[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fF4SxNRyRCFgA57UAQByJyar_ssUYhw_aViPzZ7JmMnc":3},{"lesson":4},{"id":5,"slug":6,"article_id":7,"title":8,"body":9,"prevention":10,"framework_refs":11,"status":21,"created_at":22,"published_at":23,"article":24,"tags":28,"podcasts":47},"677bf1e5-9b29-4fb5-a36c-59ade881b6a5","zero-knowledge-proofs-could-unlock-safer-cyber-risk-sharing","145e44a9-ba70-4a02-b8e9-cb58cc4ea111","Zero-Knowledge Proofs Could Unlock Safer Cyber Risk Sharing","Organizations have long struggled to share meaningful threat and vulnerability intelligence because doing so risks exposing sensitive proprietary data such as software inventories, network diagrams, and system configurations. This tension creates information silos that weaken the broader cybersecurity ecosystem, leaving companies and sectors less prepared to respond to shared threats. Zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) offer a cryptographic solution that allows one party to mathematically prove a fact — such as the presence of a specific vulnerability — without revealing the underlying sensitive data. This matters because collective defense depends on timely, trustworthy information sharing, and ZKPs could remove the primary barrier that prevents organizations from participating. Failing to share vulnerability data, even when technically feasible, represents a missed opportunity to reduce systemic cyber risk across industries.","**Immediate actions:**\n- Evaluate existing threat intelligence sharing arrangements (ISACs, ISAOs) to identify gaps caused by data sensitivity concerns.\n- Implement a data classification policy that clearly distinguishes what vulnerability information can and cannot be shared externally.\n\n**Long-term improvements:**\n- Pilot zero-knowledge proof or privacy-preserving computation technologies to enable participation in sector-wide vulnerability disclosure programs.\n- Establish formal information sharing agreements (e.g., TLP-classified feeds) with trusted industry peers and government partners.\n- Integrate vulnerability disclosure workflows into your existing risk management and incident response frameworks.\n\n**Detection & Governance measures:**\n- Define clear governance roles for who authorizes external sharing of vulnerability and risk data.\n- Audit information-sharing outputs regularly to ensure no sensitive metadata or configurations are inadvertently disclosed.\n- Align sharing practices with applicable regulatory requirements (e.g., GDPR Article 25, NIS2 Article 23) to ensure compliance during collaborative disclosure.",[12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20],"NIST CSF ID.RA-5 (Vulnerability and Risk Identification)","NIST SP 800-150 (Guide to Cyber Threat Information Sharing)","CIS Control 7 (Continuous Vulnerability Management)","CIS Control 17 (Incident Response and Management)","GDPR Article 25 (Data Protection by Design and Default)","GDPR Article 32 (Security of Processing)","NIS2 Directive Article 23 (Reporting Obligations)","ISO\u002FIEC 27001 A.6.1.3 (Contact with Special Interest Groups)","NIST SP 800-39 (Managing Information Security Risk)","published","2026-08-04T13:20:19.524259+00:00","2026-08-04T13:20:19.201+00:00",{"id":7,"url":25,"slug":26,"title":27},"https:\u002F\u002Fcyberscoop.com\u002Fzero-knowledge-proofs-cyber-risk-sharing-op-ed\u002F","how-companies-could-share-cyber-risks-without-exposing-their-secrets-8ac202","How companies could share cyber risks without exposing their secrets",[29,35,41],{"id":30,"name":31,"slug":32,"description":33,"color":34},"05757c8d-6b93-4194-b35d-7359e7d33b0e","Vulnerability Management","vulnerability-management","Missing scans, no risk prioritization","#fb923c",{"id":36,"name":37,"slug":38,"description":39,"color":40},"c0dcc566-3654-4d70-8ede-262a198e732f","Regulatory Compliance","regulatory-compliance","GDPR, NIS2, DORA, sector-specific violations","#ec4899",{"id":42,"name":43,"slug":44,"description":45,"color":46},"c8b843a5-d5a7-41d1-8d3b-cabded09d2ef","Data Protection","data-protection","Unencrypted data, missing DLP, poor classification","#3b82f6",[]]