Author: admin

Sophos X-Ops explores why larger isn’t always better when it comes to solving security challenges with AI

It will be interesting to watch what will come of this private lawsuit:

Google on Thursday announced filing a lawsuit against the operators of the Badbox 2.0 botnet, which has ensnared more than 10 million devices running Android open source software.

These devices lack Google’s security protections, and the perpetrators pre-installed the Badbox 2.0 malware on them, to create a backdoor and abuse them for large-scale fraud and other illicit schemes.

This reminds me of Meta’s lawauit against Pegasus over its hack-for-hire software (which I wrote about here.) It’s a private company stepping into a regulatory void left by governments.

Slashdot thread.

A new wave of phishing attacks exploiting Microsoft 365 OAuth tools has been observed impersonating diplomats to steal access codes

A widespread RFQ scam exploited net payment terms to fraudulently obtain high-value devices

Microsoft has observed three China-based threat actors, Linen Typhoon, Violet Typhoon and Storm-2603, exploiting the SharePoint vulnerabilities

The UK government said a public consultation showed widespread support on a payment ban for public sector and CNI organizations

Despite being a rebrand of several ransomware families, GLOBAL GROUP innovated with the use of an AI chatbot in the negotiation process

ASIC said the financial services firm’s failings led to a data breach impacting nearly 10,000 clients

Abnormal AI found that 96% of security leaders have no plans to reduce the headcount in SOC teams as a result of AI adoption, instead focusing on reallocating roles

Law journal article that looks at the Dual_EC_PRNG backdoor from a US constitutional perspective:

Abstract: The National Security Agency (NSA) reportedly paid and pressured technology companies to trick their customers into using vulnerable encryption products. This Article examines whether any of three theories removed the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that this be reasonable. The first is that a challenge to the encryption backdoor might fail for want of a search or seizure. The Article rejects this both because the Amendment reaches some vulnerabilities apart from the searches and seizures they enable and because the creation of this vulnerability was itself a search or seizure. The second is that the role of the technology companies might have brought this backdoor within the private-search doctrine. The Article criticizes the doctrine­ particularly its origins in Burdeau v. McDowell­and argues that if it ever should apply, it should not here. The last is that the customers might have waived their Fourth Amendment rights under the third-party doctrine. The Article rejects this both because the customers were not on notice of the backdoor and because historical understandings of the Amendment would not have tolerated it. The Article concludes that none of these theories removed the Amendment’s reasonableness requirement.