Brussels / Berlin, September 20, 2025 — A wave of cyber disruption at major European airports over the weekend has once again highlighted how vulnerable even supposedly resilient critical infrastructures are — and how urgent it is for Europe to bolster its cyber defenses.
What Happened
On the night of September 19-20, a cyber-related disruption struck Collins Aerospace’s MUSE (Multi-User System Environment) software, which provides check-in, boarding pass issuance, baggage tagging, and related services to several European airports.
Airports in Brussels, Berlin Brandenburg, and Heathrow (London) were hit. Automated check-in and boarding systems went offline; affected facilities had to fall back on manual processes.
The disruption caused flight delays, cancellations (Brussels reported about 9‐10 cancellations, plus 15 or more delays), and long queues as staff tried to cope manually.
Importantly, this was not an attack directly on the airports, but on a third-party service provider whose systems are deeply embedded in multiple airport operations.
Why This Reveals Fragility
1. Single points of failure via third parties
The attack shows how an external, third-party vendor’s software can disrupt operations across borders. Even if airports and airlines maintain good internal defenses, relying on a vendor whose security might not be uniformly robust opens weak links in the chain.
2. Automation dependency
In modern airport operations, electronic check-in, automated bag drops, digital boarding, etc., are standard. When those systems go down, the fallback (manual) is much slower, error-prone, and stressful for both staff and travellers. This shows how the accumulation of automated dependencies increases risk.
3. Cross-border cascading effects
Because many airports use shared systems, an incident in one location can ripple to others. The geographical spread (UK, Belgium, Germany) demonstrates that national boundaries offer little protection when infrastructure is interconnected.
4. Lack of immediate attribution / clarity
As of now, there is no confirmed motive, actor, or claim of responsibility. This uncertainty hampers swift response and accountability.
5. Regulatory and preparedness gaps
Although Europe has adopted several regulatory frameworks (e.g. NIS2, Cyber Resilience Act, Cyber Solidarity Act) aimed at improving resilience, this event suggests that implementation, monitoring, and enforcement may lag behind the threat landscape.
Europe’s Existing Cyber-Defense Measures
Europe has already moved to strengthen its regulatory, institutional, and technical capabilities:
NIS2 Directive: Broadens the scope of critical entities covered by EU cybersecurity rules; introduces stricter obligations for risk management, incident reporting, and supply chain security.
Cyber Resilience Act (CRA): Sets cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements (hardware, software), including mandatory updating of known vulnerabilities and greater transparency. It becomes fully applicable from December 2027.
Cyber Solidarity Act: A regulation that aims to improve cooperation among Member States: detection, preparation, response, and recovery from cyber threats. Includes setting up cross-border infrastructures (Security Operations Centres, a kind of “European Cyber Shield”) and crisis mechanisms.
EU Policy on Cyber Defence: Focuses on coordination between civilian and military cybersecurity actors; investing in cyber defence capabilities; reducing dependencies in critical cyber technologies.
Why More Is Needed — Key Gaps & Challenges
Speed versus regulation: Cyber threats evolve rapidly; regulatory measures, though welcome, often lag. Enforcement is especially challenging with cross‐border vendors.
Resource and skills shortage: Many Member States (and private providers) lack the skilled human capital, budgets, or technical infrastructure required to meet the higher standards demanded by new laws.
Supply chain vulnerabilities: Vendors supplying equipment or software to critical systems may themselves use components or services from less secure sources. Ensuring supply chain integrity is complex.
Incident response and crisis coordination: While legislation exists, real-time incident sharing, joint responses, or backup plans (e.g. offline fallback modes) are uneven.
Awareness & risk culture: Private entities, SMEs, and small vendors may underestimate how interconnected they are to critical systems; their cybersecurity practices may be weaker, yet a vulnerability in a small link can have large effects
The Media Times – Unfiltered. Unbiased. Unstoppable.
The Media Times stands as a pillar of fearless journalism, committed to delivering raw, unfiltered, and unbiased news. In a world saturated with noise, we cut through the clutter, bringing facts to the forefront without agenda or compromise.From hard-hitting investigative reports to thought-provoking analysis, we cover politics, healthcare, business, technology, entertainment and global affairs with an unwavering commitment to truth. Our team of dedicated journalists and experts works relentlessly to challenge narratives, expose realities, and hold power accountable.At The Media Times, we don’t just report the news—we shape conversations, spark change, and empower the public with knowledge.
Hindi 
English