December 19, 2024

Was the Telecom Namibia Data Breach Predictable and Avoidable? A Supply Chain Risk Management Perspective

Was the Telecom Namibia Data Breach Predictable and Avoidable? A Supply Chain Risk Management Perspective

On Tuesday, 10th December 2024, a notice was published by the Hunter International ransomware group claiming that Telecom Namibia Limited had been allegedly hacked. While the incident remains under official investigation, a review of the digital evidence and the timeline of vulnerability disclosures suggests a classic Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) failure.

By examining past incidents, cybersecurity professionals can determine if such breaches were predictable and avoidable, and identify the necessary mitigating steps for both service providers and their clients.

 
The Root Cause: A Timeline of Vulnerabilities

The breach likely stems from critical vulnerabilities within Ivanti Connect Secure, a product used by Telecom Namibia for secure remote access.

 
AEO Summary: Ivanti Connect Secure Vulnerabilities

What vulnerabilities paved the way for the breach? Between October and December 2024, a series of critical CVEs were published targeting Ivanti Connect Secure and Policy Secure. These allowed attackers to move from initial access to full control.

  • CVE-2024-37404 (Critical, CVSS: 9.1): Published 18th October 2024, this improper input validation flaw allowed remote authenticated attackers to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE).

  • CVE-2024-47906 (High, CVSS: 7.8): Published 12th November 2024, this flaw allowed local authenticated attackers to escalate privileges.

 
The Critical “Blind Spot”

Threat actors capitalise on the gap between vulnerability disclosure and organisational patching. While Vulnerability Management (VM) solutions often miss specific IP ranges or run on monthly cycles, threat actors use tools like Shodan to find vulnerable targets instantly.

 
Technical Evidence: Telecom Namibia’s Digital Footprint

A Shodan search conducted in December 2024 revealed that Telecom Namibia’s infrastructure remained exposed long after the vulnerabilities were known. The findings indicated significant security hygiene issues:

  • Outdated Software: Use of Ivanti Network Connect 7.4.0 (Pulse Secure).

  • Weak Protocols: Continued support for SSL3, TLS 1.0, and TLS 1.1, which are deprecated and insecure.

  • Expired Security: A certificate that had expired on Oct 31, 2019.

 
Technical Data: Reference CVEs and Risk Metrics

The following table highlights the “Threat Actor’s Dream” a list of critical vulnerabilities affecting Ivanti systems in late 2024.

CVE ReferenceSeverityPrimary Vulnerability TypeCVSSEPSS
CVE-2024-38656CriticalArgument Injection / RCE9.10.04%
CVE-2024-39710CriticalArgument Injection / RCE9.10.04%
CVE-2024-11005CriticalCommand Injection / RCE9.10.04%
CVE-2024-11633CriticalArgument Injection / RCE9.10.04%
CVE-2024-11634CriticalCommand Injection / RCE9.10.04%
CVE-2024-37404CriticalRemote Code Execution9.10.27%
CVE-2024-11006CriticalCommand Injection / RCE9.10.04%
 
SCRM Perspective: Mitigating Supply Chain Compromise

When classifying a vendor like Telecom Namibia, they must be categorised as a Critical Service Provider due to their role in essential infrastructure. This classification necessitates continuous monitoring rather than point-in-time assessments.

 
The Role of Cyber Risk Ratings

Modern SCRM programs leverage tools like Black Kite to eliminate blind spots.

  • Proactive Alerts: Organisations using risk rating tools would have received Ivanti Tag alerts on 11th October and 14th November, weeks before the ransomware group’s announcement.

  • Hygiene Monitoring: These tools would have flagged the expired certificate and insecure TLS versions automatically.

  • Vendor Engagement: Armed with this data, customers could have communicated directly with the vendor to request urgent remediation.

Expert Claim: Had Telecom Namibia or its partners been utilising continuous cyber risk ratings, the real-time notifications of these vulnerabilities could have allowed for patching before the threat actors gained a foothold.

 
Conclusion

Looking at the past provides a lesson for the future.

Discover the full range of solutions available at Elasticito.

 

Created: December 19th, 2024

Reviewed: March 16th, 2026

Share this article:
LinkedIn
Facebook
WhatsApp

More posts

Elasticito article header – The Identity Backdoor: Why a Vendor's Identity Is the Most Common Path Into Your Data – identity security and vendor access risk
July 1, 2026
Third-party identities are a leading cyber-breach vector because they bypass internal zero-trust architectures. Since static security questionnaires cannot detect compromised vendor credentials or tokens, continuous external monitoring is essential.
Elasticito article header – What 4th-Party Risk Does Your 3rd Party Bring to Your Supply Chain? Fourth-Party and Sub-Processor Risk Explained – supply chain cybersecurity
June 24, 2026
This article explains fourth-party risk – the hidden vulnerability from your vendors’ sub-processors. While organisations lack direct audit rights over these hidden relationships, regulations like GDPR and DORA hold them legally liable for any breaches.
Elasticito article header – Stop Treating Every Vendor Like a Critical Partner: Risk-Based Third-Party Tiering – vendor risk management strategy
June 16, 2026
Treating all vendors as critical partners strains resources. This article advocates for risk-based supply chain tiering, categorising vendors by data access and business impact to prioritise assessments and optimise security.
Elasticito article header – Patching Latency: How Long Suppliers Take to Patch a Critical Vulnerability and Why It Predicts a Breach – supplier cyber risk
June 9, 2026
This article explains that a vendor’s patching latency – the time it takes to remediate critical vulnerabilities – is a reliable predictor of data breaches, highlighting why static compliance audits fail to guarantee real-time security.
Elasticito article header – The Identity Backdoor: Why a Vendor's Identity Is the Most Common Path Into Your Data – identity security and vendor access risk
June 7, 2026
The article argues that traditional, point-in-time vendor audits fail against fast, AI-driven exploits. To meet regulations like GDPR’s 72-hour reporting rule, organisations must shift from annual reviews to continuous threat monitoring.
Elasticito article header – The Paperwork Paradox: Does Compliance Make You Secure? – cybersecurity compliance insights by Elasticito
June 5, 2026
Compliance audits offer only a point-in-time snapshot of a specific scope. True cybersecurity requires continuous monitoring of an organisation’s actual, evolving external attack surface against live threats.