On this page
Did you know the global EdTech market is projected to reach $738.6 billion by 2029, and the cybersecurity in EdTech market alone is expected to grow from $36 billion in 2024 to around $243 billion by 2034, at a CAGR of 21.2%?
With this rapid growth, protecting online exams, proctoring tools, and open-source dependencies is vital to safeguard student data, ensure compliance, and preserve academic integrity. Institutions can build a resilient defense against evolving cyber risks in education by combining SIEM for real-time threat detection and IAM for secure access control.
Why EdTech sector is a prime target
The following are the key reasons why EdTech is prime target:
- Rich student data: EdTech platforms store PII, biometrics, and payment records that can be exploited for identity theft, fraud, and black-market trading.
- Rushed digital adoption: The rapid move to online exams and remote learning outpaced cybersecurity investments, leaving exploitable misconfigurations and gaps.
- Weak vendor ecosystem: Online exam portals, proctoring tools, and open-source libraries create a fragmented supply chain where one weak link can compromise the entire system.
- High-stakes disruption: Timed ransomware or DDoS attacks during national exams can cripple institutions, forcing them to pay quickly to avoid chaos and reputational damage.
- Valuable research assets: Universities are treasure troves of intellectual property and sensitive research, making them prime espionage targets for cybercriminals and nation-states.
What are the emerging threats in online exam and proctoring ecosystem?
The following are the emerging threats:
- AI-powered cheating and evasion: Students exploit AI-driven tools, real-time answer generators, and voice/video mimics to bypass proctoring, making traditional detection methods less effective.
- Deepfake impersonation: Attackers use deepfake audio/video to impersonate students during ID checks or oral exams, undermining trust in proctoring and verification systems.
- Proctoring tool exploits and data privacy risks: Weak security in browser lockdowns, webcam apps, or cloud-hosted tools can leak sensitive exam footage, biometrics, and student data, creating regulatory compliance challenges.
- Supply chain and third-party vulnerabilities: Online exam platforms depend on LMS, video conferencing, cloud, and open-source libraries; a single compromised vendor or dependency can become an attack backdoor.
- High-impact disruption and insider misuse: Ransomware, DDoS timed to exam days, and privileged insider abuse (tampering with grades or leaking exam content) can cripple academic integrity and trust.
What are the emerging risks in open source code dependency and supply chain?
The following are the emerging risks:
- Hidden vulnerabilities in transitive dependencies: Many EdTech platforms rely on nested or indirect libraries, where vulnerabilities several layers deep can go unnoticed, exposing exam portals or LMS systems.
- Dependency confusion and malicious packages: Attackers can publish malicious packages with names mimicking internal libraries, tricking EdTech platforms into installing compromised code.
- Unpatched or deprecated libraries: Universities and EdTech vendors often use outdated open-source components due to limited resources or lack of awareness, leaving exploitable CVEs open.
- Supply chain attacks: Malicious code injected into widely-used open-source libraries or CI/CD pipelines can propagate across multiple educational platforms, compromising exam integrity and student data.
- Shadow IT and unauthorized integrations: Faculty or development teams may integrate unverified open-source tools/plugins for learning platforms or proctoring apps, bypassing security review and increasing attack surface.
- Lack of continuous monitoring: Absence of automated software composition analysis (SCA) or vulnerability scanning means newly discovered vulnerabilities in dependencies remain unaddressed for long periods.
What are the compliance and ethical minefield related to EdTech?
The following are the regulations to be followed:
- Student data privacy regulations: Strict laws like FERPA (US), GDPR (EU), and CCPA (California) govern how a student's personal, academic, and biometric data can be collected, stored, and shared.
- Biometric and AI-proctoring ethics: Proctoring tools capture faces, voices, and behaviors, raising concerns about consent, bias, and fairness in automated monitoring and scoring.
- Data retention and deletion policies: Institutions must define how long exam recordings, logs, and student data are retained and ensure secure deletion to comply with privacy laws.
- Third-party vendor risk and accountability: Use of LMS, proctoring tools, and open-source libraries introduces shared liability; institutions are responsible if vendors mishandle or expose student data.
- Academic integrity vs. surveillance: Balancing cheating prevention with student rights is challenging. Overly invasive monitoring can erode trust, while relaxed controls risk exam integrity.
What is human attack surface in academia?
Here is the human attack surface:
- Students: Often the largest user base with low security awareness, making them prime targets for phishing, credential theft, and social engineering that can compromise exam systems or student portals.
- Faculty and researchers: Hold access to sensitive exam content, research data, and intellectual property, but may use unsecured devices, cloud storage, or unverified tools, creating exploitable entry points.
- Administrative and IT staff: Manage LMS, financial records, admissions, and proctoring systems; their privileged accounts are high-value targets for attackers.
- Third-party contractors and vendors: EdTech vendors, exam proctoring services, and even adjunct faculty or guest lecturers often have system access but operate outside the institution’s direct security controls.
- Alumni and guest accounts: Many universities maintain long-term or poorly managed accounts for alumni, guest users, or visiting faculty, which can be exploited if not properly deprovisioned.
How does SIEM help in enhancing the EdTech ecosystem security?
The following are the helpful features:
| Feature | Benefit | Example scenario |
|---|---|---|
| Anomaly detection and UEBA | Detects AI-driven cheating or unusual access, preventing breaches that could cost institutions millions in reputational loss. | A student attempts to log in for an exam from two continents within minutes; UEBA flags it and blocks access, preventing impersonation. |
| Real-time threat intelligence and correlation | Stops ransomware/DDoS attempts during high-stakes exams, saving potential downtime penalties and exam rescheduling costs (e.g., $100k+ per exam cycle). | A coordinated traffic spike on exam day is identified as a DDoS; SIEM correlates traffic logs and alerts the SOC before services crash. |
| Vendor and supply chain risk monitoring | Identifies compromised APIs, LMS integrations, or open-source code vulnerabilities early, reducing breach remediation costs. | A malicious code injection in an open-source proctoring library triggers abnormal log activity; Log360 isolates the integration. |
| Cloud and application security monitoring | Detects misconfigured buckets or exposed exam footage, avoiding compliance fines (GDPR/FERPA up to millions in penalties). | SIEM alerts when a proctoring tool’s storage bucket is publicly exposed, preventing sensitive video data leaks. |
| Insider threat detection | Flags faculty or IT staff misuse of privileged accounts, reducing risks of grade tampering or data theft (saving legal costs and reputational damage). | A proctor downloads bulk exam logs outside business hours; SIEM raises a high-severity alert, preventing data exfiltration. |
| Automated threat response and workflow orchestration | Cuts incident response costs by automatically isolating infected devices or blocking malicious logins, instead of relying solely on manual SOC actions. | During a live exam, ransomware activity is detected on a faculty device; SIEM auto-quarantines the endpoint, allowing exams to continue uninterrupted. |
| Cross-platform log enrichment for supply chain visibility | Enhances visibility into LMS, proctoring tools, cloud services, and open-source dependencies, reducing supply chain attack remediation costs. | A third-party video proctoring plugin starts making unauthorized API calls; SIEM correlates events across platforms, identifying it as a supply chain compromise. |
How does IAM help in enhancing the EdTech ecosystem security?
The following are the helpful features:
| Feature | Benefit | Example scenario |
|---|---|---|
| MFA and conditional access | Prevents deepfake impersonation and credential misuse, cutting account takeover-related costs | A student logs in from an unrecognized device; the IAM solution enforces step-up MFA, stopping unauthorized exam access. |
| Automated user provisioning and deprovisioning | Prevents alumni, guest, or temporary vendor accounts from being exploited, lowering the cost of breaches tied to stale accounts. | A guest lecturer’s exam portal account is auto-deactivated post-course, eliminating a potential backdoor. |
| Granular RBAC | Minimizes insider misuse by ensuring staff can only access what they need, reducing audit failures and compliance penalties. | Faculty can upload exam questions but cannot access student biometric logs, preventing misuse. |
| Passwordless and adaptive authentication | Cuts help desk costs for password resets and strengthens authentication against brute force attacks. | Students use biometrics instead of passwords for exam access, reducing both friction and support costs. |
| Access review and compliance reporting | Simplifies FERPA/GDPR audits by automating compliance checks, saving hundreds of staff hours in manual reporting. | During a FERPA audit, IAM generates a full report of who accessed student exam data in minutes. |
| End-to-end identity life cycle analytics | Prevents access creep and dormant accounts, avoiding breach costs. | A teaching assistant’s account is not removed after the semester ends; IAM flags it in an access review and auto-revokes privileges, closing a security gap. |
| Adaptive risk-based access with continuous authentication | Protects against account takeover and AI-driven cheating while reducing operational costs of false exam lockouts. | A student switches from a secure campus network to a suspicious VPN mid-exam; IAM enforces real-time re-authentication before allowing them to proceed. |
Here’s how SIEM and IAM work hand-in-hand to prevent manipulation and leaks:
Privileged access monitoring and JIT access protect student information system environments from insider threats such as grade manipulation or exam paper leaks; risks that could otherwise cost institutions millions in lawsuits and lost trust. For example, when a proctor requires temporary admin rights to reset exam software, IAM grants time-bound access while SIEM records every action. This ensures that access is strictly limited, every change is fully auditable, and accountability is maintained without exposing critical systems to unnecessary risk.
What are the security trends that CISOs can look forward to?
The following are the trends:
- AI-powered SIEM/IAM: ML-driven anomaly detection in student exam behavior (typing speed, exam completion patterns).
- Privacy-enhancing proctoring: Student data analyzed locally without storing video/audio centrally.
- Continuous code scanning: SIEM adopting DevSecOps to detect compromised libraries before deployment.
- Decentralized identity: Blockchain-based student credentials to ensure secure exam participation without central password storage.
- Collaborative security networks: Universities sharing threat intelligence (via Information sharing and analysis center) for education-specific cyber risks.
What are the actionable recommendations for CISOs and enterprise customers?
The following are the actionable recommendations:
- Establish a software supply chain risk program (dependency scanning, vendor due diligence, continuous patching).
- Deploy adaptive IAM policies for all exam-related applications.
- Integrate SIEM with cloud exam platforms for complete visibility.
- Draft privacy-first proctoring policies to balance compliance and security.
- Conduct red team exercises simulating exam-day attacks (credential stuffing, DDoS, impersonation).
- Educate faculty and students with targeted security awareness training (phishing, credential hygiene).
- Partner with EdTech vendors on secure software development life cycle practices (static application security testing, software composition analysis, dependency vetting).
Conclusion
The rapid growth of EdTech has expanded both opportunities and attack surfaces, making education cybersecurity a boardroom priority. With threats ranging from AI-driven cheating to supply chain vulnerabilities, institutions need more than point solutions. They need integrated visibility and control. SIEM ensures real-time threat detection and automated response, while IAM enforces adaptive, identity-centric security. Together, they protect academic integrity, ensure compliance, and reduce financial risk. For CISOs and enterprise leaders, investing in this layered defense is no longer optional, it’s the foundation of trust in the digital learning era.
Related solutions
ManageEngine Log360 is a unified SIEM solution with UEBA, DLP, CASB, and dark web monitoring capabilities. Detect compromised credentials, reduce breach impact, and lower compliance risk exposure with Log360.
Sign up for a personalized demoManageEngine AD360 is a unified IAM solution that provides SSO, adaptive MFA, UBA-driven analytics, and RBAC. Manage employees' digital identities and implement Zero Trust and the principles of least privilege with AD360.
Sign up for a personalized demoThis content has been reviewed and approved by Ram Vaidyanathan, IT security and technology consultant at ManageEngine.