Cybercriminals rarely stand still. Every time defences plug one gap, attackers find another weakness. One of the more effective methods to re-emerge in recent years is the malware-free attack: a technique that exploits the very tools built into our systems, rather than relying on malicious code smuggled in from the outside.
Unlike traditional malware-based approaches, these attacks make use of legitimate programs and processes that are already present in operating systems. Because these are often digitally signed with trusted certificates, and are inherently ‘trusted’, spotting their misuse is far from straightforward. In many cases, automated protections may not even raise the alarm directly at all.
For attackers, the appeal is obvious – why go to the trouble of writing or buying malware when the infrastructure of the target organisation already contains everything needed to launch an attack or exfiltrate data? The result is a growing focus on malware-free techniques, from opportunistic cybercriminals right through to state-sponsored groups.
The stealthy nature of malware-free attacks makes them difficult to detect and, in some cases, almost invisible. For organisations already stretched by limited budgets or skills shortages, it can feel like an impossible battle. The natural reflex when a new threat gains traction is to look outward, and focus on what software can be bought or which tool might solve the problem; yet this mindset can quickly lead to spiralling costs with little guarantee of effectiveness.
Buying technology alone will not compensate for weak foundations. To maintain a realistic defence strategy, businesses need to shift their thinking from purchasing tools to actually solving problems. The focus should be on understanding where risks truly lie and then deciding from there how best to address them, using existing resources wherever possible to help minimise costs.
However, most organisations already own more capability than they realise. Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) systems, behavioural monitoring, or identity protection are often in place but may be under-configured or poorly integrated. Revisiting how these systems are set up and ensuring that they are fully aligned with an organisation’s threat model can often provide stronger protection without too much additional spend.
The unfortunate truth is that if the first alert comes when a binary has already been weaponised, cyber security teams are already playing catch-up. Prevention, therefore, has to be the backbone of defence strategies.
A strong defensive stance begins with access control. Multi-factor authentication should be rolled out across organisations, with particular emphasis on privileged accounts where a single compromise can be catastrophic. The difference this makes can be profound; even if an attacker succeeds in stealing or guessing a password, the additional authentication step can block their progress before any real damage is done.
Alongside this, organisations should look at the way users and systems are able to move around once inside the network. Segmenting systems into smaller zones and applying strict privilege management to ensure staff only have the access they genuinely need makes it much more difficult for an attacker to pivot from one compromised binary to another.
Of course, no amount of technical control can fully offset the human factor. Employees remain the most common gateway into organisations, whether through a carefully crafted phishing email or something more subtle such as a fake CAPTCHA page designed to harvest credentials. Regular awareness training, tailored to the realities of modern attacks, is one of the most cost-effective ways to mitigate this risk.
Finally, reducing the available attack surface is essential. That means stripping away unnecessary permissions, hardening system configurations, and whitelisting binaries so only approved software can run. Taken together, these measures limit the opportunities available to intruders, forcing them to work harder for every step and increasing the likelihood of early detection.
For larger enterprises, or those in high-risk sectors, deploying a Security Operations Centre (SOC) with continuous monitoring alongside advanced EDR tools remains the gold standard. Skilled analysts watching behaviour in real-time can detect subtle behaviours that automation alone would miss.
Yet SOCs and high-end EDR are not silver bullets – they’re costly, resource-intensive, and still depend on the quality of the data being fed in. For many organisations, they may simply be out of reach. In these cases, maximising the value of what already exists, as well as embedding solid security practices, will deliver more benefit than straining budgets on incomplete SOC deployments.
The question now is not whether malware-free attacks will continue, as they are in fact likely to only grow in sophistication. The real issue is how each organisation balances its appetite for risk with the resources available to commit.
Carrying out a cost-versus-risk assessment helps leaders move away from the “buy first, think later” approach. By focusing on what problems must be solved, and only then considering whether new investments are truly required, companies can avoid unnecessary costs while still boosting their defensive posture.
Because malware-free attacks exploit trust in everyday tools, there is no quick fix and no guaranteed shield. However, there’s also no need to assume that only the most expensive solutions can protect against them.
The reality is that even the most highly-developed monitoring suite cannot compensate for weak foundations. Organisations that invest in prevention, optimisation, and good practice, will be in a much stronger position than those that rely solely on technology spend. In cyber security, as is the case in many areas, discipline will trump budget.