• Home
  • About
  • Locations
  • Contact Us
logologologologo
  • Plan
    • AI Governance & Risk Management
    • Acquisition & VC
    • vCISO
    • Policies & Procedures
    • Strategy & Security Program Creation
    • Risk Management
  • Attack
    • Penetration Testing
    • AI Penetration Testing
    • Mobile Application Penetration Testing
    • Red Teaming
    • Web Application Penetration Testing
    • PTaaS
    • IOT Penetration Testing
  • Defend
    • Office 365 Security
    • HIPAA Compliance
    • PCI Compliance
    • Code Reviews
    • Blockchain Security Analysis
    • Vulnerability Assessments
  • Recover
    • Ransomware Recovery
    • Expert Witness
    • Forensics
  • Learn
    • Resources
    • Penetration Testing Training
    • Blog
  • Tools
    • Wp2shell Checker
  • Instant Quote
✕

FCC Reverses Telecom Cybersecurity Rules After 2025 Vote – What It Means for Businesses

November 20, 2025

What the Vote Was

The FCC voted 2-1 on November 20, 2025, to rescind a January 2025 ruling that required U.S. telecommunications providers to adopt sweeping cybersecurity protections under Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) Section 105. 
The original mandate was introduced after the major "Salt Typhoon“ cyber espionage campaign (attributed to Chinese-linked hackers) that breached multiple large carriers.
Under the new order the FCC is shifting away from broad mandates toward a framework of voluntary commitments and targeted oversight. 


Why This Matters for Cybersecurity

  • Critical infrastructure risk: Major telecom carriers form the backbone of digital communications. If their networks are compromised, the effects cascade across industries, governments, and individuals. The Salt Typhoon breach illustrated this.

  • Regulatory baseline removal: Without mandatory federal rules, individual carriers may adopt inconsistent cybersecurity postures, creating uneven protection across networks.

  • CVE and vulnerability management importance: With less regulatory compulsion, carriers and their enterprise customers must rely on strong internal vulnerability-patch programmes (tracking publicly-known CVEs), rigorous penetration testing and robust incident response.

  • Supply-chain and vendor risk: Many telecom systems include third-party equipment and software that may harbour unpatched CVEs or weak access controls, the rollback heightens the need for businesses to ensure their carriers and vendors meet strict standards.

  • Penetration testing becomes a differentiator: Enterprises will increasingly rely on internal testing to validate that their carrier networks, vendor links and services are resilient to both nation-state attacks and supply-chain exploitation.


Key Provisions of the Original and Revised Rules

Aspect January 2025 Mandate November 2025 Rollback & Voluntary Framework
Legal basis CALEA Section 105 interpreted to require carriers to secure networks against unlawful access/interception.  FCC argues original interpretation exceeded statutory authority; mandates reversed. 
Scope Broad set of cybersecurity obligations for all telecom carriers (role-based access, patching, vendor audits, etc.).  Focus shifts to targeted risk areas (submarine cables, foreign-controlled labs, 5G core) and voluntary industry commitments. 
Enforcement Direct carrier obligations; non-compliance could result in penalties. Likely reliance on collaboration, incentives, and voluntary attestations rather than sweeping rules.
Implication for Enterprises Carriers obligated to meet minimum security baselines; enterprises could expect stronger carrier guarantees. Enterprises must take greater responsibility to verify carrier security, focus on CVE/patching, and perform own penetration testing.

What Businesses Should Do Now

  1. Include carrier networks in your asset-and-risk inventory: Recognise that your telecom provider is part of your supply chain, treat it as a critical vendor.

  2. Ask for carrier security assurances and vendor audits: Given the rollback, carriers’ commitments may be voluntary, request documentation or audit reports showing patch management, CVE tracking, threat-hunting, and vendor risk controls.

  3. Track CVEs relevant to telecom infrastructure and services: Many intrusion campaigns exploit known vulnerabilities. Ensure that telecom-facing systems your business depends on (e.g., SIM management, IoT back-haul, RAN/5G cores) are covered.

  4. Conduct penetration testing and red-team exercises including carrier interfaces: Assess your access paths, vendor dependencies, data flows through the carrier network and whether a compromise at the carrier level could impact your operations.

  5. Segment and monitor communications paths: Assume risk exists in the carrier network, monitor for anomaly, enforce zero trust, restrict outbound and inbound flows, and ensure you can operate if the carrier experiences a breach.

  6. Negotiate security clauses in SLAs and vendor agreements: With mandated rules removed, your commercial contracts become the default guarantee. Insert requirements around patching windows, incident response times, breach notification, and audit rights.

  7. Align internal security strategy with national-level frameworks: Use standards like NIST Cybersecurity Framework, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) performance goals and sector-specific controls to ensure you remain resilient regardless of regulatory shifts.


Forward-Looking Implications

  • Voluntary measures may lead to uneven protection: Enterprises must assume minimum levels of carrier security cannot be taken for granted.

  • National security dimension remains strong: The Salt Typhoon case underscores that telecom security remains a strategic priority and may come under scrutiny from other federal bodies or legislation.

  • Emerging attack vectors: With telecom infrastructure at greater risk, threat actors may shift to exploiting carrier-vendor ecosystems, signalling networks, or 5G cores. Businesses need to ensure their downstream systems aren't vulnerable by association.

  • Penetration testing as competitive advantage: Organisations that validate carrier and vendor security posture through independent tests will stand out to clients, regulators and insurers.


FAQ

Q1: What is the Salt Typhoon hack?
It is a major cyber-espionage campaign attributed to Chinese state-linked actors that infiltrated United States telecom providers, compromising networks, metadata and signalling systems. 

Q2: Does the FCC rollback mean carriers are no longer required to secure networks?
No, carriers still face general cybersecurity expectations, incident-reporting obligations and supply-chain rules. But the broad January 2025 mandate is being replaced with a more voluntary, targeted approach. 

Q3: How does this change affect my business?
Your business should now take greater responsibility for vetting carrier security, tracking CVEs in telecom-facing systems and performing penetration testing on access paths through providers. Minimum security levels may vary, so assume risk and act accordingly.

Contact Us Now to Prepare
for Digital Warfare


      • info@digitalwarfare.com

      • +1 757-900-9968

author avatar
James Knight Senior Principal, and lead threat intelligence analyst
James Knight is a well-known cybersecurity expert, international keynote speaker, and Senior Principal at Digital Warfare, a global cybersecurity consulting firm headquartered in McLean, Virginia, USA. Digital Warfare provides penetration testing, red teaming, vCISO, and many other services to enterprise organizations and government entities globally and across the United States. With over 25 years of hands-on experience at the intersection of offensive security and real-world threat intelligence, James has conducted pen tests, security assessments, vulnerability research, and adversarial analysis for corporate enterprises and government clients spanning financial services, critical infrastructure, and defense-adjacent sectors. His work covers the full spectrum of modern enterprise threats including advanced persistent threat campaigns, ransomware group tradecraft, supply chain compromise, AI-augmented attack techniques, and zero-day vulnerability exploitation. James is a recognized and frequently cited voice on cybersecurity in both specialist and mainstream media. Many well-known news sites, including The Daily Mail, have quoted him on many occasions: on ransomware payment policy in the context of the Colonial Pipeline attack, on how agentic AI is expected to reshape cyber warfare over the next 25 years, and on the security implications of the latest OpenAI security incident. His analysis has also been cited on Medium, where independent cybersecurity researchers have quoted his insights on supply chain security and AI-driven attack techniques. On supply chain risk, James has described the threat in terms that practitioners recognize immediately: supply chain attacks exploit the trust organizations place in third parties, requiring defenders to map every dependency like a battlefield and probe for weaknesses that could cascade across entire networks. On AI-driven attacks, his assessment reflects the same operational directness: AI-powered attacks exploit the enterprise fascination with new technology, requiring penetration testers to treat every unverified component as a potential payload delivery mechanism. His firm has been featured as a cybersecurity resource in FinancialContent and referenced across multiple professional data platforms including ZoomInfo and Datanyze as a specialist cybersecurity consulting firm serving Fortune 500 and SME organizations. At Digital Warfare, James leads the team and authors the Digital Warfare Threat Intelligence blog, publishing daily analysis of confirmed cybersecurity incidents sourced exclusively from verified primary sources including CISA advisories, vendor security bulletins, and leading threat intelligence publications. His analysis is built for security practitioners and business leaders who need actionable intelligence rather than vendor marketing. His original research includes the Digital Warfare 2026 Mid-Year Threat Pattern Report, an analysis of 28 confirmed threat incidents tracked between January and August 2026 that introduced three named security frameworks now used by enterprise security teams. The Zero-Day Priority Framework establishes a tiered patching classification system grounded in confirmed 2026 exploitation data showing that 73 percent of zero-days are weaponized within 72 hours of public disclosure. The Supply Chain Attack Taxonomy defines three distinct classes of supply chain compromise, each requiring different defensive controls and monitoring approaches. The AI Augmentation Classification documents three confirmed maturity levels of AI-assisted attack capability observed in real-world 2026 incidents, from AI-generated custom malware at Level One through fully autonomous ransomware operations at Level Three. Digital Warfare was founded in 2012 and serves corporations and governmental entities seeking rigorous security assessment and strategic security leadership from practitioners with genuine operational experience. Every member of the firm's elite team brings over 25 years of cybersecurity experience to every client engagement. Connect with James on LinkedIn or follow his threat intelligence updates at digitalwarfare.com/blog.
See Full Bio
Penetration Testing Ransomware Incident Response Threat Intelligence Zero-Day Vulnerability Research
social network icon
Share
Copyright © Digital Warfare. All rights reserved.
  • Home
  • About
  • Locations
  • Contact Us