Te biggest missed opportunity is running anti-fraud, security, and compliance as disconnected silos. Most
operators have four or five tools generating signals that never meet, and an attacker probing the estate doesn’t care which vendor owns which control.
toward passive, always-on verification that runs in the background of every session, users feel nothing, but the system maintains a rich, live picture of trust. When signals consistently indicate a legitimate session, the experience stays light; when something changes, verification intensifies. It is a risk-adjusted model rather than a uniform one, and it reflects how security works in every other mature digital domain, from card payments to enterprise identity.
Tis is an area where Xpoint has invested deeply. Our Trust Mode framework is designed around exactly this principle, dynamic verification that protects without creating perceptible friction. Cross- platform SDK consistency matters here too, because fragmented integrations create UX variability that can be misread as a security tradeoff. When the verification layer is well-engineered, security and retention reinforce each other rather than compete.
What does “good” cybersecurity preparedness look like in 2026?
Te honest answer is that preparedness in 2026 has to account for a threat environment changing faster than the frameworks we built to manage it. Te clearest recent signal is Anthropic’s announcement of its Mythos Preview model and the associated Project Glasswing disclosure program. According to Anthropic’s own reporting, the model autonomously chained together multiple vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel, the operating system powering most of the industry’s server infrastructure, producing a path from ordinary user access to full machine control. It also surfaced a 27-year-old flaw in OpenBSD and vulnerabilities across every major browser. Tese are real findings in production software that had been scrutinised by expert humans for decades.
Tis is a meaningful step-change. What used to require a skilled offensive team and weeks of work can increasingly be produced by a model running for hours. Access is currently restricted to a small number of ecosystem partners, but the capability itself is a milestone, not a product, other frontier labs will reach similar thresholds, and the diffusion curve is likely to be short. For iGaming specifically, where Linux-based infrastructure carries high-value financial flows and regulated workloads
176
MANU GAMBHIR CEO, Xpoint
across dozens of jurisdictions, the offence/defence asymmetry that has always defined this domain is about to widen further.
Tis is an emerging risk area that will demand significant, sustained investment across the ecosystem, operators, vendors, regulators, and open-source maintainers alike. No single company solves this alone, and Xpoint is no exception. Te layer we cover, real-time geolocation, device integrity, and session trust, we cover with every decision traceable to its underlying signals. But good preparedness from here requires the full verification chain to work as one system: identity, device, location, behaviour, payment, and compliance signals correlated in a shared audit trail, not scattered across disconnected tools. Tat will require vendors like us to build shared protocols with partners in adjacent domains, and to keep expanding the aperture of what we cover over time. Te cost of standing still in this environment is not neutral.
What’s the most common mistake operators still make?
Te biggest missed opportunity is running anti-fraud, security, and compliance as disconnected silos. Most operators have four or five tools generating signals that never meet, and an attacker probing the estate doesn’t care which vendor owns which control. An account takeover, a location anomaly, a device spoof, and a bonus abuse attempt are usually the same incident viewed from four different angles, and when those views never get stitched together, users slip through gaps no single system was built to see. Te mature model is a unified trust picture with a shared audit trail, and that is a responsibility shared between operators and their vendors, including us.
Te second common gap is underinvestment in observability. Many teams still can’t quickly answer basic operational questions like how many remote-control sessions they saw last week, or how false-positive rates vary by jurisdiction. You can’t tune what you can’t measure, and in a threat environment accelerating this quickly, that measurement gap becomes a compounding liability. Closing it is part of what the next chapter of this industry is going to be about, not one vendor solving everything, but a set of vendors who each do their layer well, talk to each other properly, and together give operators the unified view they need.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236
