Entries Tagged "reports"

Page 2 of 9

Use of Generative AI in Scams

New report: “Scam GPT: GenAI and the Automation of Fraud.”

This primer maps what we currently know about generative AI’s role in scams, the communities most at risk, and the broader economic and cultural shifts that are making people more willing to take risks, more vulnerable to deception, and more likely to either perpetuate scams or fall victim to them.

AI-enhanced scams are not merely financial or technological crimes; they also exploit social vulnerabilities ­ whether short-term, like travel, or structural, like precarious employment. This means they require social solutions in addition to technical ones. By examining how scammers are changing and accelerating their methods, we hope to show that defending against them will require a constellation of cultural shifts, corporate interventions, and eff­ective legislation.

Posted on October 1, 2025 at 7:09 AM • View Comments

Surveying the Global Spyware Market

The Atlantic Council has published its second annual report: “Mythical Beasts: Diving into the depths of the global spyware market.”

Too much good detail to summarize, but here are two items:

First, the authors found that the number of US-based investors in spyware has notably increased in the past year, when compared with the sample size of the spyware market captured in the first Mythical Beasts project. In the first edition, the United States was the second-largest investor in the spyware market, following Israel. In that edition, twelve investors were observed to be domiciled within the United States—­whereas in this second edition, twenty new US-based investors were observed investing in the spyware industry in 2024. This indicates a significant increase of US-based investments in spyware in 2024, catapulting the United States to being the largest investor in this sample of the spyware market. This is significant in scale, as US-based investment from 2023 to 2024 largely outpaced that of other major investing countries observed in the first dataset, including Italy, Israel, and the United Kingdom. It is also significant in the disparity it points to ­the visible enforcement gap between the flow of US dollars and US policy initiatives. Despite numerous US policy actions, such as the addition of spyware vendors on the Entity List, and the broader global leadership role that the United States has played through imposing sanctions and diplomatic engagement, US investments continue to fund the very entities that US policymakers are making an effort to combat.

Second, the authors elaborated on the central role that resellers and brokers play in the spyware market, while being a notably under-researched set of actors. These entities act as intermediaries, obscuring the connections between vendors, suppliers, and buyers. Oftentimes, intermediaries connect vendors to new regional markets. Their presence in the dataset is almost assuredly underrepresented given the opaque nature of brokers and resellers, making corporate structures and jurisdictional arbitrage more complex and challenging to disentangle. While their uptick in the second edition of the Mythical Beasts project may be the result of a wider, more extensive data-collection effort, there is less reporting on resellers and brokers, and these entities are not systematically understood. As observed in the first report, the activities of these suppliers and brokers represent a critical information gap for advocates of a more effective policy rooted in national security and human rights. These discoveries help bring into sharper focus the state of the spyware market and the wider cyber-proliferation space, and reaffirm the need to research and surface these actors that otherwise undermine the transparency and accountability efforts by state and non-state actors as they relate to the spyware market.

Really good work. Read the whole thing.

Posted on September 19, 2025 at 7:01 AM • View Comments

Measuring the Attack/Defense Balance

“Who’s winning on the internet, the attackers or the defenders?”

I’m asked this all the time, and I can only ever give a qualitative hand-wavy answer. But Jason Healey and Tarang Jain’s latest Lawfare piece has amassed data.

The essay provides the first framework for metrics about how we are all doing collectively—and not just how an individual network is doing. Healey wrote to me in email:

The work rests on three key insights: (1) defenders need a framework (based in threat, vulnerability, and consequence) to categorize the flood of potentially relevant security metrics; (2) trends are what matter, not specifics; and (3) to start, we should avoid getting bogged down in collecting data and just use what’s already being reported by amazing teams at Verizon, Cyentia, Mandiant, IBM, FBI, and so many others.

The surprising conclusion: there’s a long way to go, but we’re doing better than we think. There are substantial improvements across threat operations, threat ecosystem and organizations, and software vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, we’re still not seeing increases in consequence. And since cost imposition is leading to a survival-of-the-fittest contest, we’re stuck with perhaps fewer but fiercer predators.

And this is just the start. From the report:

Our project is proceeding in three phases—­the initial framework presented here is only phase one. In phase two, the goal is to create a more complete catalog of indicators across threat, vulnerability, and consequence; encourage cybersecurity companies (and others with data) to report defensibility-relevant statistics in time-series, mapped to the catalog; and drive improved analysis and reporting.

This is really good, and important, work.

Posted on July 30, 2025 at 7:07 AM • View Comments

Surveillance Used by a Drug Cartel

Once you build a surveillance system, you can’t control who will use it:

A hacker working for the Sinaloa drug cartel was able to obtain an FBI official’s phone records and use Mexico City’s surveillance cameras to help track and kill the agency’s informants in 2018, according to a new US justice department report.

The incident was disclosed in a justice department inspector general’s audit of the FBI’s efforts to mitigate the effects of “ubiquitous technical surveillance,” a term used to describe the global proliferation of cameras and the thriving trade in vast stores of communications, travel, and location data.

[…]

The report said the hacker identified an FBI assistant legal attaché at the US embassy in Mexico City and was able to use the attaché’s phone number “to obtain calls made and received, as well as geolocation data.” The report said the hacker also “used Mexico City’s camera system to follow the [FBI official] through the city and identify people the [official] met with.”

FBI report.

Posted on July 3, 2025 at 7:06 AM • View Comments

Chinese-Owned VPNs

One one my biggest worries about VPNs is the amount of trust users need to place in them, and how opaque most of them are about who owns them and what sorts of data they retain.

A new study found that many commercials VPNS are (often surreptitiously) owned by Chinese companies.

It would be hard for U.S. users to avoid the Chinese VPNs. The ownership of many appeared deliberately opaque, with several concealing their structure behind layers of offshore shell companies. TTP was able to determine the Chinese ownership of the 20 VPN apps being offered to Apple’s U.S. users by piecing together corporate documents from around the world. None of those apps clearly disclosed their Chinese ownership.

Posted on May 27, 2025 at 7:07 AM • View Comments

The NSA’s “Fifty Years of Mathematical Cryptanalysis (1937–1987)”

In response to a FOIA request, the NSA released “Fifty Years of Mathematical Cryptanalysis (1937-1987),” by Glenn F. Stahly, with a lot of redactions.

Weirdly, this is the second time the NSA has declassified the document. John Young got a copy in 2019. This one has a few less redactions. And nothing that was provided in 2019 was redacted here.

If you find anything interesting in the document, please tell us about it in the comments.

Posted on May 19, 2025 at 7:06 AM • View Comments

NCSC Guidance on “Advanced Cryptography”

The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre just released its white paper on “Advanced Cryptography,” which it defines as “cryptographic techniques for processing encrypted data, providing enhanced functionality over and above that provided by traditional cryptography.” It includes things like homomorphic encryption, attribute-based encryption, zero-knowledge proofs, and secure multiparty computation.

It’s full of good advice. I especially appreciate this warning:

When deciding whether to use Advanced Cryptography, start with a clear articulation of the problem, and use that to guide the development of an appropriate solution. That is, you should not start with an Advanced Cryptography technique, and then attempt to fit the functionality it provides to the problem.

And:

In almost all cases, it is bad practice for users to design and/or implement their own cryptography; this applies to Advanced Cryptography even more than traditional cryptography because of the complexity of the algorithms. It also applies to writing your own application based on a cryptographic library that implements the Advanced Cryptography primitive operations, because subtle flaws in how they are used can lead to serious security weaknesses.

The conclusion:

Advanced Cryptography covers a range of techniques for protecting sensitive data at rest, in transit and in use. These techniques enable novel applications with different trust relationships between the parties, as compared to traditional cryptographic methods for encryption and authentication.

However, there are a number of factors to consider before deploying a solution based on Advanced Cryptography, including the relative immaturity of the techniques and their implementations, significant computational burdens and slow response times, and the risk of opening up additional cyber attack vectors.

There are initiatives underway to standardise some forms of Advanced Cryptography, and the efficiency of implementations is continually improving. While many data processing problems can be solved with traditional cryptography (which will usually lead to a simpler, lower-cost and more mature solution) for those that cannot, Advanced Cryptography techniques could in the future enable innovative ways of deriving benefit from large shared datasets, without compromising individuals’ privacy.

NCSC blog entry.

Posted on May 2, 2025 at 7:03 AM • View Comments

Report on Paragon Spyware

Citizen Lab has a new report on Paragon’s spyware:

Key Findings:

  • Introducing Paragon Solutions. Paragon Solutions was founded in Israel in 2019 and sells spyware called Graphite. The company differentiates itself by claiming it has safeguards to prevent the kinds of spyware abuses that NSO Group and other vendors are notorious for.
  • Infrastructure Analysis of Paragon Spyware. Based on a tip from a collaborator, we mapped out server infrastructure that we attribute to Paragon’s Graphite spyware tool. We identified a subset of suspected Paragon deployments, including in Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Israel, and Singapore.
  • Identifying a Possible Canadian Paragon Customer. Our investigation surfaced potential links between Paragon Solutions and the Canadian Ontario Provincial Police, and found evidence of a growing ecosystem of spyware capability among Ontario-based police services.
  • Helping WhatsApp Catch a Zero-Click. We shared our analysis of Paragon’s infrastructure with Meta, who told us that the details were pivotal to their ongoing investigation into Paragon. WhatsApp discovered and mitigated an active Paragon zero-click exploit, and later notified over 90 individuals who it believed were targeted, including civil society members in Italy.
  • Android Forensic Analysis: Italian Cluster. We forensically analyzed multiple Android phones belonging to Paragon targets in Italy (an acknowledged Paragon user) who were notified by WhatsApp. We found clear indications that spyware had been loaded into WhatsApp, as well as other apps on their devices.
  • A Related Case of iPhone Spyware in Italy. We analyzed the iPhone of an individual who worked closely with confirmed Android Paragon targets. This person received an Apple threat notification in November 2024, but no WhatsApp notification. Our analysis showed an attempt to infect the device with novel spyware in June 2024. We shared details with Apple, who confirmed they had patched the attack in iOS 18.
  • Other Surveillance Tech Deployed Against The Same Italian Cluster. We also note 2024 warnings sent by Meta to several individuals in the same organizational cluster, including a Paragon victim, suggesting the need for further scrutiny into other surveillance technology deployed against these individuals.

Posted on March 25, 2025 at 7:05 AM • View Comments

1 2 3 4 … 9

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.