rather than investing in yet another layer of detection, organisations should focus on strengthening what they already have. This approach not only helps avoid unnecessary expense but also delivers a stronger, more sustainable defence posture in an environment where threat actors continue to be extremely effective.