Maritime cyber threats go far beyond the ship itself. Every vessel that docks at a port is part of a large, connected digital network that includes terminal operating systems, cargo management platforms, customs data networks, bunkering logistics software, OEM equipment update servers, and third-party satellite communications providers. All these systems link, in some way, to the ship and to other parts of the global shipping network. Attackers have realized that this broader ecosystem, not just the vessel, offers the most valuable targets. If a hacker compromises a single software supplier, satellite communications provider, or port terminal operator, they can access thousands of ships at once or stop cargo movement at an entire port, all without setting foot on a vessel. In 2025 and 2026, this thinking led to a surge in supply chain attacks and port infrastructure breaches, which now pose the most serious and widespread cyber risks in maritime—and the industry is not well prepared for them. This essay looks at how these supply chain attacks work, their scale and impact, the unique weaknesses of port infrastructure, and the regulatory and operational responses being developed.
What sets maritime supply chain attacks apart is their ability to affect many targets at once. While a direct attack on one ship only impacts that vessel, a supply chain attack aimed at shared software or communications systems can reach hundreds or thousands of ships through a single breach. CYTUR calls this the “1-to-N” risk—one breach, many vessels affected—and highlighted it with two major incidents in 2025 (Splash247, 2026).
The first example is the Lab Dookhtegan VSAT attack in March 2025. A hacktivist group broke into Fanava, the satellite communications provider for Iran’s state-owned tanker fleets. This gave them access to the management systems that controlled ship-to-shore VOIP services and network connections for all vessels using Fanava. The attackers used this access to steal corporate documents from Iranian shipping companies NITC and IRISL, published the stolen files, and then, after gathering information, destroyed the ships’ satellite modems by overwriting their memory. This forced physical hardware replacements on 116 vessels at once (Maritime Executive, 2026; Cydome, 2026). This attack showed that breaching a communications provider can cut off an entire fleet from shore-based management, stopping operations without ever touching the ships themselves.
The second major incident was the ransomware attack on FURUNO Electric in October 2025. FURUNO is a Japanese company that makes radar and ECDIS systems used by ships worldwide. The Rhysida ransomware group encrypted FURUNO’s backup systems and stopped the company from delivering software updates to its many customers—thousands of commercial vessels rely on FURUNO for chart updates and firmware maintenance (Splash247, 2026). This “hub-and-spoke” attack model, first seen in the 2023 DNV ShipManager case where one compromised software node affected over 1,000 vessels, is now the main strategy for advanced maritime cyberattacks (MarineLink, 2026). CYTUR’s 2026 White Paper warned that “instead of targeting individual vessels, attackers will focus on chokepoints in the supply chain, such as telecommunication providers and OEM equipment manufacturers,” and that “the tactic of paralysing an entire fleet by infiltrating a single satellite provider will become commonplace” (Shipping Telegraph, 2026, para. 8).
Maritime ports are both vital to the global economy and highly vulnerable to cyberattacks. The Center for Strategic and International Studies found that ports handle over 80 percent of global trade by volume, and that rapid advances in port automation and digitization “outpace security measures and expose port infrastructure to cyber threats” (CSIS, 2026). Many vulnerabilities are well known: IoT devices in ports—like cranes, scanners, gate systems, and lighting controls—often lack basic security, patching, or authentication, leaving a large and poorly monitored attack surface (CSIS, 2026). Port networks also connect with shipping companies, logistics providers, government agencies, and customs systems, so a breach in any partner system can give attackers broad access. There is also a workforce challenge: ports have trouble hiring enough cyber experts, and social engineering attacks—such as phishing, pretexting, and business email compromise aimed at port agents and logistics coordinators—succeed at rates that would be disastrous in other critical sectors (CSIS, 2026).
The impact of port cyberattacks is real and significant. CYTUR reported that a ransomware attack on a major terminal operator in December 2025 encrypted Terminal Operating Systems (TOS) and stopped all container loading and unloading at the facility. Ships nearby had to wait indefinitely while the operator either negotiated or rebuilt its systems (Shipping Telegraph, 2026). In 2024, the Port of Seattle was hit by a ransomware attack from the Rhysida group, which exposed the personal data of about 90,000 people and disrupted key logistics for weeks. This shows that even well-funded North American ports are not immune (MarineLink, 2026). The CSIS analysis highlighted “supplier threats” as a major issue, noting that the U.S. government warned that “foreign-manufactured cranes, scanners, and logistics platforms enable covert access for espionage or sabotage”—a warning aimed at the widespread use of Chinese-made equipment in Western ports (CSIS, 2026).
Maritime supply chain risks are not limited to software—they also involve hardware. The U.S. government has raised concerns about the widespread use of Chinese-made cranes, cargo scanners, and logistics management platforms in American and allied ports. Officials warn these systems could have hidden features that allow secret access, data collection, or remote disruption (CSIS, 2026). A CCDCOE policy brief reported that Chinese state actors have already compromised classification societies, which are independent organizations that certify vessel safety and compliance, to gather information about ship vulnerabilities that could be exploited on a large scale (CCDCOE, 2025). Growing awareness of these risks in Congress has led to new laws: the CSIS analysis found strong bipartisan support for mandatory supply chain and vendor cybersecurity rules for port technologies, requiring ports to manage risks from all vendors and service providers, not just those with obvious national security ties (CSIS, 2026).
Firmware and software update channels are now the most dangerous supply chain risk. CYTUR’s analysis found that “attacks delivered through software and communication service providers represent one of the highest-impact vectors,” because attackers can “distribute malicious code simultaneously to tens of thousands of vessels worldwide that utilise the compromised software” by placing malware in OEM update servers or management tools (Safety4Sea, 2026). As autonomous navigation and remote maintenance become more common, these trusted update channels—used for chart corrections, firmware updates, and performance software—are, in CYTUR’s words, “the most dangerous attack vectors, causing a chain reaction of damage across numerous organisations and vessels” (Safety4Sea, 2026, para. 6).
No analysis of supply chain or port security is complete without considering the human factor. The CSIS analysis pointed out that “reports indicate that social engineering attacks on maritime port personnel often succeed”—a finding that matches Cydome’s report of a 195 percent rise in AI-driven identity fraud and a case where an operative passed four video interviews using AI-enhanced deception (CSIS, 2026; Smart Maritime Network, 2026). CYTUR’s threat brief for shipping lines listed the main social engineering risks: phishing emails sent to crew, use of unsecured public WiFi for crew internet access, and bribed or compromised crew members introducing malicious USB drives into OT networks (Maritime Executive, 2026). The USB threat is especially persistent in maritime because ships at sea, rotating crews, and irregular maintenance make it nearly impossible to enforce the strict physical access controls used on land (Maritime Executive, 2025).
Regulations to address supply chain and port cybersecurity risks are developing on several fronts. The U.S. Coast Guard’s 2025 rule directly targets supply chain security, requiring owners and operators to “mitigate third-party risks” in their cybersecurity plans (Pen Test Partners, 2025). CSIS has called for mandatory cyber incident reporting and better information-sharing in the maritime sector, along with specific cybersecurity requirements for port technology vendors (CSIS, 2026). The IACS UR E27 rule, which extends cyber resilience standards to OEM equipment manufacturers as well as ship operators, is a key regulatory step because it creates accountability at the hardware and software supply chain level, where the most serious attacks often start (Speedcast, 2025).
A major gap in current regulations is the lack of mandatory incident reporting, which would help build a shared intelligence picture for the industry. As CSIS explained, “supply chain partners struggle to share cybersecurity information, preventing lessons learned at one port from aiding others. A lack of data centralisation and inconsistent damage-estimation methods further degrade cybersecurity information quality” (CSIS, 2026, para. 5). The CCDCOE policy brief agreed, saying that the maritime sector’s fragmented information-sharing systems make it hard to develop the integrated threat intelligence needed to spot and stop supply chain attacks before they spread (CCDCOE, 2025).
Supply chain and port infrastructure issues in maritime cybersecurity pose the biggest risk for widespread, system-wide disruption. If an OEM update server is compromised, a terminal operating system is corrupted, or a hardware backdoor is found in a Chinese-made crane, the result is not just a single incident—it can disrupt entire fleets, ports, or supply chains. The 2025 incidents—FURUNO’s ransomware attack, the VSAT hack that disabled 116 tankers at once, and the December terminal operator breach—are not rare events. They show the attack methods that CYTUR, Cydome, and CSIS say will define maritime cyber threats in 2026 and beyond. To address this, the industry needs mandatory supply chain security rules, better information sharing across sectors, hardware security standards for all foreign-made port equipment, and a clear understanding—echoed by CYTUR’s CEO and supported by the data—that cybersecurity is now essential for a vessel to operate.
Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2026, February 5). Maritime port digitization and systemic cyber risk.https://www.csis.org/blogs/strategic-technologies-blog/maritime-port-digitization-and-systemic-cyber-risk
Cydome. (2026). Maritime cyber trends report 2026: What shipping executives need to know.https://www.marinelog.com/news/cydome-growing-ai-use-by-maritime-sharply-increases-the-risk-of-a-cyber-attack/
Industrial Cyber. (2026, March). Cydome report finds 150% surge in maritime OT cyberattacks as ransomware tightens grip in 2025.https://industrialcyber.co/transport/cydome-report-finds-150-surge-in-maritime-ot-cyberattacks-as-ransomware-tightens-grip-in-2025/
MarineLink. (2026, March). Navigating the “Third Era” of maritime cyber risk.https://www.marinelink.com/news/navigating-third-era-maritime-cyber-risk-536724
Maritime Executive. (2025, November 15). Cyber proofing. https://maritime-executive.com/magazine/cyber-proofing
Maritime Executive. (2026, February 24). Report: Maritime cyberattacks doubled in 2025.https://maritime-executive.com/article/report-maritime-cyberattacks-doubled-in-2025
NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. (2025). Addressing state-linked cyber threats to critical maritime infrastructure. https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2025/07/CCDCOE_Policy_Brief.pdf
Pen Test Partners. (2025, September 10). New mandatory USCG cyber regulations: What you need to know.https://www.pentestpartners.com/security-blog/new-mandatory-uscg-cyber-regulations-what-you-need-to-know/
Safety4Sea. (2026, February). Maritime cyber incidents jumped 103% in 2025.https://safety4sea.com/maritime-cyber-incidents-jumped-103-in-2025/
Shipping Telegraph. (2026, February). ‘The era of disconnected seas is over’: Maritime cyber incidents in 2025 surged by 103%.https://shippingtelegraph.com/shipping-reports/the-era-of-disconnected-seas-is-over-maritime-cyber-incidents-in-2025-surged-by-103/
Smart Maritime Network. (2026, March 2). AI is placing maritime industry at greater risk of cyber-attack — report.https://smartmaritimenetwork.com/2026/03/02/ai-is-placing-maritime-industry-at-greater-risk-of-cyber-attack-report/
Speedcast. (2025). Cybersecurity IACS E26 and E27. https://www.speedcast.com/blog-hub/2025/iacs-e26-e27-standards/
Splash247. (2026, March 24). CYTUR issues sector playbooks amid rising maritime cyber threats.https://splash247.com/cytur-issues-sector-playbooks-amid-rising-maritime-cyber-threats/
