jd writes: Linus Torvalds is not a happy camper and is condemning hardware vendors for poor security and the plethora of actual and theoretical attacks, especially as some of the new features being added impact the workarounds. These workarounds are now getting very expensive, CPU-wise.

TFA quotes Linus Torvalds:

"Honestly, I'm pretty damn fed up with buggy hardware and completely theoretical attacks that have never actually shown themselves to be used in practice.

"So I think this time we push back on the hardware people and tell them it's *THEIR* damn problem, and if they can't even be bothered to say yay-or-nay, we just sit tight.

Because dammit, let's put the onus on where the blame lies, and not just take any random shit from bad hardware and say 'oh, but it *might* be a problem.'"

"After two years of being beaten with the memory-safety stick, the C++ community has published a proposal to help developers write less vulnerable code," reports the Register.

"The Safe C++ Extensions proposal aims to address the vulnerable programming language's Achilles' heel, the challenge of ensuring that code is free of memory safety bugs..." Acknowledging the now deafening chorus of calls to adopt memory safe programming languages, developers Sean Baxter, creator of the Circle compiler, and Christian Mazakas, from the C++ Alliance, argue that while Rust is the only popular systems level programming language without garbage collection that provides rigorous memory safety, migrating C++ code to Rust poses problems. "Rust lacks function overloading, templates, inheritance and exceptions," they explain in the proposal. "C++ lacks traits, relocation and borrow checking. These discrepancies are responsible for an impedance mismatch when interfacing the two languages. Most code generators for inter-language bindings aren't able to represent features of one language in terms of the features of another."

Though DARPA is trying to develop better automated C++ to Rust conversion tools, Baxter and Mazakas argue telling veteran C++ developers to learn Rust isn't an answer... The Safe C++ project adds new technology for ensuring memory safety, Baxter explained, and isn't just a reiteration of best practices. "Safe C++ prevents users from writing unsound code," he said. "This includes compile-time intelligence like borrow checking to prevent use-after-free bugs and initialization analysis for type safety." Baxter said that rewriting a project in a different programming language is costly, so the aim here is to make memory safety more accessible by providing the same soundness guarantees as Rust at a lower cost. "With Safe C++, existing code continues to work as always," he explained. "Stakeholders have more control for incrementally opting in to safety."

The next step, Baxter said, involves greater participation from industry to help realize the Safe C++ project. "The foundations are in: We have fantastic borrow checking and initialization analysis which underpin the soundness guarantees," he said. "The next step is to comprehensively visit all of C++'s features and specify memory-safe versions of them. It's a big effort, but given the importance of reducing C++ security vulnerabilities, it's an effort worth making."

A principal security software engineer at Microsoft described how they use their Azure cloud platform "to hunt phishers at scale," in a talk at the information security conference BSides Exeter.

Calling himself Microsoft's "Head of Deception." Ross Bevington described how they'd created a "hybrid high interaction honeypot" on the now retired code.microsoft.com "to collect threat intelligence on actors ranging from both less skilled cybercriminals to nation state groups targeting Microsoft infrastructure," according to a report by BleepingComputer: With the collected data, Microsoft can map malicious infrastructure, gain a deeper understanding of sophisticated phishing operations, disrupt campaigns at scale, identify cybercriminals, and significantly slow down their activity... Bevington and his team fight phishing by leveraging deception techniques using entire Microsoft tenant environments as honeypots with custom domain names, thousands of user accounts, and activity like internal communications and file-sharing...

In his BSides Exeter presentation, the researcher says that the active approach consists in visiting active phishing sites identified by Defender and typing in the credentials from the honeypot tenants. Since the credentials are not protected by two-factor authentication and the tenants are populated with realistic-looking information, attackers have an easy way in and start wasting time looking for signs of a trap. Microsoft says it monitors roughly 25,000 phishing sites every day, feeding about 20% of them with the honeypot credentials; the rest are blocked by CAPTCHA or other anti-bot mechanisms.

Once the attackers log into the fake tenants, which happens in 5% of the cases, it turns on detailed logging to track every action they take, thus learning the threat actors' tactics, techniques, and procedures. Intelligence collected includes IP addresses, browsers, location, behavioral patterns, whether they use VPNs or VPSs, and what phishing kits they rely on... The deception technology currently wastes an attacker 30 days before they realize they breached a fake environment. All along, Microsoft collects actionable data that can be used by other security teams to create more complex profiles and better defenses.

"Who asked for any of this in the first place?" wonders a New York Times consumer-tech writer. (Alternate URL here.) "Judging from the feedback I get from readers, lots of people outside the tech industry remain uninterested in AI — and are increasingly frustrated with how difficult it has become to ignore." The companies rely on user activity to train and improve their AI systems, so they are testing this tech inside products we use every day. Typing a question such as "Is Jay-Z left-handed?" in Google will produce an AI-generated summary of the answer on top of the search results. And whenever you use the search tool inside Instagram, you may now be interacting with Meta's chatbot, Meta AI. In addition, when Apple's suite of AI tools, Apple Intelligence, arrives on iPhones and other Apple products through software updates this month, the tech will appear inside the buttons we use to edit text and photos.

The proliferation of AI in consumer technology has significant implications for our data privacy, because companies are interested in stitching together and analyzing our digital activities, including details inside our photos, messages and web searches, to improve AI systems. For users, the tools can simply be an annoyance when they don't work well. "There's a genuine distrust in this stuff, but other than that, it's a design problem," said Thorin Klosowski, a privacy and security analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights nonprofit, and a former editor at Wirecutter, the reviews site owned by The New York Times. "It's just ugly and in the way."

It helps to know how to opt out. After I contacted Microsoft, Meta, Apple and Google, they offered steps to turn off their AI tools or data collection, where possible. I'll walk you through the steps.
The article suggests logged-in Google users can toggle settings at myactivity.google.com. (Some browsers also have extensions that force Google's search results to stop inserting an AI summary at the top.) And you can also tell Edge to remove Copilot from its sidebar at edge://settings.

But "There is no way for users to turn off Meta AI, Meta said. Only in regions with stronger data protection laws, including the EU and Britain, can people deny Meta access to their personal information to build and train Meta's AI." On Instagram, for instance, people living in those places can click on "settings," then "about" and "privacy policy," which will lead to opt-out instructions. Everyone else, including users in the United States, can visit the Help Center on Facebook to ask Meta only to delete data used by third parties to develop its AI.
By comparison, when Apple releases new AI services this month, users will have to opt in, according to the article. "If you change your mind and no longer want to use Apple Intelligence, you can go back into the settings and toggle the Apple Intelligence switch off, which makes the tools go away."

Cybersecurity startup Watchtowr "was founded by hacker-turned-entrepreneur Benjamin Harris," according to a recent press release touting their Fortune 500 customers and $29 million investments from venture capital firms. ("If there's a way to compromise your organization, watchTowr will find it," Harris says in the announcement.)

This week they shared their own research on a Fortinet FortiGate SSLVPN appliance vulnerability (discovered in February by Gwendal Guégniaud of the Fortinet Product Security team — presumably in a static analysis for format string vulnerabilities). "It affected (before patching) all currently-maintained branches, and recently was highlighted by CISA as being exploited-in-the-wild... It's a Format String vulnerability [that] quickly leads to Remote Code Execution via one of many well-studied mechanisms, which we won't reproduce here..."

"Tl;dr SSLVPN appliances are still sUpEr sEcurE," their post begains — but the details are interesting. When trying to test an exploit, Watchtowr discovered instead that FortiGate always closed the connection early, thanks to an exploit mitigation in glibc "intended to hinder clean exploitation of exactly this vulnerability class." Watchtowr hoped to "use this to very easily check if a device is patched — we can simply send a %n, and if the connection aborts, the device is vulnerable. If the connection does not abort, then we know the device has been patched... " But then they discovered "Fortinet added some kind of certificate validation logic in the 7.4 series, meaning that we can't even connect to it (let alone send our payload) without being explicitly permitted by a device administrator." We also checked the 7.0 branch, and here we found things even more interesting, as an unpatched instance would allow us to connect with a self-signed certificate, while a patched machine requires a certificate signed by a configured CA. We did some reversing and determined that the certificate must be explicitly configured by the administrator of the device, which limits exploitation of these machines to the managing FortiManager instance (which already has superuser permissions on the device) or the other component of a high-availability pair. It is not sufficient to present a certificate signed by a public CA, for example...

Fortinet's advice here is simply to update, which is always sound advice, but doesn't really communicate the nuance of this vulnerability... Assuming an organisation is unable to apply the supplied workaround, the urgency of upgrade is largely dictated by the willingness of the target to accept a self-signed certificate. Targets that will do so are open to attack by any host that can access them, while those devices that require a certificate signed by a trusted root are rendered unexploitable in all but the narrowest of cases (because the TLS/SSL ecosystem is just so solid, as we recently demonstrated)...

While it's always a good idea to update to the latest version, the life of a sysadmin is filled with cost-to-benefit analysis, juggling the needs of users with their best interests.... [I]t is somewhat troubling when third parties need to reverse patches to uncover such details.
Thanks to Slashdot reader Mirnotoriety for sharing the article.

A post shared Saturday on social media acknowledges those admins and developers at the Internet Archive working "literally round the clock... They have taken no days off this past week. They are taking none this weekend... they are working with all of their energy and considerable talent."

It describes people "working so incredibly hard... putting their all in," with a top priority of "getting the site back secure and safe".

But there's new and continuing problems, reports The Verge's weekend editor: Early this morning, I received an email from "The Internet Archive Team," replying to a message I'd sent on October 9th. Except its author doesn't seem to have been the digital archivists' support team — it was apparently written by the hackers who breached the site earlier this month and who evidently maintain some level of access to its systems.

I'm not alone. Users on the Internet Archive subreddit are reporting getting the replies, as well. Here is the message I received:

It's dispiriting to see that even after being made aware of the breach 2 weeks ago, IA has still not done the due diligence of rotating many of the API keys that were exposed in their gitlab secrets.

As demonstrated by this message, this includes a Zendesk token with perms to access 800K+ support tickets sent to info@archive.org since 2018.

Whether you were trying to ask a general question, or requesting the removal of your site from the Wayback Machine — your data is now in the hands of some random guy. If not me, it'd be someone else.
The site BleepingComputer believes they know the larger context, starting with the fact that they've also "received numerous messages from people who received replies to their old Internet Archive removal requests... The email headers in these emails also pass all DKIM, DMARC, and SPF authentication checks, proving they were sent by an authorized Zendesk server."

BleepingComputer also writes that they'd "repeatedly tried to warn the Internet Archive that their source code was stolen through a GitLab authentication token that was exposed online for almost two years."

And that "the threat actor behind the actual data breach, who contacted BleepingComputer through an intermediary to claim credit for the attack," has been frustrated by misreporting. (Specifically, they insist there were two separate attacks last week — a DDoS attack and a separate data breach for a 6.4-gigabyte database which includes email addresses for the site's 33 million users.) The threat actor told BleepingComputer that the initial breach of Internet Archive started with them finding an exposed GitLab configuration file on one of the organization's development servers, services-hls.dev.archive.org. BleepingComputer was able to confirm that this token has been exposed since at least December 2022, with it rotating multiple times since then. The threat actor says this GitLab configuration file contained an authentication token allowing them to download the Internet Archive source code. The hacker say that this source code contained additional credentials and authentication tokens, including the credentials to Internet Archive's database management system. This allowed the threat actor to download the organization's user database, further source code, and modify the site.

The threat actor claimed to have stolen 7TB of data from the Internet Archive but would not share any samples as proof. However, now we know that the stolen data also included the API access tokens for Internet Archive's Zendesk support system. BleepingComputer attempted contact the Internet Archive numerous times, as recently as on Friday, offering to share what we knew about how the breach occurred and why it was done, but we never received a response.
"The Internet Archive was not breached for political or monetary reasons," they conclude, "but simply because the threat actor could...

"While no one has publicly claimed this breach, BleepingComputer was told it was done while the threat actor was in a group chat with others, with many receiving some of the stolen data. This database is now likely being traded amongst other people in the data breach community, and we will likely see it leaked for free in the future on hacking forums like Breached."

"Six years after the Spectre transient execution processor design flaws were disclosed, efforts to patch the problem continue to fall short," writes the Register: Johannes Wikner and Kaveh Razavi of Swiss University ETH Zurich on Friday published details about a cross-process Spectre attack that derandomizes Address Space Layout Randomization and leaks the hash of the root password from the Set User ID (suid) process on recent Intel processors. The researchers claim they successfully conducted such an attack.... [Read their upcomong paper here.] The indirect branch predictor barrier (IBPB) was intended as a defense against Spectre v2 (CVE-2017-5715) attacks on x86 Intel and AMD chips. IBPB is designed to prevent forwarding of previously learned indirect branch target predictions for speculative execution. Evidently, the barrier wasn't implemented properly.

"We found a microcode bug in the recent Intel microarchitectures — like Golden Cove and Raptor Cove, found in the 12th, 13th and 14th generations of Intel Core processors, and the 5th and 6th generations of Xeon processors — which retains branch predictions such that they may still be used after IBPB should have invalidated them," explained Wikner. "Such post-barrier speculation allows an attacker to bypass security boundaries imposed by process contexts and virtual machines." Wikner and Razavi also managed to leak arbitrary kernel memory from an unprivileged process on AMD silicon built with its Zen 2 architecture.

Videos of the Intel and AMD attacks have been posted, with all the cinematic dynamism one might expect from command line interaction.

Intel chips — including Intel Core 12th, 13th, and 14th generation and Xeon 5th and 6th — may be vulnerable. On AMD Zen 1(+) and Zen 2 hardware, the issue potentially affects Linux users. The relevant details were disclosed in June 2024, but Intel and AMD found the problem independently. Intel fixed the issue in a microcode patch (INTEL-SA-00982) released in March, 2024. Nonetheless, some Intel hardware may not have received that microcode update. In their technical summary, Wikner and Razavi observe: "This microcode update was, however, not available in Ubuntu repositories at the time of writing this paper." It appears Ubuntu has subsequently dealt with the issue.

AMD issued its own advisory in November 2022, in security bulletin AMD-SB-1040. The firm notes that hypervisor and/or operating system vendors have work to do on their own mitigations. "Because AMD's issue was previously known and tracked under AMD-SB-1040, AMD considers the issue a software bug," the researchers explain. "We are currently working with the Linux kernel maintainers to merge our proposed software patch."
BleepingComputer adds that the ETH Zurich team "is working with Linux kernel maintainers to develop a patch for AMD processors, which will be available here when ready."

"The Wayback Machine, Archive-It, scanning, and national library crawls have resumed," announced the Internet Archive Thursday, "as well as email, blog, helpdesk, and social media communications. Our team is working around the clock across time zones to bring other services back online."

Founder Brewster Kahle told The Washington Post it's the first time in its almost 30-year history that it's been down more than a few hours. But their article says the Archive is "fighting back." Kahle and his team see the mission of the Internet Archive as a noble one — to build a "library of everything" and ensure records are kept in an online environment where websites change and disappear by the day. "We're all dreamers," said Chris Freeland, the Internet Archive's director of library services. "We believe in the mission of the Internet Archive, and we believe in the promise of the internet." But the site has, at times, courted controversy. The Internet Archive faces lawsuits from book publishers and music labels brought in 2020 and 2023 for digitizing copyrighted books and music, which the organization has argued should be permissible for noncommercial, archival purposes. Kahle said the hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties from the lawsuits could sink the Internet Archive.

Those lawsuits are ongoing. Now, the Internet Archive has also had to turn its attention to fending off cyberattacks. In May, the Internet Archive was hit with a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, a fairly common type of internet warfare that involves flooding a target site with fake traffic. The archive experienced intermittent outages as a result. Kahle said it was the first time the site had been targeted in its history... [After another attack October 9th], Kahle and his team have spent the week since racing to identify and fix the vulnerabilities that left the Internet Archive open to attack. The organization has "industry standard" security systems, Kahle said, but he added that, until this year, the group had largely stayed out of the crosshairs of cybercriminals. Kahle said he'd opted not to prioritize additional investments in cybersecurity out of the Internet Archive's limited budget of around $20 million to $30 million a year...

[N]o one has reliably claimed the defacement and data breach that forced the Internet Archive to sequester itself, said [cybersecurity researcher] Scott Helmef. He added that the hackers' decision to alert the Internet Archive of their intrusion and send the stolen data to Have I Been Pwned, the monitoring service, could imply they didn't have further intentions with it.... Helme said the episode demonstrates the vulnerability of nonprofit services like the Internet Archive — and of the larger ecosystem of information online that depends on them. "Perhaps they'll find some more funding now that all of these headlines have happened," Helme said. "And people suddenly realize how bad it would be if they were gone."
"Our priority is ensuring the Internet Archive comes online stronger and more secure," the archive said in Thursday's statement. And they noted other recent-past instances of other libraries also being attacked online: As a library community, we are seeing other cyber attacks — for instance the British Library, Seattle Public Library, Toronto Public Library, and now Calgary Public Library. We hope these attacks are not indicative of a trend."

For the latest updates, please check this blog and our official social media accounts: X/Twitter, Bluesky and Mastodon.

Thank you for your patience and ongoing support.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Space News: SpaceX has been awarded contracts for eight launches under the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Phase 3 Lane 1 program, the U.S. Space Force's Space Systems Command announced Oct. 18. The contracts worth $733.5 million span seven missions for the Space Development Agency (SDA) and one for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) projected to launch in 2026. These are part of the NSSL Phase 3 procurement of launch services for U.S. defense and intelligence agencies.

The NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 program is structured as an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, a flexible procurement method often used in government contracting. The total value of the Lane 1 contract is estimated at $5.6 billion over five years, with Blue Origin, SpaceX, and United Launch Alliance (ULA) selected as the primary vendors to compete for individual task orders. The Space Development Agency is utilizing SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket to launch small satellites into a low-Earth orbit (LEO) constellation, a network of satellites designed to enhance military communications and intelligence capabilities. SpaceX has already completed two successful launches for the Tranche 0 portion of SDA's constellation.

"The Phase 3 Lane 1 construct allows us to execute launch services more quickly for risk-tolerant payloads, putting more capabilities in orbit faster to support national security," said Brig. Gen. Kristin Panzenhagen, program executive officer for Assured Access to Space at the Space Force. Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket has yet to perform its first launch and will need to complete at least two successful flights to qualify for NSSL certification, while ULA's Vulcan Centaur, which has completed two flights, is still awaiting final certification for the program.

Microsoft has notified customers that it's missing more than two weeks of security logs for some of its cloud products, leaving network defenders without critical data for detecting possible intrusions. From a report: According to a notification sent to affected customers, Microsoft said that "a bug in one of Microsoft's internal monitoring agents resulted in a malfunction in some of the agents when uploading log data to our internal logging platform" between September 2 and September 19.

The notification said that the logging outage was not caused by a security incident, and "only affected the collection of log events." Business Insider first reported the loss of log data earlier in October. Details of the notification have not been widely reported. As noted by security researcher Kevin Beaumont, the notifications that Microsoft sent to affected companies are likely accessible only to a handful of users with tenant admin rights. Logging helps to keep track of events within a product, such as information about users signing in and failed attempts, which can help network defenders identify suspected intrusions. Missing logs could make it more difficult to identify unauthorized access to the customers' networks during that two-week window.

Phoronix's Michael Larabel reports: Germany's Sovereign Tech Fund (STF) is today celebrating its second anniversary for "empowering public digital infrastructure." In the past two years it has invested more than $24.9 million into sixty open technologies. This effort backed by the German government has provided nearly $25 million USD in open-source funding over the past two years. In this time there has been more than 500 submissions proposing over 114 million euros in work.

This Sovereign Tech Funding has helped open-source projects provide much needed maintenance to their software, enhance the security posture of the software, and make other open-source improvements in the public interest. You can learn more about the Sovereign Tech Fund via their blog.

An anonymous reader shares a report: At the end of September, Kaspersky forcibly uninstalled and replaced itself with a new antivirus called UltraAV on the computers of around a million Americans, many of whom were surprised and aghast that they were not asked to give their consent for the change. The move was the end result of the U.S. government ban on all sales of Kaspersky software in the country and -- at least in theory -- marked the end of Kaspersky in America.

But not everyone in the U.S. has given up on the Russian-made antivirus. Some Americans have found ways to get around the ban and are still using Kaspersky's antivirus, TechCrunch has learned. Several people who live in the U.S. said in posts on Reddit that they are holding out as Kaspersky customers. When TechCrunch asked them about their motivations, their reasons range from being skeptical of the reasons behind the ban, or having paid for the product already, to simply preferring the product over its rivals.

With ransomware attacks surging and 2024 on track to be one of the worst years on record, U.S. officials are seeking ways to counter the threat, in some cases, urging a new approach to ransom payments. From a report: Ann Neuberger, U.S. deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technologies, wrote in a recent Financial Times opinion piece, that insurance policies -- especially those covering ransomware payment reimbursements -- are fueling the very same criminal ecosystems they seek to mitigate. "This is a troubling practice that must end," she wrote, advocating for stricter cybersecurity requirements as a condition for coverage to discourage ransom payments.

Zeroing in on cyber insurance as a key area for reform comes as the U.S. government scrambles to find ways to disrupt ransomware networks. According to the latest report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, by mid-2024 more than 2,300 incidents already had been recorded -- nearly half targeting U.S. organizations -- suggesting that 2024 could exceed the 4,506 attacks recorded globally in 2023. Yet even as policymakers scrutinize insurance practices and explore broader measures to disrupt ransomware operations, businesses are still left to grapple with the immediate question when they are under attack: Pay the ransom and potentially incentivize future attacks or refuse and risk further damage.

For many organizations, deciding whether to pay a ransom is a difficult and urgent decision. "In 2024, I attended a briefing by the FBI where they continued to advise against paying a ransom," said Paul Underwood, vice president of security at IT services company Neovera. "However, after making that statement, they said that they understand that it's a business decision and that when companies make that decision, it is taking into account many more factors than just ethics and good business practices. Even the FBI understood that businesses need to do whatever it takes to get back to operations," Underwood said.

WP Engine has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Automattic and its CEO Matt Mullenweg, seeking to halt their public campaign and regain access to WordPress resources. The hosting platform claims it's suffering "immediate irreparable harm," including a 14% spike in cancellation requests following Mullenweg's criticism.

WP Engine alleges the dispute has created anxiety among developers and increased security risks for the WordPress community. The legal action comes after Automattic accused WP Engine of trademark infringement, leading to exchanged cease-and-desist orders and a lawsuit. Last week, the WordPress.org project, led by Mullenweg, took control of WP Engine's Advanced Custom Fields plugin, redirecting users to a forked version.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: A new ClickFix campaign is luring users to fraudulent Google Meet conference pages showing fake connectivity errors that deliver info-stealing malware for Windows and macOS operating systems. ClickFix is a social-engineering tactic that emerged in May, first reported by cybersecurity company Proofpoint, from a threat actor (TA571) that used messages impersonating errors for Google Chrome, Microsoft Word, and OneDrive. The errors prompted the victim to copy to clipboard a piece of PowerShell code that would fix the issues by running it in Windows Command Prompt. Victims would thus infect systems with various malware such as DarkGate, Matanbuchus, NetSupport, Amadey Loader, XMRig, a clipboard hijacker, and Lumma Stealer.

In July, McAfee reported that the ClickFix campaigns were becoming mode frequent, especially in the United States and Japan. A new report from Sekoia, a SaaS cybersecurity provider, notes that ClickFix campaigns have evolved significantly and now use a Google Meet lure, phishing emails targeting transport and logistics firms, fake Facebook pages, and deceptive GitHub issues. According to the French cybersecurity company, some of the more recent campaigns are conducted by two threat groups, the Slavic Nation Empire (SNE) and Scamquerteo, considered to be sub-teams of the cryptocurrency scam gangs Marko Polo and CryptoLove.

South Korea will prepare stronger measures in a bid to prevent overseas leaks of business secrets amid intensifying competition for advanced technologies, the finance minister said on Thursday. From a report: "We will prevent illegal leaks of advanced technologies to raise the global competitiveness of our companies and strengthen technology leadership," Minister Choi Sang-mok said.

The government will set up a "big data" system aimed at preventing technology leaks at the patent agency and introduce new regulations to ensure stronger punishment for culprits, Choi said. He did not specify what the stronger penalties would be under the new regulations. In the past five years, there have been 97 attempts to leak business secrets to a foreign country, with 40 of them in the semiconductor industry, according to the National Intelligence Service.

The Cybersecurity Association of China (CSAC) has recommended a security review of Intel's products sold in China, accusing the U.S. chipmaker of harming national security and citing vulnerabilities in its chips. Reuters reports: While CSAC is an industry group rather than a government body, it has close ties to the Chinese state and the raft of accusations against Intel, published in a long post on its official WeChat account, could trigger a security review from China's powerful cyberspace regulator, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC). "It is recommended that a network security review is initiated on the products Intel sells in China, so as to effectively safeguard China's national security and the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese consumers," CSAC said. [...]

CSAC in its post accuses Intel chips, including Xeon processors used for artificial intelligence tasks, of carrying several vulnerabilities, concluding that Intel "has major defects when it comes to product quality, security management, indicating that it is extremely irresponsible attitude towards customers." The industry group goes on to state that operating systems embedded in all Intel processors are vulnerable to backdoors created by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). "This poses a great security threat to the critical information infrastructures of countries all over the world, including China...the use of Intel products poses a serious risk to national security." CSAC said.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: Real-time video deepfakes are a growing threat for governments, businesses, and individuals. Recently, the chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations mistakenly took a video call with someone pretending to be a Ukrainian official. An international engineering company lost millions of dollars earlier in 2024 when one employee was tricked by a deepfake video call. Also, romance scams targeting everyday individuals have employed similar techniques. "It's probably only a matter of months before we're going to start seeing an explosion of deepfake video, face-to-face fraud," says Ben Colman, CEO and cofounder at Reality Defender. When it comes to video calls, especially in high-stakes situations, seeing should not be believing.

The startup is laser-focused on partnering with business and government clients to help thwart AI-powered deepfakes. Even with this core mission, Colman doesn't want his company to be seen as more broadly standing against artificial intelligence developments. "We're very pro-AI," he says. "We think that 99.999 percent of use cases are transformational -- for medicine, for productivity, for creativity -- but in these kinds of very, very small edge cases the risks are disproportionately bad." Reality Defender's plan for the real-time detector is to start with a plug-in for Zoom that can make active predictions about whether others on a video call are real or AI-powered impersonations. The company is currently working on benchmarking the tool to determine how accurately it discerns real video participants from fake ones. Unfortunately, it's not something you'll likely be able to try out soon. The new software feature will only be available in beta for some of the startup's clients.

As Reality Defender works to improve the detection accuracy of its models, Colman says that access to more data is a critical challenge to overcome -- a common refrain from the current batch of AI-focused startups. He's hopeful more partnerships will fill in these gaps, and without specifics, hints at multiple new deals likely coming next year. After ElevenLabs was tied to a deepfake voice call of US president Joe Biden, the AI-audio startup struck a deal with Reality Defender to mitigate potential misuse. [...] "We don't ask my 80-year-old mother to flag ransomware in an email," says Colman. "Because she's not a computer science expert." In the future, it's possible real-time video authentication, if AI detection continues to improve and shows to be reliably accurate, will be as taken for granted as that malware scanner quietly humming along in the background of your email inbox.

wiredmikey shares a report from SecurityWeek: Dane Stuckey, the former Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) of big data analytics and AI firm Palantir, has joined OpenAI CISO. Stuckey served in senior security roles at Palantir for more than ten years, including 6 plus years as the company's CISO. In his new role, Stuckey said he would be working alongside Matt Knight, Head of Security at OpenAI. "Security is germane to OpenAI's mission," said Stuckey in a post on X. "It is critical we meet the highest standards for compliance, trust, and security to protect hundreds of millions of users of our products, enable democratic institutions to maximally benefit from these technologies, and drive the development of safe AGI for the world."

"I am so excited for this next chapter, and can't wait to help secure a future where AI benefits us all," Stuckey added.

An anonymous reader shares a report: The big financial moments in life used to be marked with a flourish of a pen. Buying a house. A car. Breakfast. Not anymore. Visa, Mastercard, Discover and American Express dropped the requirement to sign for charges like restaurant checks in 2018. They don't look at our scribbles to verify identity or stop fraud. Taps, clicks and electronic signatures took over the heavy lifting for many everyday purchases -- and many contracts, loan applications and even Social Security forms. The John Hancock was written off as a relic useful mainly to inflate the value of sports memorabilia. But signatures didn't die.

We continue to be asked to sign with ink on paper or using fingers on touch screens at many restaurants, bars and other businesses. And people keep signing card receipts out of habit -- even when there is no blank space for it -- because it feels weird not to, payment networks and retail groups say. "Traditions have this odd way of sticking around," said Doug Kantor, general counsel of the National Association of Convenience Stores. Signatures had been used to verify identity and agree to financial terms for centuries. Banks kept records of customer signatures to check against, but the sheer number of transactions and advancements in technology eventually made that impractical.

By the 1980s, charges could be processed electronically. Signatures were still used in cases of fraud or stolen cards. Banks could call merchants and ask them to present a signed receipt. Yet given how easy signatures are to forge, they proved limited as a fraud prevention tool. Now there are more sophisticated ways to determine whether cards are stolen or misused, according to Mark Nelsen, global head of consumer payments at Visa.