What Is Password Spraying?

Tanya Wetson-Catt • 11 June 2025

Password spraying is a complex type of cyberattack that uses weak passwords to get into multiple user accounts without permission. Using the same password or a list of passwords that are often used on multiple accounts is what this method is all about. The goal is to get around common security measures like account lockouts.


Attacks that use a lot of passwords are very successful because they target the weakest link in cybersecurity, which is people and how they manage their passwords. This piece will explain how password spraying works, talk about how it's different from other brute-force attacks, and look at ways to find and stop it. We will also look at cases from real life and talk about how businesses can protect themselves from these threats.


What Is Password Spraying and How Does It Work?


A brute-force attack called "password spraying" tries to get into multiple accounts with the same password. Attackers can avoid account shutdown policies with this method. These policies are usually put in place to stop brute-force attacks that try to access a single account with multiple passwords. For password spraying to work, a lot of people need to use weak passwords that are easy to figure out.


Attackers often get lists of usernames from public directories or data leaks that have already happened. They then use the same passwords to try to log in to all of these accounts. Usually, the process is automated so that it can quickly try all possible pairs of username and password.


The attackers' plan is to pick a small group of common passwords that at least some people in the target company are likely to use. These passwords are usually taken from lists of common passwords that are available to the public, or they are based on information about the group, like the name or location of the company. Attackers lower their chances of being locked out while increasing their chances of successfully logging in by using the same set of passwords for multiple accounts.


A lot of people don't notice password spraying attacks because they don't cause as much suspicious behaviour as other types of brute-force attacks. The attack looks less dangerous because only one password is used at a time, so it might not set off any instant alarms. But if these attempts are made on multiple accounts, they can have a terrible effect if they are not properly tracked and dealt with.


Password spraying has become popular among hackers, even those working for the government, in recent years. Because it is so easy to do and works so well to get around security measures, it is a major threat to both personal and business data security. As cybersecurity improves, it will become more important to understand and stop password spraying threats.


In the next section, we’ll discuss how password spraying differs from other types of cyberattacks and explore strategies for its detection.


How Does Password Spraying Differ from Other Cyberattacks?


Password spraying is distinct from other brute-force attacks in its approach and execution. While traditional brute-force attacks focus on trying multiple passwords against a single account, password spraying uses a single password across multiple accounts. This difference allows attackers to avoid triggering account lockout policies, which are designed to protect against excessive login attempts on a single account.


Understanding Brute-Force Attacks


Brute-force attacks involve systematically trying all possible combinations of passwords to gain access to an account. These attacks are often resource-intensive and can be easily detected due to the high volume of login attempts on a single account.


Compare Credential Stuffing


Credential stuffing is another type of brute-force attack that involves using lists of stolen username and password combinations to attempt logins. Unlike password spraying, credential stuffing relies on previously compromised credentials rather than guessing common passwords.


The Stealthy Nature of Password Spraying


Password spraying attacks are stealthier than traditional brute-force attacks because they distribute attempts across many accounts, making them harder to detect. This stealthiness is a key factor in their effectiveness, as they can often go unnoticed until significant damage has been done.


In the next section, we’ll explore how organisations can detect and prevent these attacks.


5. Rootkit Malware


Rootkit malware is a program or collection of malicious software tools that give attackers remote access to and control over a computer or other system. Although rootkits have some legitimate uses, most are used to open a backdoor on victims’ systems to introduce malicious software or use the system for further network attacks.

Rootkits often attempt to prevent detection by deactivating endpoint antimalware and antivirus software. They can be installed during phishing attacks or through social engineering tactics, giving remote cybercriminals administrator access to the system. Once installed, a rootkit can install viruses, ransomware, keyloggers, or other types of malware, and even change system configurations to maintain stealth.


How Can Organisations Detect and Prevent Password Spraying Attacks?


Detecting password spraying attacks requires a proactive approach to monitoring and analysis. Organisations must implement robust security measures to identify suspicious activities early on. This includes monitoring for unusual login attempts, establishing baseline thresholds for failed logins, and using advanced security tools to detect patterns indicative of password spraying.


Implementing Strong Password Policies


Enforcing strong, unique passwords for all users is crucial in preventing password spraying attacks. Organisations should adopt guidelines that ensure passwords are complex, lengthy, and regularly updated. Tools like password managers can help users generate and securely store strong passwords.


Deploying Multi-Factor Authentication


Multi-factor authentication (MFA) significantly reduces the risk of unauthorised access by requiring additional verification steps beyond just a password. Implementing MFA across all user accounts, especially those accessing sensitive information, is essential for protecting against password spraying.


Conducting Regular Security Audits


Regular audits of authentication logs and security posture assessments can help identify vulnerabilities that could facilitate password spraying attacks. These audits should focus on detecting trends that automated tools might miss and ensuring that all security measures are up-to-date and effective.


In the next section, we’ll discuss additional strategies for protecting against these threats.


What Additional Measures Can Be Taken to Enhance Security?


Beyond the core strategies of strong passwords and MFA, organisations can take several additional steps to enhance their security posture against password spraying attacks. This includes configuring security settings to detect and respond to suspicious login attempts, educating users about password security, and implementing incident response plans.


Enhancing Login Detection


Organisations should set up detection systems for login attempts to multiple accounts from a single host over a short period. This can be a clear indicator of a password spraying attempt. Implementing stronger lockout policies that balance security with usability is also crucial.


Educating Users


User education plays a vital role in preventing password spraying attacks. Users should be informed about the risks of weak passwords and the importance of MFA. Regular training sessions can help reinforce best practices in password management and security awareness.


Incident Response Planning


Having a comprehensive incident response plan in place is essential for quickly responding to and mitigating the effects of a password spraying attack. This plan should include procedures for alerting users, changing passwords, and conducting thorough security audits.


Taking Action Against Password Spraying


Password spraying is a significant threat to cybersecurity that exploits weak passwords to gain unauthorised access to multiple accounts. Organisations must prioritise strong password policies, multi-factor authentication, and proactive monitoring to protect against these attacks. By understanding how password spraying works and implementing robust security measures, businesses can safeguard their data and systems from these sophisticated cyber threats.



To enhance your organisation's cybersecurity and protect against password spraying attacks, consider reaching out to us. We specialise in providing expert guidance and solutions to help you strengthen your security posture and ensure the integrity of your digital assets. Contact us today to learn more about how we can assist you in securing your systems against evolving cyber threats.

Let's Talk Tech

More from our blog

Micro-SaaS Vetting: The 5-Minute Security Check for Browser Add-ons

by Tanya Wetson-Catt • 25 May 2026
Browser add-ons have a funny reputation. They feel “small”. A quick install. A tiny productivity boost. A harmless little helper that lives in your toolbar. But in practice, a browser extension is more like a micro-SaaS vendor sitting inside your browser session. It can see what you see, interact with the pages you open, and sometimes access the same cloud apps your business runs on all day. That’s why a browser extension security check matters. Not because every extension is bad, but because it only takes one over-permissioned add-on or one bad update to turn “helpful” into exposure. The good news is you don’t need a 40-page policy to reduce the risk. A simple five-minute check can prevent most extension problems before they start. Why Browser Extensions Are a High-Leverage Risk Browser extensions sit in the most sensitive place in modern work: the browser tab where your staff live all day. That matters because extensions aren’t just “apps”. They’re granted special authorisations inside the browser. That makes them attractive targets and gives them leverage that’s disproportionate to how “small” they feel. UC Berkeley’s guidance says extensions get “special authorisations,” and the more you install, the bigger the attack surface becomes. The risk is often permission-based. OWASP calls out “permissions overreach” as a core problem. Extensions can request more access than they need, including access to “all tabs, browsing history, and even sensitive user data.” When an extension can read and modify what happens in the browser, it can potentially see data in cloud tools, capture what’s typed into forms, or alter content on a page. It’s also a “change over time” risk. A useful extension today can become a different extension tomorrow. The 5-Minute Browser Extension Security Check This browser extension security check is designed to be fast, repeatable, and realistic. It helps staff make safe decisions in minutes without turning every extension into a big IT ticket. Vet the developer like a real vendor If you wouldn’t give a random supplier access to your customer records, don’t give a random extension access to your browser. Start with the basics: Confirm the developer has a real website, support details, and a consistent name across listings Look for a track record (other products, a clear company presence, updates that look normal) Prefer official stores and trusted sources over “download this .zip” links

LinkedIn "Social Engineering": Protecting Your Staff from Fake Recruitment Scams

by Tanya Wetson-Catt • 22 May 2026
A fake recruiter message is one of the cleanest social engineering tricks around because it doesn’t look like a trick. That’s why LinkedIn recruitment scams work so well inside real businesses. They don’t arrive as malware. They arrive as a normal conversation that nudges someone toward one small action: click this link, open this file, “verify” this detail, move the chat to a different app. A few simple checks, a couple of hard-stop rules, and an easy way to report suspicious outreach can shut these scams down without slowing anyone down. LinkedIn Recruitment Scams LinkedIn recruitment scams artfully blend into normal professional behaviour. The message doesn’t look like a “cyber attack.” It looks like networking, and it borrows credibility from recognisable brands, polished profiles, and familiar hiring language. At platform scale, the volume is also hard to wrap your head around. Rest of World reports that LinkedIn said it “identified and removed 80.6 million fake accounts” at registration from July to December 2024. A LinkedIn spokesperson claimed “over 99%” of the fake accounts they remove are detected proactively before anyone reports them. Even with that level of detection, enough scam activity still leaks through to reach real employees. That’s especially true when scammers tailor their approach to what looks credible in a specific industry and location. The other reason these scams succeed is that they follow a predictable persuasion pattern: urgency, authority, and a quick push to “do the next step.” The FTC describes scammers impersonating well-known companies and then steering targets toward actions that create leverage. These actions include handing over sensitive personal information or sending money for “equipment” or other upfront costs. Once someone is rushed into treating the process as real, the scam doesn’t need to be technically sophisticated. It just needs the victim to keep moving. The Scam Pattern Most Teams Miss 1. A polished approach on LinkedIn The profile looks credible enough, the role sounds plausible, and the message is written in a professional tone. The job post itself may still be oddly generic, though. Amoria Bond notes that fake job postings often “lack details” and lean on broad language to catch as many people as possible. 2. A quick push off-platform The conversation shifts to email, WhatsApp/Telegram, or a “recruitment portal” link. That shift is important because it removes the built-in friction of LinkedIn’s environment and makes it easier to send links, files, and instructions.

3. A credibility wrapper: “assessment”, “interview pack”, or “onboarding”

Airswift flags link/attachment requests and urgency tactics as common red flags. The story is usually something like: “Download this assessment,” “Review these onboarding steps,” or “Log in here to schedule.” Tag Apps Make decisions visible and repeatable by tagging apps. Microsoft explicitly calls tagging apps as sanctioned or unsanctioned an important step, because it lets you filter, track progress, and drive consistent action over time. 4. The pivot: money, sensitive info, or account takeover Scammers impersonate well-known companies and then ask for things legitimate employers typically don’t: payment for “equipment” or early requests for personal information. Another variation is more subtle: “verification” steps that are really designed to steal identity details or compromise accounts. 5. Pressure to keep moving If someone hesitates, the scam leans on urgency: “limited slots,” “fast-track hiring,” “complete this today.” That’s why Forbes frames the key skill as slowing down and checking details, because the scam depends on momentum. Red Flags Checklist for Staff Here are the red flags to look out for. Red flags in the job posting The role is oddly vague or overly broad. Generic responsibilities, unclear reporting lines, and “we’ll share details later” language are common in fake listings. The company's presence doesn’t match the brand name. Thin company pages, inconsistent logos/branding, or a web presence that feels incomplete are worth pausing on. The process is “too easy, too fast.” If the listing implies immediate hiring with minimal steps, treat it as suspicious. Red flags in recruiter behaviour They push you off LinkedIn quickly. Moving to WhatsApp/Telegram or personal email early is a common tactic. They use a personal email address or unusual contact details. Be specifically cautious of recruiters using free webmail accounts instead of a company domain. They avoid verification. If they dodge basic questions, treat that as a signal, not a scheduling issue Hard-stop requests Any request for money or fees. Application fees, equipment purchases, “training costs”, gift cards, crypto, that’s a hard stop. Requests for sensitive personal info early. Bank details, identity documents, tax forms, or “background checks” before a real interview process is established. Requests for verification codes. If anyone asks you to read back a one-time code sent to your phone/email, assume they’re trying to take over an account. Requests for non-public company information like org charts, internal system details, client lists, invoice processes and security tools. Look out for requisitions for anything beyond what a recruiter would reasonably need. Stop Scams With Simple Defaults LinkedIn recruitment scams don’t succeed because staff are careless. They succeed because the outreach looks normal, the process feels familiar, and the next step is always framed as urgent. The fix isn’t turning everyone into an investigator. It’s setting simple defaults that make scams harder to complete: slow down before clicking, verify the recruiter and role through official channels, keep conversations on-platform until identity checks out, and treat money requests, code requests, and early personal data demands as hard stops.  When those habits are standardised, the scam loses its leverage.

The "Legacy Debt" Audit: Identifying the 3 Oldest Risks in Your Server Room

by Tanya Wetson-Catt • 18 May 2026
The most dangerous thing in a server room is often the phrase, “Don’t touch that.” 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.