House of Commons of Canada Data Breach via Microsoft Vulnerability (August 2025)
Figure 1: Cyberattack illustration of Canada’s Parliament (image generated by ChatGPT).
If you think hackers only go after banks or tech companies then think twice. Turns out, they have a thing for Parliaments too. According to a CBC News report, in August 2025 Canada’s House of Commons was struck by a cyberattack that caused a significant data breach.
The House of Commons broke the news out to staff via email, alerting them that there had been an information breach. Apparently, a malicious actor was able to penetrate their database via a Microsoft vulnerability. Some information the hacker obtained has not been made public. The data included employees’ names, job titles, office locations and email addresses, as well as information regarding their House of Commons-managed devices.
Canada’s Communications Security Establishment (CSE) confirmed that they are very much aware of the attack and are working with the House of Commons for support, but have not yet pinpointed who was behind it.
A recent threat report from the CSE says that adversarial nations like China, Russia and Iran are increasingly behind cyber threats to Canada. But, they say it’s too early to tell who or what is behind this particular breach.
“Attribution of a cyber incident is difficult. Investigating cyber threat activity takes resources and time, and there are many considerations involved in the process of attributing malicious cyber activity,” said in a a CSE statement
In the meantime, CSE has called on members of the House of Commons to stay vigilant as the information that has been accessed during this breach could be used for scams, blackmail and impersonation of politicians.
This is still an ongoing investigation that the House of Commons in collaboration with national security partners is conducting, but they have not released any information as to how many employees were affected.
Why is this a threat?
- Government officials are high value targets: Beyond personal details, they hold highly sensitive data that could be exploited
- Metadata is quite important to protect; operating systems, serial numbers might sound trivial but if they fall into wrong hands, they can cause serious issues
- It would be very difficult for the public to trust the government since those that make the laws cannot protect their own systems.
It’s quite ironic that the policy makers and politicians who are always adamant that the public protect their data and be cyber smart are the very ones that have now fallen short. I believe Canada has privacy laws like (PIPEDA) is it that those laws are not active when it comes to the government getting breached?
What is more concerning is the lack of transparency. Neither the attacker’s identity nor the extent of the breach has been disclosed. That raises public suspicions and skepticism about government institutions.
Solutions and Preventive Measures
- They should have a zero-trust architecture (trust nothing, verify or double check everything!)
- Use device attestation and MFA so leaked metadata is not enough for attackers to use.
- Increase their transparency when breaches happen, citizens deserve the honesty, not silence.
Hackers penetrating these systems is not just a problem for Canada, it’s a global wake-up call. Cybersecurity needs to be taken quite seriously and not just tucked under the general IT budget. If lawmakers really want citizens to be cyber aware, then they need to lead by example. They need to protect data and prove they aren’t the weakest link.
References
CBC News. (2025, August 8). House of Commons warns of data breach involving employee information. Retrieved September 18, 2025, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/house-of-commons-data-breach-1.7608061
The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) — Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/the-personal-information-protection-and-electronic-documents-act-pipeda/ priv.gc.ca
Great post!!!
I really enjoyed your post, Cooper. This is a wakeup call for everyone, not just the government. If our lawmakers, who set the rules on data protection can fall victim to these attacks then who are we? These clearly shows how devious attackers can be. Sincerely hope this leads to stronger security measures
I fully agree that transparency and active security, such as zero-trust models and multi-factor authentication, are essential for regaining public trust. It is ironic, yet also indicative, that the individuals who establish policies for data protection must also begin to lead by example and demonstrate how cybersecurity matters. This is a sharp reminder around the world that we need much stronger, more transparent cyber defenses at all levels of government. Thank you for clarifying that!
Great job Cooper!!. Reading this post alongside our earlier conversations on government cyber security and privacy really shows how weak and vulnerable even high level systems can be. It is also worrying that lawmakers who they themselves always preach the importance of data privacy and protection can be targets themselves. This is making me to reflect on the bigger implications for everyone trust in institutions and the need for strong security practices.
Thank you for this post, Cooper! It just goes to show that everything and everyone is hackable, and continuously promotes the known idea that people are the weakest links in terms of security. Asides from hacking large establishments like banks, and the government, hackers also hack people. For example, if a target of a hack’s allergies are known to a hacker via socially engineering their loved ones, then that hacker can use that information against the person for things that are more sinister than we might think.
While I do agree that transparency may be equally as important as the breach itself, I wonder if the nature of the information that was hacked played into the reason why such information(s) were not made public? For example, we know that highly classified and sensitive information is typically assessed and handled by governmental bodies, with a process set in place for incident response. Perhaps letting the public know that the House of Commons was hacked was the appropriate extent to which they could share that news?
It definitely makes sense that the public would trust them more, but these things may not be as black and white as we might think. There’s a lot of grey areas that an incident like this poses especially when it has to do with a governmental body like the HoC.
Thank you again for your write up! It was truly insightful and engaging for me.
Great post, Cooper. Even state entities, which are usually expected to keep citizens cyber-smart, are vulnerable to hackers. Your arguments about zero-trust architecture and MFA are entirely correct. Transparent communications are essential: without them, public trust erodes rapidly. Lawmakers must model strong cybersecurity practices rather than simply preach them.
My post is indirectly connected to your post. I believe it started with the SharePoint attack or the Microsoft Exchange server, and they laterally moved from the server to the system.
Microsoft has been patching a lot recently and does not appear to be as safe as other OS.
Those high-level politicians should be better protected.
From my understanding, this is the timeline of Microsoft Security Patches. It appears that Microsoft is facing many issues, and both of our posts seem to highlight this.
• July 20, Microsoft targets active attacks on SharePoint
• August 12, 2025, Microsoft fixes 100 security flaws Microsoft patch
• September 9, 2025, Microsoft Corp. today issued security updates to fix more than 80 vulnerabilities
This was a really interesting post Gilberta! The Microsoft vulnerability piece really highlights how poor patch management can open the door to major breaches. I also like your point about metadata and the small details that can expand the attack surface if they are not protected. Do you think a zero-trust model would have limited the impact here, or was transparency the bigger failure?
This was a really interesting post Gilberta! The Microsoft vulnerability piece really highlights how poor patch management can open the door to major breaches. I also like your point about metadata and the small details that can expand the attack surface. Do you think a zero-trust model would have limited the impact here, or was transparency the bigger failure?
Thanks Hillary! I would say both played a role. However, zero-trust could have limited the damage, but the real failure was the lack of transparency. I get that some information might be too sensitive to disclose but a bit of clarity as to what risks the people were facing could have been better.
This incident serves as a warning. If a Microsoft vulnerability allows hackers to breach Canada’s Parliament, it proves that no one is safe. The situation is aggravated by the absence of transparency, individuals have a right to understand the extent of the breach. Leaders frequently urge citizens to “be cyber smart,” yet the government must also set a positive example: implementing zero-trust security, enhancing authentication, and being transparent when issues arise. Confidence in institutions relies on it
Great post! It really highlights how no one is immune to cyberattacks, not even the House of Commons. I agree that the lack of transparency makes the situation worse, since people naturally start to lose trust when they feel information is being withheld. The irony is clear too—lawmakers urge the public to be cyber smart, yet their own systems can be compromised.
Great job, Gilberta. I agree that the lack of transparency makes things worse because it hurts public trust. I also really like your point about zero-trust and MFA it’s definitely a practical step that could have made a real difference here.