By Fábio Ramos, CEO of Axur

Over the past few days, Oracle has found itself at the center of allegations involving a potential leak of sensitive data. Information about this incident first surfaced on Breach Forum, a platform notorious for disclosing cyber breaches. Despite the tech giant firmly denying the event, a cybersecurity company insists the leaked data is legitimate.

This climate of uncertainty and speculation highlights important questions—not only regarding Oracle’s security posture but also about the ethical standards expected from companies specializing in Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI).

Having spoken extensively with clients about this specific case, I've noticed a subtle but critical point often overlooked. If the authenticity of this leak is confirmed—which I personally consider plausible—the consequences extend beyond Oracle itself, undermining trust across the entire cybersecurity ecosystem.

Unfortunately, some companies seeking greater visibility or market positioning tend to exaggerate and amplify incidents like these. By transforming sensitive cybersecurity events into public controversies, they unintentionally grant criminals exactly what they seek most: publicity and influence. Essentially, they're handing attackers a megaphone to broadcast and amplify their threats.

The media also plays a pivotal role here, often receiving information directly from attackers, pressuring victim companies, and inadvertently amplifying the narrative crafted by cybercriminals. Today it's Oracle; tomorrow it could be any company—even yours. This scenario calls for serious reflection: what should be the responsible role of threat intelligence providers in situations like this?

Since the initial disclosure on Breach Forum, security teams worldwide have understandably started investigating. However, some companies have gone beyond standard procedures, setting up dedicated landing pages, publicly sharing detailed reports, and leveraging the incident explicitly as a marketing opportunity. This prompts a critical question: are these actions truly helping businesses become more secure, or merely opportunistic attempts to generate leads?

Another crucial aspect is that, according to the attacker, the leaked data remains encrypted. As a result, the immediate damage lies less in the actual content of the leak and more in the amplified narrative suggesting Oracle has been compromised.

Moreover, there's an additional risk few recognize: right now, the attacker might be actively attempting to extort Oracle by threatening further disclosures unless payment is made. Worse, the attacker leverages the public attention generated by threat intelligence firms and the media as additional leverage.

I've seen this dynamic unfold numerous times before: criminals exploit the very attention created by organizations meant to protect businesses, intensifying their threats. As a cybersecurity community, we urgently need to reflect on our true purpose and ethical responsibilities.

Ultimately, who truly benefits when sensitive incidents become opportunistic marketing campaigns? Sadly, it’s precisely those who should benefit least—the cybercriminals themselves.