Search This Blog
Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

Footer About

Footer About

Labels

Load More
Trendy Right Now

Popular Posts

Showing posts with label Cyber Security. Show all posts
User Security
AES‑256 Cyber Security Data Encryption Military‑Grade Encryption User Security

Debunking the Myth of “Military‑Grade” Encryption

 

Military-grade encryption sounds impressive, but in reality it is mostly a marketing phrase used by VPN providers to describe widely available, well‑tested encryption standards like AES‑256 rather than some secret military‑only technology. The term usually refers to the Advanced Encryption Standard with a 256‑bit key (AES‑256), a symmetric cipher adopted as a US federal standard in 2001 to replace the older Data Encryption Standard. 

AES turns readable data into random‑looking ciphertext using a shared key, and the 256‑bit key length makes brute‑force attacks computationally infeasible for any realistic adversary. Because the same key is used for both encryption and decryption, AES is paired with slower asymmetric algorithms such as RSA during the VPN handshake so the symmetric key can be exchanged securely over an untrusted network. Once that key is agreed, your traffic flows efficiently using AES while still benefiting from the secure key exchange provided by public‑key cryptography.

Calling this setup “military‑grade” is misleading because it implies special, restricted technology, when in fact AES‑256 is an open, publicly documented standard used by governments, banks, corporations, and everyday internet services alike. Any competent developer can implement AES‑256, and your browser and many apps already rely on it to protect logins and other sensitive data as it traverses the internet. In practical terms, the same class of algorithm that safeguards classified government communications also secures routine tasks like online banking or cloud storage. VPN marketing leans on the phrase because “AES‑256 with a 256‑bit key” means little to non‑experts, while “military‑grade” instantly conveys strength and trustworthiness.

Strong encryption is not overkill reserved for spies; it matters for everyday users whose online activity constantly generates data trails across sites and apps. That information is monetized for targeted advertising and exposed in breaches that can enable phishing, identity theft, or other fraud, even if you believe you have nothing to hide. Location histories, financial records, and health details are all highly sensitive, and the risks are even greater for journalists, activists, or people living under repressive regimes where surveillance and censorship are common. For them, robust encryption is essential, often combined with obfuscation and multi‑hop VPN chains to conceal VPN usage and add layers of protection if an exit server is compromised.

Ultimately, a VPN without strong encryption offers little real security, whether you are using public Wi‑Fi or simply trying to keep your ISP and advertisers from building detailed profiles about you. AES‑256 remains a widely trusted choice, but modern VPNs may also use alternatives like ChaCha20 in protocols such as WireGuard, which, although not a NIST standard, has been thoroughly audited and is considered secure. The important point is not the “military‑grade” label but whether the service implements proven, well‑reviewed cryptography correctly and combines it with privacy‑preserving features that match your threat model.
Read more »
generative AI tools
AI Risks AI Security AI technology AI tools Cyber Security Generative AI generative AI cybercrime generative AI tools

Shadow AI Risks Rise as Employees Use Generative AI Tools at Work Without Oversight

 

With speed surprising even experts, artificial intelligence now appears routinely inside office software once limited to labs. Because uptake grows faster than oversight, companies care less about who uses AI and more about how safely it runs. 

Research referenced by security specialists suggests that roughly 83 percent of UK workers frequently use generative artificial intelligence for everyday duties - finding data, condensing reports, creating written material. Because tools including ChatGPT simplify repetitive work, efficiency gains emerge across fast-paced departments. While automation reshapes daily workflows, practical advantages become visible where speed matters most. 

Still, quick uptake of artificial intelligence brings fresh risks to digital security. More staff now introduce personal AI software at work, bypassing official organizational consent. Experts label this shift "shadow AI," meaning unapproved systems run inside business environments. 

These tools handle internal information unseen by IT teams. Oversight gaps grow when such platforms function outside monitored channels. Almost three out of four people using artificial intelligence at work introduce outside tools without approval. 

Meanwhile, close to half rely on personal accounts instead of official platforms when working with generative models. Security groups often remain unaware - this gap leaves sensitive information exposed. What stands out most is the nature of details staff share with artificial intelligence platforms. Because generative models depend on what users feed them, workers frequently insert written content, programming scripts, or files straight into the interface. 

Often, such inputs include sensitive company records, proprietary knowledge, personal client data, sometimes segments of private software code. Almost every worker - around 93 percent - has fed work details into unofficial AI systems, according to research. Confidential client material made its way into those inputs, admitted roughly a third of them. 

After such data lands on external servers, companies often lose influence over storage methods, handling practices, or future applications. One real event showed just how fast things can go wrong. Back in 2023, workers at Samsung shared private code along with confidential meeting details by sending them into ChatGPT. That slip revealed data meant to stay inside the company. 

What slipped out was not hacked - just handed over during routine work. Without strong rules in place, such tools become quiet exits for secrets. Trusting outside software too quickly opens gaps even careful firms miss. Compromised AI accounts might not only leak data - security specialists stress they may also unlock wider company networks through exposed chat logs. 

While financial firms worry about breaking GDPR rules, hospitals fear HIPAA violations when staff misuse artificial intelligence tools unexpectedly. One slip with these systems can trigger audits far beyond IT departments’ control. Bypassing restrictions tends to happen anyway, even when companies try to ban AI outright. 

Experts argue complete blocks usually fail because staff seek workarounds if they think a tool helps them get things done faster. Organizations might shift attention toward AI oversight methods that reveal how these tools get applied across teams. 

By watching how systems are accessed, spotting unapproved software, clarity often emerges around acceptable use. Clear rules tend to appear more effective when risk control matters - especially if workers continue using innovative tools quietly. Guidance like this supports balance: safety improves without blocking progress.
Read more »
Microsoft Security Response
Cyber Security Data protection Data Records data security Microsoft Microsoft 365 Security Microsoft Security Response

Windows Telemetry Explained: What Diagnostic Data Microsoft Collects and Why It Matters

 

Years after Windows 10 arrived, a single aspect keeps stirring conversation - telemetry. This data gathering, labeled diagnostic info by Microsoft, pulls details from machines without manual input. Its purpose? Keeping systems stable, secure, running smoothly. Yet reactions split sharply between everyday users and those watching privacy trends. 

Early on, after Windows 10 arrived, observers questioned whether its telemetry might double as monitoring. A few writers argued it collected large amounts of user detail while transmitting data to Microsoft machines. Still, analysts inspecting how the OS handles information report minimal proof backing such suspicions. 

Beginning in 2017, scrutiny from the Dutch Data Protection Authority revealed shortcomings in how Windows presented telemetry consent choices. Although designed to gather system performance details, the setup failed to align with regional privacy expectations due to unclear user permissions. 

Instead of defending the original design, Microsoft adjusted both interface wording and backend configurations. Following these updates, oversight bodies acknowledged improvements, noting no evidence emerged suggesting private information was gathered unlawfully. Independent analysts alongside regulatory teams had previously flagged the configuration, yet after revisions, compliance concerns faded gradually. 

What runs behind the scenes in Windows includes a mix of telemetry types - mainly split into essential and extra reporting layers. Most personal computers, especially those outside corporate control, turn on the basic tier automatically; there exists no standard menu option to switch it off entirely. This baseline layer gathers only what Microsoft claims is vital for stability and core operations. 

Though hidden from typical adjustments, its presence supports ongoing performance checks across devices. Basic troubleshooting relies on specific diagnostics tied to functions like Windows Update. Information might cover simple fault summaries, setup traits of hardware, software plus driver footprints, along with records tracking how updates succeed or fail. 

As noted by Microsoft, insights drawn support better stability fixes, safety patches, app alignment, and smoother running systems. Some diagnostic details go beyond basics, capturing patterns in app use or web habits. These insights might involve deeper system errors, performance signs, or hardware traits. 

While such data helps refine functionality, access remains under user control via Windows options. Those cautious about personal information often choose to turn this off. Control sits within settings, letting choices match comfort levels. Occasionally, memory dumps taken during system failures form part of Optional diagnostic data, according to experts. 

When a crash happens, pieces of active files might get saved inside these records. Because of this risk, certain groups managing confidential material prefer disabling the setting altogether. In 2018, Microsoft rolled out a feature named Diagnostic Data Viewer to boost openness. This tool gives people access to review what information their machine shares with the company, revealing specifics found in diagnostics and system summaries. 

One billion devices now operate on Windows 11 across the globe. Because of countless variations in hardware and software setups, Microsoft relies on telemetry data - this information reveals issues, shapes update improvements, yet supports consistent performance. While tracking user interactions might sound intrusive, it actually guides fixes without exposing personal details; instead, patterns emerge that steer engineering decisions behind the scenes. 

Even though some diagnostic details are essential for basic operations, those worried about personal data might choose to limit what gets sent by turning off non-essential diagnostics in device preferences. Still, full function depends on keeping certain reporting active.
Read more »
VPN security limitations
Cyber Security data tracking online internet privacy risks online anonymity myth VPN privacy limits VPN security limitations

Why VPNs Can’t Guarantee Complete Online Anonymity: Understanding the Limits of Digital Privacy

 

The modern internet constantly collects and analyzes information about users. Nearly every action online—browsing websites, clicking links, watching videos or making purchases—creates digital traces that are monitored, stored and often traded. As a result, maintaining privacy on the internet has become increasingly difficult.

Faced with this reality, many people attempt to shield themselves by using tools designed to protect their identity online. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) have become one of the most popular solutions, often marketed as a way to achieve complete anonymity. However, experts emphasize that true anonymity on the internet is largely unrealistic.

Some VPN providers are transparent about what their services can and cannot do. However, several companies continue to promote exaggerated claims suggesting that their services can make users entirely anonymous online.

For instance, VPN provider CyberGhost states on its website that users can “go completely anonymous and surf the internet without privacy worries,” and promises they can “enjoy complete anonymity & protection online” through its service. Although the company acknowledges in an FAQ section that “no VPN service can make you 100% anonymous online,” the conflicting messaging can still mislead users.

Experts warn that believing VPNs provide absolute anonymity can be risky. Relying solely on a VPN may create a false sense of security, especially when sharing sensitive information or operating in regions with strict digital surveillance. Even journalists, activists or individuals communicating confidential information may remain exposed despite using a VPN.

Widespread Data Collection Online

Online surveillance has existed for decades. Governments have used digital tools to monitor citizens and foreign actors, while technology companies collect user data to support advertising and other business operations.

Public awareness of large-scale digital surveillance increased significantly after former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed classified surveillance programs in 2013. Later, the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal further highlighted how massive amounts of user data could be harvested and used without clear consent.

Major online platforms such as Google, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, X, Amazon and Netflix collect extensive information about user activity when individuals are logged in. This includes search queries, clicked links, watched videos, purchased items, ads interacted with and shared content. These details help companies build detailed profiles of user interests and behaviors.

In addition, personal data such as names, email addresses, physical addresses, payment information and usernames can be tracked. Technical identifiers—including IP addresses, browser types, device models and operating systems—also provide valuable data points.

Internet service providers can monitor browsing activity, location data, application usage and metadata. Meanwhile, websites employ technologies such as cookies and device fingerprinting, while social media platforms use tracking pixels to follow users across the web.

The collected data is often sold to data brokers, who treat personal information as a valuable commodity.

Privacy regulations such as Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) give individuals greater control over how their information is handled. Still, experts note that these laws can only address part of the problem, as data collection practices remain deeply embedded within the digital economy.

How VPNs Improve Privacy — and Where They Fall Short

A VPN can still play an important role in protecting online privacy. The technology encrypts internet traffic and routes it through a secure server located elsewhere. This process hides browsing activity from internet providers, network administrators and other potential observers.

It also replaces the user’s real IP address with the address of the VPN server, making it harder for websites to identify a user’s exact location or track them directly.

These features allow VPNs to help limit certain types of tracking, bypass geographic restrictions and evade network firewalls at workplaces or schools.

However, VPNs cannot eliminate all tracking mechanisms. Many services include basic protections such as ad or tracker blocking, but most cannot fully defend against browser fingerprinting. This technique gathers information like screen resolution, language preferences, browser type, extensions and operating system to uniquely identify users.

Even with a VPN active, online services such as Amazon, Google or Facebook can still recognize users when they log into their accounts. These platforms continue collecting data linked directly to the individual.

VPNs also cannot prevent users from downloading malicious files or entering personal information into phishing websites. While antivirus tools may help mitigate these risks, VPNs alone cannot.

Another important consideration is that using a VPN shifts visibility of internet activity from an internet service provider to the VPN provider itself. If the provider maintains strong privacy policies—such as audited no-logs practices and secure infrastructure—this risk is minimized. However, some VPN services, particularly free ones, have been criticized for misusing or mishandling user data.

Additional Tools for Stronger Privacy

Specialists emphasize that VPNs should be viewed as just one component of a broader cybersecurity strategy.

Tools like Tor, which uses “onion routing” to send traffic through multiple encrypted relays, can further obscure user activity. Operating systems such as Tails run independently from a computer’s main system and automatically erase data after each session.

Other privacy-enhancing technologies include ad-blocking browser extensions, encrypted messaging platforms like Signal, secure email services such as Proton Mail, and privacy-focused browsers designed to block trackers and resist fingerprinting.

Private search engines such as DuckDuckGo or Brave Search also help reduce data collection compared to mainstream search platforms.

Beyond software tools, experts recommend adopting safer online habits. Limiting social media use, creating temporary accounts with aliases, paying in cash or cryptocurrency when possible, and avoiding suspicious downloads can help reduce exposure.

Users are also encouraged to adjust device privacy settings, restrict application permissions, enable encryption, disable unnecessary tracking features and exercise caution when connecting to public Wi-Fi networks.

Regularly clearing browser cookies and cache can further limit tracking activity.

Ultimately, no single tool can guarantee anonymity on the internet. However, combining multiple privacy technologies with careful online behavior can significantly strengthen personal data protection.
Read more »
Mobile Security
block scam calls call scams Cyber Phishing Cyber Scams Cyber Security Cyberfrauds Fraud Calls Mobile Security

Silent Scam Calls Used to Verify Active Phone Numbers, Cybersecurity Experts Warn

 

Many people have answered calls from unfamiliar numbers only to hear silence on the other end. In some cases, no one speaks at all. In others, there is a short delay before a caller finally responds. While this may appear to be a simple mistake or a wrong number, cybersecurity experts say these calls are often part of a deliberate scam tactic used to verify active phone numbers. 

According to security specialists, these silent calls function as a form of automated reconnaissance. Fraud operations run large-scale calling systems that dial thousands of numbers to determine which ones belong to real people. When someone answers, the system confirms that the number is active and marks it as a potential target for future scams. 

Keeper Security Chief Information Security Officer Shane Barney explained that such calls are rarely accidental. Instead, they help attackers filter out inactive numbers before investing more time and resources into scams. Verified contact information has value in modern cybercrime networks, where data about reachable individuals can be bought, sold, and reused across different fraud campaigns. 

Once a phone number is confirmed as active, it may be used in several ways. In some cases, scammers follow up with phishing calls or messages designed to trick victims into revealing personal or financial information. In more advanced attacks, a verified phone number could be combined with leaked email addresses from data breaches or used in schemes such as SIM-swap fraud, where attackers attempt to gain control of a victim’s mobile account. 

Another variation occurs when callers respond only after a brief pause. This delay is typically caused by predictive dialing systems that automatically place large volumes of calls. These systems detect when a human answers and then route the call to a live operator. The short silence represents the time it takes for the system to transfer the connection. 

Some people also worry that speaking during these calls could allow scammers to clone their voice using artificial intelligence. While voice cloning technology exists, experts say creating a convincing replica generally requires longer and clearer audio samples than a brief greeting. 

However, voice cloning could still become part of larger scams if criminals already possess other personal details about a victim. Security professionals recommend simple precautions when receiving suspicious calls. If an unknown number produces silence, hanging up immediately is usually the safest option. 

Another tactic is answering without speaking, which prevents automated systems from detecting a human voice. Spam-filtering tools can also help reduce nuisance calls. Applications such as Truecaller, RoboKiller, and Hiya identify numbers previously reported as spam. However, experts caution that no filtering system is perfect because scammers frequently change phone numbers. 

Ultimately, while call-blocking tools can reduce the volume of unwanted calls, maintaining strong account security and being cautious with unknown callers remain the most effective ways to avoid phone-based scams.
Read more »
ShinyHunters
Cyber Security Cyberthreats Hackers Hacking ShinyHunters

ShinyHunters Threatens Data Leak After Alleged Salesforce Breach

 

The hacking group ShinyHunters has warned roughly 400 companies that it may publish stolen data online if ransom demands are not met. The group claims it accessed private records through websites built on Salesforce Experience Cloud, a platform companies use to create public portals and customer support sites. 

According to earlier findings by cybersecurity firm Mandiant, the attackers targeted organisations that used Salesforce’s Experience Cloud for external-facing services such as help centres and information portals. 

How the breach allegedly happened? The reported intrusion appears linked to the configuration of public access settings within these websites. 

Salesforce allows websites built on Experience Cloud to include a “guest user” profile so visitors can view limited information without logging in. 

If these settings are configured too broadly, however, the access permissions can expose internal data to the public internet. Investigations suggest the attackers used a modified version of a tool called Aura Inspector to scan websites for such weaknesses. 

Once vulnerabilities were identified, the hackers were able to extract information including names and phone numbers. Security experts say the stolen data may already be fueling vishing attacks. 

In such scams, attackers contact employees by phone and attempt to trick them into revealing additional confidential information. 

Dispute over the root cause There is disagreement over whether the problem stems from a software flaw or from how companies configured their systems. Salesforce has said the platform itself remains secure and that the issue is related to customer settings rather than a vulnerability in the product. 

“Our investigation to date confirms that this activity relates to a customer-configured guest user setting, not a platform security flaw,” the company said in a blog post. 

ShinyHunters disputes that explanation, claiming it discovered a previously unknown flaw that allows it to bypass certain protections even on sites that appear properly configured. 

Independent researchers have not yet verified that claim. Pressure tactics used by hackers ShinyHunters is known for using aggressive extortion strategies to pressure victims into paying ransom demands. The group often releases stolen data in stages to increase pressure on organisations that refuse to negotiate. 

A recent example involved Dutch telecommunications provider Odido and its brand Ben. After the company declined to pay a ransom reportedly worth one million euros, the hackers began publishing large quantities of customer data on the dark web. 

Security guidance for companies Salesforce is urging customers to review their portal configurations and tighten access controls. The company recommends applying a “least privilege” approach, meaning guest users should only have the minimum permissions required to use a site. 

Businesses are also advised to keep data private by default, disable settings that expose internal staff information, and turn off public application programming interfaces where possible. 

These interfaces can allow external systems to exchange data and may create additional entry points if left open. 

The incident highlights the growing risks associated with misconfigured cloud services, which security analysts say have become a common target for cybercriminal groups seeking large volumes of corporate data.
Read more »
U.S. Army
Cyber Security National Security Spy Trackers Surveillance Tools U.S. Army

Commercial Spy Trackers Breach U.S. Army Networks, Jeopardizing National Security

 

U.S. Army networks face a hidden invasion from commercial spy technology, compromising soldier data and national security in alarming ways. A groundbreaking study by the Army Cyber Institute at West Point analyzed traffic on military networks, discovering that 21.2% of the most frequently visited websites host tracker domains. These trackers relentlessly collect sensitive information like geolocation, email addresses, and detailed browsing histories from troops during routine online activities.

The infiltration stems from ubiquitous commercial tools embedded in popular sites. Companies such as Adobe, Microsoft, Akamai, and even the banned TikTok deploy these trackers, funneling harvested data to brokers who resell it without regard for buyers' intentions. This surveillance capitalism mirrors civilian web tracking but strikes deeper when targeting military personnel, turning everyday internet use into a potential intelligence leak.

Researchers from Duke University exposed the severity by purchasing dossiers on active-duty service members from data brokers with ease. They acquired names, home addresses, personal emails, and military branch details, often from non-U.S. domains, highlighting how adversaries could exploit this for blackmail, targeting installations, or cyber campaigns . One expert called the process "disturbingly simple," underscoring the broker market's indifference to national security risks.

Persistent vulnerabilities echo the 2018 Strava fitness app scandal, where heatmap data revealed covert base locations worldwide. The latest findings show trackers in 42% of network requests and 10.4% of sites, exceeding privacy safeguards on mainstream streaming platforms. Cybersecurity professor Alan Woodward of the University of Surrey warns, "If you’re not paying, you are the product," a harsh reality for soldiers navigating the open web.

The Pentagon is responding aggressively through its 2023 Cyber Strategy, implementing Zero Trust architecture, enhanced endpoint detection, and widespread tracker blocking . The National Defense Authorization Act bolsters these efforts with mandates for spyware mitigation and stricter social media vetting. The Army Cyber Institute advocates quantifying trackers and extending blocks to personal devices, elevating data privacy to a core element of force protection in the digital age.
Read more »
Network
Cloud Cyber Security Data FortiGate Network

Hackers Exploit FortiGate Devices to Hack Networks and Credentials


Exploiting network points to hack victims 

Cybersecurity experts have warned about a new campaign where hackers are exploiting FortiGate Next-Gen Firewall (NGFW) devices as entry points to hack target networks. 

The campaign involves abusing the recently revealed security flaws or weak password to take out configuration files. The activity has singled out class linked to government, healthcare, and managed service providers. 

Attack tactic 

According to experts, “FortiGate network appliances have considerable access to the environments they were installed to protect. In many configurations, this includes service accounts which are connected to the authentication infrastructure, such as Active Directory (AD) and Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP).”

"This setup can enable the appliance to map roles to specific users by fetching attributes about the connection that’s being analyzed and correlating with the Directory information, which is useful in cases where role-based policies are set or for increasing response speed for network security alerts detected by the device,” the experts added. 

Misconfigurations opening doors for hackers 

But the experts noticed that this access could be compromised by hackers who hack into FortiGate devices via flaws or misconfigurations.

In one attack, the hackers breached a FortiGate appliance last year in November to make a new local admin account “support” and built four new firewall policies that let the account to travel across all zones without any limitations. 

The hacker then routinely checked device access. “Evidence demonstrates the attacker authenticated to the AD using clear text credentials from the fortidcagent service account, suggesting the attacker decrypted the configuration file and extracted the service account credentials,” SentinelOne reported. 

How was the account used?

After this, hacker leveraged the service account to verify the target's environment and put rogue workstations in the AD for further access. Following this, network scanning started and the breach was found, and lateral movement was stopped. 

The contents of the NTDS.dit file and SYSTEM registry hive were exfiltrated to an external server ("172.67.196[.]232") over port 443 by the Java malware, which was triggered via DLL side-loading.

SentinelOne said that “While the actor may have attempted to crack passwords from the data, no such credential usage was identified between the time of credential harvesting and incident containment.”

Read more »
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)