Author: admin

Jen Easterly is out as the Director of CISA. Read her final interview:

There’s a lot of unfinished business. We have made an impact through our ransomware vulnerability warning pilot and our pre-ransomware notification initiative, and I’m really proud of that, because we work on preventing somebody from having their worst day. But ransomware is still a problem. We have been laser-focused on PRC cyber actors. That will continue to be a huge problem. I’m really proud of where we are, but there’s much, much more work to be done. There are things that I think we can continue driving, that the next administration, I hope, will look at, because, frankly, cybersecurity is a national security issue.

If Project 2025 is a guide, the agency will be gutted under Trump:

“Project 2025’s recommendations—essentially because this one thing caused anger—is to just strip the agency of all of its support altogether,” he said. “And CISA’s functions go so far beyond its role in the information space in a way that would do real harm to election officials and leave them less prepared to tackle future challenges.”

In the DHS chapter of Project 2025, Cucinelli suggests gutting CISA almost entirely, moving its core responsibilities on critical infrastructure to the Department of Transportation. It’s a suggestion that Adav Noti, the executive director of the nonpartisan voting rights advocacy organization Campaign Legal Center, previously described to Democracy Docket as “absolutely bonkers.”

“It’s located at Homeland Security because the whole premise of the Department of Homeland Security is that it’s supposed to be the central resource for the protection of the nation,” Noti said. “And that the important functions shouldn’t be living out in siloed agencies.”

A newly discovered VPN backdoor uses some interesting tactics to avoid detection:

When threat actors use backdoor malware to gain access to a network, they want to make sure all their hard work can’t be leveraged by competing groups or detected by defenders. One countermeasure is to equip the backdoor with a passive agent that remains dormant until it receives what’s known in the business as a “magic packet.” On Thursday, researchers revealed that a never-before-seen backdoor that quietly took hold of dozens of enterprise VPNs running Juniper Network’s Junos OS has been doing just that.

J-Magic, the tracking name for the backdoor, goes one step further to prevent unauthorized access. After receiving a magic packet hidden in the normal flow of TCP traffic, it relays a challenge to the device that sent it. The challenge comes in the form of a string of text that’s encrypted using the public portion of an RSA key. The initiating party must then respond with the corresponding plaintext, proving it has access to the secret key.

The lightweight backdoor is also notable because it resided only in memory, a trait that makes detection harder for defenders. The combination prompted researchers at Lumin Technology’s Black Lotus Lab to sit up and take notice.

[…]

The researchers found J-Magic on VirusTotal and determined that it had run inside the networks of 36 organizations. They still don’t know how the backdoor got installed.

Slashdot thread.

President Biden has signed a new cybersecurity order. It has a bunch of provisions, most notably using the US governments procurement power to improve cybersecurity practices industry-wide.

Some details:

The core of the executive order is an array of mandates for protecting government networks based on lessons learned from recent major incidents­—namely, the security failures of federal contractors.

The order requires software vendors to submit proof that they follow secure development practices, building on a mandate that debuted in 2022 in response to Biden’s first cyber executive order. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency would be tasked with double-checking these security attestations and working with vendors to fix any problems. To put some teeth behind the requirement, the White House’s Office of the National Cyber Director is “encouraged to refer attestations that fail validation to the Attorney General” for potential investigation and prosecution.

The order gives the Department of Commerce eight months to assess the most commonly used cyber practices in the business community and issue guidance based on them. Shortly thereafter, those practices would become mandatory for companies seeking to do business with the government. The directive also kicks off updates to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s secure software development guidance.

More information.

Humans make mistakes all the time. All of us do, every day, in tasks both new and routine. Some of our mistakes are minor and some are catastrophic. Mistakes can break trust with our friends, lose the confidence of our bosses, and sometimes be the difference between life and death.

Over the millennia, we have created security systems to deal with the sorts of mistakes humans commonly make. These days, casinos rotate their dealers regularly, because they make mistakes if they do the same task for too long. Hospital personnel write on limbs before surgery so that doctors operate on the correct body part, and they count surgical instruments to make sure none were left inside the body. From copyediting to double-entry bookkeeping to appellate courts, we humans have gotten really good at correcting human mistakes.

Humanity is now rapidly integrating a wholly different kind of mistake-maker into society: AI. Technologies like large language models (LLMs) can perform many cognitive tasks traditionally fulfilled by humans, but they make plenty of mistakes. It seems ridiculous when chatbots tell you to eat rocks or add glue to pizza. But it’s not the frequency or severity of AI systems’ mistakes that differentiates them from human mistakes. It’s their weirdness. AI systems do not make mistakes in the same ways that humans do.

Much of the friction—and risk—associated with our use of AI arise from that difference. We need to invent new security systems that adapt to these differences and prevent harm from AI mistakes.

Human Mistakes vs AI Mistakes

Life experience makes it fairly easy for each of us to guess when and where humans will make mistakes. Human errors tend to come at the edges of someone’s knowledge: Most of us would make mistakes solving calculus problems. We expect human mistakes to be clustered: A single calculus mistake is likely to be accompanied by others. We expect mistakes to wax and wane, predictably depending on factors such as fatigue and distraction. And mistakes are often accompanied by ignorance: Someone who makes calculus mistakes is also likely to respond “I don’t know” to calculus-related questions.

To the extent that AI systems make these human-like mistakes, we can bring all of our mistake-correcting systems to bear on their output. But the current crop of AI models—particularly LLMs—make mistakes differently.

AI errors come at seemingly random times, without any clustering around particular topics. LLM mistakes tend to be more evenly distributed through the knowledge space. A model might be equally likely to make a mistake on a calculus question as it is to propose that cabbages eat goats.

And AI mistakes aren’t accompanied by ignorance. A LLM will be just as confident when saying something completely wrong—and obviously so, to a human—as it will be when saying something true. The seemingly random inconsistency of LLMs makes it hard to trust their reasoning in complex, multi-step problems. If you want to use an AI model to help with a business problem, it’s not enough to see that it understands what factors make a product profitable; you need to be sure it won’t forget what money is.

How to Deal with AI Mistakes

This situation indicates two possible areas of research. The first is to engineer LLMs that make more human-like mistakes. The second is to build new mistake-correcting systems that deal with the specific sorts of mistakes that LLMs tend to make.

We already have some tools to lead LLMs to act in more human-like ways. Many of these arise from the field of “alignment” research, which aims to make models act in accordance with the goals and motivations of their human developers. One example is the technique that was arguably responsible for the breakthrough success of ChatGPT: reinforcement learning with human feedback. In this method, an AI model is (figuratively) rewarded for producing responses that get a thumbs-up from human evaluators. Similar approaches could be used to induce AI systems to make more human-like mistakes, particularly by penalizing them more for mistakes that are less intelligible.

When it comes to catching AI mistakes, some of the systems that we use to prevent human mistakes will help. To an extent, forcing LLMs to double-check their own work can help prevent errors. But LLMs can also confabulate seemingly plausible, but truly ridiculous, explanations for their flights from reason.

Other mistake mitigation systems for AI are unlike anything we use for humans. Because machines can’t get fatigued or frustrated in the way that humans do, it can help to ask an LLM the same question repeatedly in slightly different ways and then synthesize its multiple responses. Humans won’t put up with that kind of annoying repetition, but machines will.

Understanding Similarities and Differences

Researchers are still struggling to understand where LLM mistakes diverge from human ones. Some of the weirdness of AI is actually more human-like than it first appears. Small changes to a query to an LLM can result in wildly different responses, a problem known as prompt sensitivity. But, as any survey researcher can tell you, humans behave this way, too. The phrasing of a question in an opinion poll can have drastic impacts on the answers.

LLMs also seem to have a bias towards repeating the words that were most common in their training data; for example, guessing familiar place names like “America” even when asked about more exotic locations. Perhaps this is an example of the human “availability heuristic” manifesting in LLMs, with machines spitting out the first thing that comes to mind rather than reasoning through the question. And like humans, perhaps, some LLMs seem to get distracted in the middle of long documents; they’re better able to remember facts from the beginning and end. There is already progress on improving this error mode, as researchers have found that LLMs trained on more examples of retrieving information from long texts seem to do better at retrieving information uniformly.

In some cases, what’s bizarre about LLMs is that they act more like humans than we think they should. For example, some researchers have tested the hypothesis that LLMs perform better when offered a cash reward or threatened with death. It also turns out that some of the best ways to “jailbreak” LLMs (getting them to disobey their creators’ explicit instructions) look a lot like the kinds of social engineering tricks that humans use on each other: for example, pretending to be someone else or saying that the request is just a joke. But other effective jailbreaking techniques are things no human would ever fall for. One group found that if they used ASCII art (constructions of symbols that look like words or pictures) to pose dangerous questions, like how to build a bomb, the LLM would answer them willingly.

Humans may occasionally make seemingly random, incomprehensible, and inconsistent mistakes, but such occurrences are rare and often indicative of more serious problems. We also tend not to put people exhibiting these behaviors in decision-making positions. Likewise, we should confine AI decision-making systems to applications that suit their actual abilities—while keeping the potential ramifications of their mistakes firmly in mind.

This essay was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in IEEE Spectrum.

EDITED TO ADD (1/24): Slashdot thread.

Is there nothing that squid research can’t solve?

“If you’re working with an organism like squid that can edit genetic information way better than any other organism, then it makes sense that that might be useful for a therapeutic application like deadening pain,” he said.

[…]

Researchers hope to mimic how squid and octopus use RNA editing in nerve channels that interpret pain and use that knowledge to manipulate human cells.

Blog moderation policy.

According to a DOJ press release, the FBI was able to delete the Chinese-used PlugX malware from “approximately 4,258 U.S.-based computers and networks.”

Details:

To retrieve information from and send commands to the hacked machines, the malware connects to a command-and-control server that is operated by the hacking group. According to the FBI, at least 45,000 IP addresses in the US had back-and-forths with the command-and-control server since September 2023.

It was that very server that allowed the FBI to finally kill this pesky bit of malicious software. First, they tapped the know-how of French intelligence agencies, which had recently discovered a technique for getting PlugX to self-destruct. Then, the FBI gained access to the hackers’ command-and-control server and used it to request all the IP addresses of machines that were actively infected by PlugX. Then it sent a command via the server that causes PlugX to delete itself from its victims’ computers.

I am always interested in new phishing tricks, and watching them spread across the ecosystem.

A few days ago I started getting phishing SMS messages with a new twist. They were standard messages about delayed packages or somesuch, with the goal of getting me to click on a link and entering some personal information into a website. But because they came from unknown phone numbers, the links did not work. So—this is the new bit—the messages said something like: “Please reply Y, then exit the text message, reopen the text message activation link, or copy the link to Safari browser to open it.”

I saw it once, and now I am seeing it again and again. Everyone has now adopted this new trick.

One article claims that this trick has been popular since last summer. I don’t know; I would have expected to have seen it before last weekend.

Image: Shutterstock. Greg Meland.

President Trump last week issued a flurry of executive orders that upended a number of government initiatives focused on improving the nation’s cybersecurity posture. The president fired all advisors from the Department of Homeland Security’s Cyber Safety Review Board, called for the creation of a strategic cryptocurrency reserve, and voided a Biden administration action that sought to reduce the risks that artificial intelligence poses to consumers, workers and national security.

On his first full day back in the White House, Trump dismissed all 15 advisory committee members of the Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB), a nonpartisan government entity established in February 2022 with a mandate to investigate the causes of major cybersecurity events. The CSRB has so far produced three detailed reports, including an analysis of the Log4Shell vulnerability crisis, attacks from the cybercrime group LAPSUS$, and the 2023 Microsoft Exchange Online breach.

The CSRB was in the midst of an inquiry into cyber intrusions uncovered recently across a broad spectrum of U.S. telecommunications providers at the hands of Chinese state-sponsored hackers. One of the CSRB’s most recognizable names is Chris Krebs (no relation), the former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Krebs was fired by President Trump in November 2020 for declaring the presidential contest was the most secure in American history, and for refuting Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, confirmed by the U.S. Senate last week as the new director of the DHS, criticized CISA at her confirmation hearing, TheRecord reports.

Noem told lawmakers CISA needs to be “much more effective, smaller, more nimble, to really fulfill their mission,” which she said should be focused on hardening federal IT systems and hunting for digital intruders. Noem said the agency’s work on fighting misinformation shows it has “gotten far off mission” and involved “using their resources in ways that was never intended.”

“The misinformation and disinformation that they have stuck their toe into and meddled with, should be refocused back onto what their job is,” she said.

Moses Frost, a cybersecurity instructor with the SANS Institute, compared the sacking of the CSRB members to firing all of the experts at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) while they’re in the middle of an investigation into a string of airline disasters.

“I don’t recall seeing an ‘NTSB Board’ being fired during the middle of a plane crash investigation,” Frost said in a recent SANS newsletter. “I can say that the attackers in the phone companies will not stop because the review board has gone away. We do need to figure out how these attacks occurred, and CISA did appear to be doing some good for the vast majority of the federal systems.”

Speaking of transportation, The Record notes that Transportation Security Administration chief David Pekoske was fired despite overseeing critical cybersecurity improvements across pipeline, rail and aviation sectors. Pekoske was appointed by Trump in 2017 and had his 5-year tenure renewed in 2022 by former President Joe Biden.

AI & CRYPTOCURRENCY

Shortly after being sworn in for a second time, Trump voided a Biden executive order that focused on supporting research and development in artificial intelligence. The previous administration’s order on AI was crafted with an eye toward managing the safety and security risks introduced by the technology. But a statement released by the White House said Biden’s approach to AI had hindered development, and that the United States would support AI systems that are “free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas,” to maintain leadership.

The Trump administration issued its own executive order on AI, which calls for an “AI Action Plan” to be led by the assistant to the president for science and technology, the White House “AI & crypto czar,” and the national security advisor. It also directs the White House to revise and reissue policies to federal agencies on the government’s acquisition and governance of AI “to ensure that harmful barriers to America’s AI leadership are eliminated.”

Trump’s AI & crypto czar is David Sacks, an entrepreneur and Silicon Valley venture capitalist who argues that the Biden administration’s approach to AI and cryptocurrency has driven innovation overseas. Sacks recently asserted that non-fungible cryptocurrency tokens and memecoins are neither securities nor commodities, but rather should be treated as “collectibles” like baseball cards and stamps.

There is already a legal definition of collectibles under the U.S. tax code that applies to things like art or antiques, which can be be subject to high capital gains taxes. But Joe Hall, a capital markets attorney and partner at Davis Polk, told Fortune there are no market regulations that apply to collectibles under U.S. securities law. Hall said Sacks’ comments “suggest a viewpoint that it would not be appropriate to regulate these things the way we regulate securities.”

The new administration’s position makes sense considering that the Trump family is deeply and personally invested in a number of recent memecoin ventures that have attracted billions from investors. President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump each launched their own vanity memecoins this month, dubbed $TRUMP and $MELANIA.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday the market capitalization of $TRUMP stood at about $7 billion, down from a peak of near $15 billion, while $MELANIA is hovering somewhere in the $460 million mark. Just two months before the 2024 election, Trump’s three sons debuted a cryptocurrency token called World Liberty Financial.

Despite maintaining a considerable personal stake in how cryptocurrency is regulated, Trump issued an executive order on January 23 calling for a working group to be chaired by Sacks that would develop “a federal regulatory framework governing digital assets, including stablecoins,” and evaluate the creation of a “strategic national digital assets stockpile.”

Translation: Using taxpayer dollars to prop up the speculative, volatile, and highly risky cryptocurrency industry, which has been marked by endless scams, rug-pulls, 8-figure cyber heists, rampant fraud, and unrestrained innovations in money laundering.

WEAPONIZATION & DISINFORMATION

Prior to the election, President Trump frequently vowed to use a second term to exact retribution against his perceived enemies. Part of that promise materialized in an executive order Trump issued last week titled “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government,” which decried “an unprecedented, third-world weaponization of prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process,” in the prosecution of more than 1,500 people who invaded the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

On Jan. 21, Trump commuted the sentences of several leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were convicted of seditious conspiracy. He also issued “a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,” which include those who assaulted law enforcement officers.

The New York Times reports “the language of the document suggests — but does not explicitly state — that the Trump administration review will examine the actions of local district attorneys or state officials, such as the district attorneys in Manhattan or Fulton County, Ga., or the New York attorney general, all of whom filed cases against President Trump.”

Another Trump order called “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” asserts:

“Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve,” the Trump administration alleged. “Under the guise of combatting ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation,’ the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.”

Both of these executive orders have potential implications for security, privacy and civil liberties activists who have sought to track conspiracy theories and raise awareness about disinformation efforts on social media coming from U.S. adversaries.

In the wake of the 2020 election, Republicans created the House Judiciary Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Led by GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the committee’s stated purpose was to investigate alleged collusion between the Biden administration and tech companies to unconstitutionally shut down political speech.

The GOP committee focused much of its ire at members of the short-lived Disinformation Governance Board, an advisory board to DHS created in 2022 (the “combating misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation” quote from Trump’s executive order is a reference to the board’s stated mission). Conservative groups seized on social media posts made by the director of the board, who resigned after facing death threats. The board was dissolved by DHS soon after.

In his first administration, President Trump created a special prosecutor to probe the origins of the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives seeking to influence the 2016 election. Part of that inquiry examined evidence gathered by some of the world’s most renowned cybersecurity experts who identified frequent and unexplained communications between an email server used by the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s largest financial institutions.

Trump’s Special Prosecutor John Durham later subpoenaed and/or deposed dozens of security experts who’d collected, viewed or merely commented on the data. Similar harassment and deposition demands would come from lawyers for Alfa Bank. Durham ultimately indicted Michael Sussman, the former federal cybercrime prosecutor who reported the oddity to the FBI. Sussman was acquitted in May 2022. Last week, Trump appointed Durham to lead the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn, NY.

Quinta Jurecic at Lawfare notes that while the executive actions are ominous, they are also vague, and could conceivably generate either a campaign of retaliation, or nothing at all.

“The two orders establish that there will be investigations but leave open the questions of what kind of investigations, what will be investigated, how long this will take, and what the consequences might be,” Jurecic wrote. “It is difficult to draw firm conclusions as to what to expect. Whether this ambiguity is intentional or the result of sloppiness or disagreement within Trump’s team, it has at least one immediate advantage as far as the president is concerned: generating fear among the broad universe of potential subjects of those investigations.”

On Friday, Trump moved to fire at least 17 inspectors general, the government watchdogs who conduct audits and investigations of executive branch actions, and who often uncover instances of government waste, fraud and abuse. Lawfare’s Jack Goldsmith argues that the removals are probably legal even though Trump defied a 2022 law that required congressional notice of the terminations, which Trump did not give.

“Trump probably acted lawfully, I think, because the notice requirement is probably unconstitutional,” Goldsmith wrote. “The real bite in the 2022 law, however, comes in the limitations it places on Trump’s power to replace the terminated IGs—limitations that I believe are constitutional. This aspect of the law will make it hard, but not impossible, for Trump to put loyalists atop the dozens of vacant IG offices around the executive branch. The ultimate fate of IG independence during Trump 2.0, however, depends less on legal protections than on whether Congress, which traditionally protects IGs, stands up for them now. Don’t hold your breath.”

Among the many Biden administration executive orders revoked by President Trump last week was an action from December 2021 establishing the United States Council on Transnational Organized Crime, which is charged with advising the White House on a range of criminal activities, including drug and weapons trafficking, migrant smuggling, human trafficking, cybercrime, intellectual property theft, money laundering, wildlife and timber trafficking, illegal fishing, and illegal mining.

So far, the White House doesn’t appear to have revoked an executive order that former President Biden issued less than a week before President Trump took office. On Jan. 16, 2025, Biden released a directive that focused on improving the security of federal agencies and contractors, and giving the government more power to sanction the hackers who target critical infrastructure.

The payment card giant MasterCard just fixed a glaring error in its domain name server settings that could have allowed anyone to intercept or divert Internet traffic for the company by registering an unused domain name. The misconfiguration persisted for nearly five years until a security researcher spent $300 to register the domain and prevent it from being grabbed by cybercriminals.

A DNS lookup on the domain az.mastercard.com on Jan. 14, 2025 shows the mistyped domain name a22-65.akam.ne.

From June 30, 2020 until January 14, 2025, one of the core Internet servers that MasterCard uses to direct traffic for portions of the mastercard.com network was misnamed. MasterCard.com relies on five shared Domain Name System (DNS) servers at the Internet infrastructure provider Akamai [DNS acts as a kind of Internet phone book, by translating website names to numeric Internet addresses that are easier for computers to manage].

All of the Akamai DNS server names that MasterCard uses are supposed to end in “akam.net” but one of them was misconfigured to rely on the domain “akam.ne.”

This tiny but potentially critical typo was discovered recently by Philippe Caturegli, founder of the security consultancy Seralys. Caturegli said he guessed that nobody had yet registered the domain akam.ne, which is under the purview of the top-level domain authority for the West Africa nation of Niger.

Caturegli said it took $300 and nearly three months of waiting to secure the domain with the registry in Niger. After enabling a DNS server on akam.ne, he noticed hundreds of thousands of DNS requests hitting his server each day from locations around the globe. Apparently, MasterCard wasn’t the only organization that had fat-fingered a DNS entry to include “akam.ne,” but they were by far the largest.

Had he enabled an email server on his new domain akam.ne, Caturegli likely would have received wayward emails directed toward mastercard.com or other affected domains. If he’d abused his access, he probably could have obtained website encryption certificates (SSL/TLS certs) that were authorized to accept and relay web traffic for affected websites. He may even have been able to passively receive Microsoft Windows authentication credentials from employee computers at affected companies.

But the researcher said he didn’t attempt to do any of that. Instead, he alerted MasterCard that the domain was theirs if they wanted it, copying this author on his notifications. A few hours later, MasterCard acknowledged the mistake, but said there was never any real threat to the security of its operations.

“We have looked into the matter and there was not a risk to our systems,” a MasterCard spokesperson wrote. “This typo has now been corrected.”

Meanwhile, Caturegli received a request submitted through Bugcrowd, a program that offers financial rewards and recognition to security researchers who find flaws and work privately with the affected vendor to fix them. The message suggested his public disclosure of the MasterCard DNS error via a post on LinkedIn (after he’d secured the akam.ne domain) was not aligned with ethical security practices, and passed on a request from MasterCard to have the post removed.

MasterCard’s request to Caturegli, a.k.a. “Titon” on infosec.exchange.

Caturegli said while he does have an account on Bugcrowd, he has never submitted anything through the Bugcrowd program, and that he reported this issue directly to MasterCard.

“I did not disclose this issue through Bugcrowd,” Caturegli wrote in reply. “Before making any public disclosure, I ensured that the affected domain was registered to prevent exploitation, mitigating any risk to MasterCard or its customers. This action, which we took at our own expense, demonstrates our commitment to ethical security practices and responsible disclosure.”

Most organizations have at least two authoritative domain name servers, but some handle so many DNS requests that they need to spread the load over additional DNS server domains. In MasterCard’s case, that number is five, so it stands to reason that if an attacker managed to seize control over just one of those domains they would only be able to see about one-fifth of the overall DNS requests coming in.

But Caturegli said the reality is that many Internet users are relying at least to some degree on public traffic forwarders or DNS resolvers like Cloudflare and Google.

“So all we need is for one of these resolvers to query our name server and cache the result,” Caturegli said. By setting their DNS server records with a long TTL or “Time To Live” — a setting that can adjust the lifespan of data packets on a network — an attacker’s poisoned instructions for the target domain can be propagated by large cloud providers.

“With a long TTL, we may reroute a LOT more than just 1/5 of the traffic,” he said.

The researcher said he’d hoped that the credit card giant might thank him, or at least offer to cover the cost of buying the domain.

“We obviously disagree with this assessment,” Caturegli wrote in a follow-up post on LinkedIn regarding MasterCard’s public statement. “But we’ll let you judge— here are some of the DNS lookups we recorded before reporting the issue.”

Caturegli posted this screenshot of MasterCard domains that were potentially at risk from the misconfigured domain.

As the screenshot above shows, the misconfigured DNS server Caturegli found involved the MasterCard subdomain az.mastercard.com. It is not clear exactly how this subdomain is used by MasterCard, however their naming conventions suggest the domains correspond to production servers at Microsoft’s Azure cloud service. Caturegli said the external Internet address of these servers is mostly Cloudflare, but internally the domains all resolve to Internet addresses at Microsoft.

“Don’t be like Mastercard,” Caturegli concluded in his LinkedIn post. “Don’t dismiss risk, and don’t let your marketing team handle security disclosures.”

One final note: The domain akam.ne has been registered previously — in December 2016 by someone using the email address um-i-delo@yandex.ru. The Russian search giant Yandex reports this user account belongs to an “Ivan I.” from Moscow. Passive DNS records from DomainTools.com show that between 2016 and 2018 the domain was connected to an Internet server in Germany, and that the domain was left to expire in 2018.

This is interesting given a comment on Caturegli’s LinkedIn post from an ex-Cloudflare employee who linked to a report he co-authored on a similar typo domain apparently registered in 2017 for organizations that may have mistyped their AWS DNS server as “awsdns-06.ne” instead of “awsdns-06.net.” DomainTools reports that this typo domain also was registered to a Yandex user (playlotto@yandex.ru), and was hosted at the same German ISP — Team Internet (AS61969).

Residents across the United States are being inundated with text messages purporting to come from toll road operators like E-ZPass, warning that recipients face fines if a delinquent toll fee remains unpaid. Researchers say the surge in SMS spam coincides with new features added to a popular commercial phishing kit sold in China that makes it simple to set up convincing lures spoofing toll road operators in multiple U.S. states.

Last week, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) warned residents to be on the lookout for a new SMS phishing or “smishing” scam targeting users of EZDriveMA, MassDOT’s all electronic tolling program. Those who fall for the scam are asked to provide payment card data, and eventually will be asked to supply a one-time password sent via SMS or a mobile authentication app.

Reports of similar SMS phishing attacks against customers of other U.S. state-run toll facilities surfaced around the same time as the MassDOT alert. People in Florida reported receiving SMS phishing that spoofed Sunpass, Florida’s prepaid toll program.

This phishing module for spoofing MassDOT’s EZDrive toll system was offered on Jan. 10, 2025 by a China-based SMS phishing service called “Lighthouse.”

In Texas, residents said they received text messages about unpaid tolls with the North Texas Toll Authority. Similar reports came from readers in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Washington. This is by no means a comprehensive list.

A new module from the Lighthouse SMS phishing kit released Jan. 14 targets customers of the North Texas Toll Authority (NTTA).

In each case, the emergence of these SMS phishing attacks coincided with the release of new phishing kit capabilities that closely mimic these toll operator websites as they appear on mobile devices. Notably, none of the phishing pages will even load unless the website detects that the visitor is coming from a mobile device.

Ford Merrill works in security research at SecAlliance, a CSIS Security Group company. Merrill said the volume of SMS phishing attacks spoofing toll road operators skyrocketed after the New Year, when at least one Chinese cybercriminal group known for selling sophisticated SMS phishing kits began offering new phishing pages designed to spoof toll operators in various U.S. states.

According to Merrill, multiple China-based cybercriminals are selling distinct SMS-based phishing kits that each have hundreds or thousands of customers. The ultimate goal of these kits, he said, is to phish enough information from victims that their payment cards can be added to mobile wallets and used to buy goods at physical stores, online, or to launder money through shell companies.

A component of the Chinese SMS phishing kit Lighthouse made to target customers of The Toll Roads, which refers to several state routes through Orange County, Calif.

Merrill said the different purveyors of these SMS phishing tools traditionally have impersonated shipping companies, customs authorities, and even governments with tax refund lures and visa or immigration renewal scams targeting people who may be living abroad or new to a country.

“What we’re seeing with these tolls scams is just a continuation of the Chinese smishing groups rotating from package redelivery schemes to toll road scams,” Merrill said. “Every one of us by now is sick and tired of receiving these package smishing attacks, so now it’s a new twist on an existing scam.”

In October 2023, KrebsOnSecurity wrote about a massive uptick in SMS phishing scams targeting U.S. Postal Service customers. That story revealed the surge was tied to innovations introduced by “Chenlun,” a mainland China-based proprietor of a popular phishing kit and service. At the time, Chenlun had just introduced new phishing pages made to impersonate postal services in the United States and at least a dozen other countries.

SMS phishing kits are hardly new, but Merrill said Chinese smishing groups recently have introduced innovations in deliverability, by more seamlessly integrating their spam messages with Apple’s iMessage technology, and with RCS, the equivalent “rich text” messaging capability built into Android devices.

“While traditional smishing kits relied heavily on SMS for delivery, nowadays the actors make heavy use of iMessage and RCS because telecom operators can’t filter them and they likely have a higher success rate with these delivery channels,” he said.

It remains unclear how the phishers have selected their targets, or from where their data may be sourced. A notice from MassDOT cautions that “the targeted phone numbers seem to be chosen at random and are not uniquely associated with an account or usage of toll roads.”

Indeed, one reader shared on Mastodon yesterday that they’d received one of these SMS phishing attacks spoofing a local toll operator, when they didn’t even own a vehicle.

Targeted or not, these phishing websites are dangerous because they are operated dynamically in real-time by criminals. If you receive one of these messages, just ignore it or delete it, but please do not visit the phishing site. The FBI asks that before you bin the missives, consider filing a complaint with the agency’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), including the phone number where the text originated, and the website listed within the text.