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
Wireless Emergency Alerts
Cyber Security Emergency Alert System FCC cybersecurity Team Telecom undersea cable security Wireless Emergency Alerts

FCC Strengthens Cybersecurity Rules for Emergency Alert Systems and Undersea Cable Networks

 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has approved a series of new regulations aimed at strengthening the cybersecurity of the United States' emergency communication systems while modernizing security requirements for the country's undersea cable infrastructure.

The newly adopted rules introduce stronger safeguards for the nation's two primary public warning platforms—the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA)—to reduce the risk of cyberattacks and unauthorized access.

The EAS is widely used by federal, state and local authorities to broadcast emergency information, including severe weather warnings, AMBER Alerts and other public safety notifications through television and radio networks. Meanwhile, the WEA delivers similar alerts directly to mobile devices through text messages.

According to the FCC, a successful cyberattack on either platform by a foreign government, cybercriminal organization or malicious actor could spread misinformation, create public confusion or disrupt emergency response efforts during critical situations.

Any vulnerability in systems like the Emergency Alert System “can have serious consequences,” said FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty in a statement after the vote.

“That is why it has been appropriate for the Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the EAS framework by focusing on the security of the system itself,” Trusty continued. “As cybersecurity threats continue to evolve, EAS participants must take appropriate steps to safeguard the infrastructure that supports the delivery of life-saving alerts.”

As part of the new cybersecurity framework, organizations responsible for operating EAS and WEA systems will be required to adopt stronger cyber hygiene measures. These include implementing robust passwords, promptly installing vendor-issued security updates and patches, and deploying firewalls to restrict unauthorized access to critical systems.

The FCC has also introduced a new authentication identification system that will verify emergency alerts before they are transmitted, helping prevent duplicate, fake or unauthorized alerts from being distributed.

In a separate decision, the Commission also approved its first major overhaul of submarine cable regulations in several decades. The updated framework seeks to enhance cybersecurity oversight for undersea cable infrastructure while simplifying licensing procedures for trusted operators.

Under the revised rules, certain undersea cable providers will no longer be required to undergo the extensive national security licensing review conducted by "Team Telecom" before operating cables connected to U.S. territory.

Team Telecom is an interagency group led by the Department of Justice's Foreign Investment Review Section, along with other federal agencies that evaluate the national security implications of telecommunications infrastructure.

The updated policy allows submarine cable applicants to qualify for an exemption if they can self-certify that they meet high security standards designed to improve certainty, streamline reviews and shorten licensing timelines.

“Currently, all submarine cable applications get referred to Team Telecom…the changes adopted would exempt applications from applicants that have operated cables without incident, can certify to the highest national security standards, and agree to ongoing oversight and monitoring,” the FCC said in a release.

The new regulations also expand the FCC's oversight of key operational components within submarine cable systems. Companies responsible for submarine line terminal equipment, which connects undersea cables to U.S.-based terrestrial facilities, will now be required to obtain licenses.

Additionally, the Commission has introduced updated security measures to address risks associated with essential equipment, third-party vendors and vulnerabilities across the broader submarine cable supply chain, further strengthening the resilience of critical communications infrastructure.

Read more »
Cyber Security
AI technology AI tools Anthropic Anthropic AI Anthropic Ban Claude Claude AI Cyber Security

Anthropic Restores Limited Access to Claude Mythos 5 AI Model After US Government Approval

 

Earlier limits on Anthropic’s top-tier AI tools have been eased by U.S. officials, reopening limited availability of the Claude Mythos 5 system to certain approved American institutions. Though only recently barred due to fears about potential misuse threatening national safety, the model is now accessible again under tight conditions. Government oversight in high-level AI deployment continues expanding, especially when such systems involve strong digital defense functions. 

While concerns remain, selective reinstatement suggests a shift toward managed access rather than blanket bans. Now cleared by U.S. authorities, Mythos 5 can be used again by groups managing essential infrastructure operations. Over a hundred entities - some among the largest corporations - are set to reconnect under new guidelines. Though access returns in phases, Anthropic emphasizes steady progress restoring function, even as talks continue with federal agencies on widening reach later. 

One goal remains: bringing back full public availability of the Fable 5 system after further review. One restriction began with an export directive dated June 12, forcing Anthropic to shut off entry points to Mythos 5 along with Fable 5. Not long after, OpenAI revealed a delay in launching GPT-5.6 widely - this pause came by direction from U.S. officials. Rather than open access freely, they handed early permissions only to select collaborators, names already passed to federal agencies.

Oversight like this signals a quiet but steady push from regulators to track how powerful artificial intelligence moves into real-world use. Officials worry powerful AI systems might fall into the hands of rival nations - like those in Beijing or Moscow - despite existing barriers. Because these tools can detect system flaws faster than humans, they may speed up digital attacks when protections fail. While designed for defense, their functions could shift toward offense once access is gained through weak points. 

Even infrastructure meant to resist intrusion becomes a target under such conditions. Surprisingly, Anthropic admitted that authorities questioned whether flaws in its security could allow bypassing controls meant to stop abuse of the Fable 5 system when spotting code weaknesses. Although officials noted improvements in handling those dangers, details about the specific defenses enabling partial revival of Mythos 5 remain undisclosed by public agencies. 

Though some defend the selection method, lawyers and tech executives have raised doubts. Questions emerge over who gets picked - free expression supporters point out unclear criteria behind group approvals. Without clear rules on checks, suspicion grows. Safety tests gain backing even as control worries surface; Sam Altman backs strong evaluations yet hesitates at state influence shaping access paths. Decisions made behind closed doors unsettle those watching closely. 

Now, trusted groups working with Mythros 5 won’t need export permits - this applies also to their staff outside the U.S. - as long as they’re named on the official roster. Still, firms left off the list must follow current licensing rules. A number of listed entities belong to Anthropic’s Project Glasswing, it is said, a collaboration hosting around one hundred tech outfits and study centers. 

Now comes news after Donald Trump issued an executive directive creating a non-mandatory process: creators of cutting-edge artificial intelligence may offer their systems to federal authorities for scrutiny during a thirty-day window prior to wider release. Some say this step offers temporary protection until more complete regulatory structures emerge through policy work. 

Yet concerns rise elsewhere - extended delays in launching powerful AI tools might hinder progress, weakening American firms just as international competitors push forward with their own intelligent technologies.
Read more »
signal
Backup CISA Cyber Security FBI Phishing signal

FBI Warns Russian-Linked Hackers Have Shifted Signal Phishing Campaign to Steal Backup Recovery Keys

 


The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have issued an updated public service announcement warning that Russian intelligence-linked threat actors have expanded an ongoing phishing campaign targeting Signal users. Rather than attempting to intercept authentication codes alone, the attackers are now seeking victims' Signal Backup Recovery Keys, enabling them to restore encrypted cloud backups and gain access to historical conversations.

The latest advisory builds on an alert released in March 2026, when the agencies disclosed that Russian-backed operators were targeting users of commercial messaging applications, particularly Signal, through carefully crafted phishing campaigns. Those earlier attacks focused on compromising accounts by deceiving users into handing over verification codes, account PINs, or linking unauthorized devices to their Signal accounts, instead of defeating the application's end-to-end encryption.

According to the FBI, the threat actors have refined their social engineering techniques by impersonating automated Signal support accounts and introducing a new objective: convincing users to disclose the recovery keys that protect their encrypted backups.

The agencies said the campaign continues to concentrate on individuals considered to be of intelligence value, including current and former U.S. government officials, government personnel from allied nations, military members, political figures, journalists, and officials located in Ukraine.

The activity has been attributed to Russian Intelligence Services (RIS), including officers associated with Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) Border Guards and additional actors operating on behalf of the Russian military. Security researchers publicly track the activity under the designations UNC5792 and UNC4221.

Phishing campaign evolves beyond account hijacking

The updated advisory describes a notable change in the attackers' methods. Earlier phishing attempts largely sought one-time verification codes, Signal PINs, or persuaded victims to connect attacker-controlled devices to their accounts. The current campaign instead attempts to obtain the cryptographic recovery key used by Signal's Secure Backups feature.

To begin the attack, the operators pose as Signal's support team and distribute fraudulent messages claiming the messaging platform is introducing mandatory two-factor verification following an alleged increase in attacks carried out by hackers from Iran and post-Soviet countries. The messages falsely state that the security changes require users to configure Signal Backups in order to avoid losing conversations and media files.

Victims are instructed to navigate through the application's backup settings, enable Secure Backups, reveal the Backup Recovery Key, copy it to the clipboard, and complete what appears to be a legitimate setup process.

Signal's Secure Backups feature allows users to store encrypted copies of conversations on the company's cloud infrastructure. Those backups remain protected through end-to-end encryption, with the Backup Recovery Key serving as the only credential capable of decrypting and restoring the archived data. Because Signal does not retain this key, anyone who obtains it can restore the encrypted backup onto another device.

After victims complete the initial steps, the attackers send a second phishing message while continuing to impersonate Signal support. This follow-up communication claims the user's account is experiencing a synchronization problem and warns that stored messages and media could be permanently lost unless immediate action is taken.

The fraudulent notification instructs users to revisit the backup settings, copy the Backup Recovery Key once again, and paste it directly into the conversation under the pretense of preventing data loss.

If victims comply, the attackers obtain the recovery key and use it to restore the encrypted backup on devices under their control. This grants access to previously archived communications, including private conversations and group chats.

The FBI emphasized that these attacks do not compromise Signal's encryption itself. Instead, they rely entirely on social engineering techniques that manipulate users into voluntarily surrendering the credentials needed to decrypt their own backups.

Compromised recovery keys remain a risk even after creating a new account

The updated advisory also highlights a recovery scenario that affected users may easily overlook.

According to the FBI, creating a new Signal account with the same phone number does not invalidate a Backup Recovery Key that has already been stolen. If attackers previously acquired the key, they may still be able to access any encrypted backups downloaded before the compromise was discovered.

To prevent future backup restorations using a compromised credential, users should generate a new Backup Recovery Key through Signal's backup settings. Creating a replacement key invalidates the previous one for subsequent backup downloads. However, the agencies cautioned that this action cannot revoke access to backups that attackers have already restored using the stolen key.

Agencies urge users to remain cautious of unsolicited support messages

The FBI and CISA reminded users that legitimate messaging platform support teams communicate only through official company email channels. They do not request verification codes through the application itself, nor do they send unsolicited messages instructing users to verify accounts, restore backups, or disclose recovery credentials.

Anyone who believes they may have interacted with the phishing campaign is encouraged to report the incident to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), a local FBI field office, or CISA.

The advisory accentuates the fact that well-designed encryption remains effective only when the credentials protecting it remain under the user's control. Rather than attempting to break modern cryptography, state-sponsored threat actors are increasingly directing their efforts toward manipulating trusted users into revealing the keys that unlock their own protected data.

Read more »
Infrastructure Security
AI Infrastructure Security AI Security Credential Cyber Security Enterprise AI Security Enterprise security Infrastructure Security

AI Credential Security Emerges as Critical Risk in Modern Enterprise Infrastructure

 

Surprisingly, artificial intelligence alters how companies build their internal systems. Yet warnings emerge - not about flawed code, but about access methods growing more dangerous by the day. Credentials like API keys, login tokens, or automated service IDs now attract attackers as firms adopt more AI tools. 

A new report highlights an odd trend: defenses focus on outer boundaries, though weak identity controls often cause breaches inside AI environments. Investment flows into firewalls, even when real threats hide within permission structures Security breaches lately show a shift: criminals now aim more at login details instead of bugs within AI tools. A known example occurred when hackers gained access to publishing rights for a software library, slipping in harmful updates that collected AI account passwords, cloud keys, and system tokens across infected setups. 

Elsewhere, hidden project files left public helped adversaries grab artificial intelligence API secrets - before any code ran. Attackers succeeded here by abusing leaked authentication data, not defects in the underlying AI frameworks One reason experts point to is deeper issues baked into how AI systems are built. Instead of isolated logins for narrow tools, today’s setups often let one key open doors across many models and platforms. Because of this shift, losing control of login details means much wider exposure. Stolen tokens now offer criminals far greater leverage than before Among recent findings, signs point to an expanding problem with stolen login details.

A study across sectors showed over 1.27 million credentials tied to artificial intelligence services spilled online in 2025 alone - an uptick compared to prior periods. Old access tokens, though outdated, often stayed valid well beyond issue dates; when such keys fell into the wrong hands earlier, risk lingered far longer than expected Still, old-style safeguards like changing passwords, locking secrets away, or running automatic checks hold value - even if they fall short in AI-driven settings. 

Credentials tied to artificial intelligence tend to appear inside container files, system blueprints, build processes, recorded outputs, along with various hosted platforms. Once leaked access keys get found or reset, harm might already be done - copies hidden elsewhere, misuse underway. What worked before now lags behind how fast these systems share and replicate trust tokens Most security experts suggest companies start viewing AI identifiers much like those assigned to people or devices - restricting access based on necessity. 

Instead of using one wide-reaching API key, authorization should match only the needed tools, functions, or tasks. Each environment - whether used for live operations, trials, data review, or public interaction - ought to have distinct login details. This separation helps contain damage if one set gets exposed Security grows sharper when teams watch systems without pause. 

Ownership of access keys must be obvious, someone always accountable. Seeing what runs at any moment helps spot odd behavior early. Frequent checks on user actions reveal risks before they spread. A login seen outside usual patterns? Treat it as breached, just in case. With AI spreading through daily workflows, tracking who can do what matters more each month. Identity rules once tucked behind firewalls now step forward. They anchor defenses instead of trailing behind. Trust shifts only when proof holds firm.
Read more »
Information Security Leadership
AI cybersecurity Chief Information Security Officer CISO Code Of Ethics Cyber Risk Management Cyber Security Information Security Leadership

The Growing Call for a CISO Code of Ethics


CISOs today are no longer measured solely by the effectiveness of an organization's cyber defenses. With the increase of cyber threats, the acceleration of offensive capabilities with artificial intelligence, and increasing regulatory scrutiny, the role of enterprise-wide risk management, strategic decision making, and executive accountability has increased. 

The rapid evolution of the security industry, however, exposes a critical imbalance. Although companies increasingly rely on Chief Information Security Officers to safeguard their business operations, sensitive data, and corporate resilience, many security leaders are still lacking board-level support, clearly defined governance frameworks, or an universally accepted ethical framework. 

With the rise of data breaches and the growing concern about AI-enabled cyber threats, the question is not whether CISOs are equipped to deal with technical security challenges, but whether the profession itself requires a code of ethics that guides high-impact decisions that extend beyond cybersecurity in order to guide high-impact decisions. 

In addition to managing firewalls, security tools, and incident response operations, the CISO position has evolved far beyond managing firewalls and security tools to encompass a strategic role that encompasses more than ethical accountability. It is the chief information security officer's responsibility to design, implement, and enforce enterprise-wide security policies as well as ensuring the organization's long-term business strategy remains infused with cybersecurity. 

A CISO is responsible for overseeing the implementation of security technologies and workforce awareness programs to reduce the risk of data breaches and system compromise, in addition to fostering a security-first culture that strengthens organizational resilience and facilitates compliance with a growing range of regulatory and industry guidelines.

An organization's security posture must first be evaluated, existing controls evaluated, capability gaps identified, and risks prioritized to develop a security roadmap aligned with business objectives. These responsibilities require a combination of cybersecurity expertise, executive leadership, and strategic decision-making to accomplish. 

The modern CISO must have extensive knowledge of risks, threat detection, and response, as well as compliance standards such as GDPR, NIST, and SOC 2. They must also be equipped to manage security teams, budgets, and enterprise resources simultaneously. Board members and executive leadership must also be able to translate complex cyber risks into business-focused insights in order to facilitate informed decision-making and facilitate cross-functional collaboration capable of adapting to an increasingly sophisticated threat landscape, which is equally critical. 

According to recent findings, these challenges in governance translate into measurable risks in the operating environment. In the Voice of the CISO survey, conducted during the first quarter of 2025, 1,600 chief information security officers were surveyed across 16 countries by organizations with over 1,000 employees. 

According to nearly two-thirds of respondents, their organizations have suffered a material loss of sensitive information within the past year—a sharp increase over 46% reported in the previous survey. As a consequence, three quarters of CISOs are concerned that their organizations will be susceptible to material cyberattacks in the next 12 months. As a result of increased regulatory oversight and the demand for greater transparency, security leaders are increasingly willing to disclose security incidents as a result of these rising figures, indicating more than an increase in threat activity. 

Patrick Joyce, Global Resident CISO at Proofpoint, observed that CISOs are increasingly open about cyber risk exposure as a result of evolving governance expectations. The majority of respondents stated that they were confident in their organizations' cybersecurity culture, however six out of ten stated that they were not adequately prepared to handle a major cyber-attack. 

A significant proportion of CISOs indicated that they would consider paying a ransomware demand in order to recover critical data or restore business operations, highlighting the difficulty of making ethical decisions during crisis response. The findings also emphasize the complex balance between business continuity, risk management, and ethical decisions. 

A formal code of ethics for CISOs is gaining renewed relevance in light of this background. It is argued that technical expertise alone is no longer sufficient to fulfill the role of Chief Information Security Officer, which involves high-impact decisions affecting national infrastructure, business continuity, compliance with regulatory requirements, and public trust frequently. This framework is deliberately concise, incorporating four mandatory canons that describe the profession's fundamental ethical obligations rather than replacing individual professional judgment. 

By providing advisory guidance, the framework aims to assist security leaders in navigating complex situations in which competing responsibilities are often not clear on a technical or legal level. The code's preamble emphasizes that the CISO's primary responsibility is to protect society, organizational stakeholders, and critical infrastructure, making compliance with the code a mandatory assignment. 

According to the four core principles, cybersecurity professionals are expected to protect society and essential infrastructure, act with honesty, integrity, and stewardship, serve their organizations competently and diligently, and actively strengthen and safeguard the cybersecurity profession as a whole. 

A practical objective complements these mandatory canons, which encourage cybersecurity research, education, mentoring of future practitioners, and the preservation of professional certification values, while discouraging conduct that could adversely affect public confidence or security. There are many ways a professional can undermine ethical credibility, such as creating unnecessary fear or uncertainty, providing false reassurance, promoting poor security practices, exposing inadequately secured systems to a public network, or participating in professional associations that compromise ethical standards. 

A further requirement of the framework is that compliance with the preamble and four canons be enforced, and any conflicts between ethical obligations are resolved in accordance with the order in which the canons are defined. This ensures that security professionals have a structured hierarchy for resolving complex ethical dilemmas without creating conflicting obligations. 

CISOs continue to assume increasingly extensive legal, operational, and ethical responsibilities, and industry experts emphasize that personal crisis management strategies should also be developed to protect security executives along with the organizations they serve. 

A comprehensive incident response plan should not only prepare for technical incident response, but also consider professional, legal, financial, and reputational risks that may arise following an investigation by the government or a major cyber incident. It is important to maintain comprehensive documentation of security decisions, risk assessments, mitigation strategies, and executive communications, including instances where recommendations for security measures are declined by senior management or the board. 

By maintaining an auditable record of both approved and rejected security recommendations, companies can demonstrate due diligence, compliance with regulations, and informed decision making when faced with legal scrutiny. 

A CISO's security strategies must align with changing compliance obligations as they evolve in cybersecurity legislation, disclosure requirements, and regulatory frameworks by engaging in continuous professional development and consulting with legal counsel regularly. 

In addition, experts recommend that executives take out professional liability insurance specifically designed for executive cybersecurity roles, as standard corporate policies may not cover CISOs who have not been appointed as officers or directors by the organization, potentially leaving them personally liable for the consequences. As an added safeguard, a documented ethical decision-making framework will be developed that will serve as a consistent reference when dealing with incidents involving conflicting legal obligations, executive pressures, or sensitive disclosure decisions. 

The establishment of strong working relationships with legal, finance, public relations, and corporate communications teams is essential to the coordination of incident response, which ensures that regulatory notifications, public disclosures, and stakeholder communication remains both legally compliant and ethically sound during times of crisis. 

In the age of cybersecurity, enterprise resilience and national digital security continue to be shaped by it, which means that CISOs are increasingly responsible for more than just technical oversight. Effective cyber leadership requires strong governance, ethical accountability, transparent risk communication, and executive support.

The organizations that empower security leaders with clear ethical frameworks, documented decision-making processes, and cross-functional collaboration will have better chances of navigating an increasingly complex threat landscape while maintaining trust, regulatory compliance, and long-term operational efficiency.

Read more »
Self-Driving
ADAS Cyber Security India Auto Tech Radar Sensors Road Safety Self-Driving

India Removes Spectrum Barriers to Fast‑Track ADAS and Self‑Driving Tech

 

India has taken a significant step toward modernizing road safety by removing licensing requirements for radar sensors used in crash-avoidance and self-driving technologies. Reuters reports that the move is meant to reduce barriers for automakers and encourage the adoption of systems that can help lower the country’s high road fatality rate.

The issue is important because India’s roads remain among the most dangerous in the world, and vehicle safety technology is still unevenly deployed. By clearing spectrum access for key systems, the government is signaling that it wants advanced driver-assistance features such as emergency braking, blind-spot detection, and adaptive cruise control to become easier and cheaper to install. 

Under the new policy, manufacturers no longer need separate licensing to use radar sensors in the 77 GHz to 81 GHz range, which are central to many safety functions. Reuters also says similar relief was granted for systems operating in the 59 GHz band, which support communication between vehicles and roadside infrastructure. 

The policy shift also brings India closer to the regulatory approach used in the United States and the European Union, where standardized hardware can be deployed more freely. That matters for automakers because it reduces the need to build expensive India-specific alternatives, potentially speeding up launch timelines and lowering costs for consumers. 

At the same time, the report highlights that this is not a full autonomous-driving policy and does not solve India’s broader road safety problems on its own. The real test will be whether these regulatory changes translate into safer vehicles on the road, broader adoption by automakers, and measurable reductions in crashes over time.
Read more »
Microsoft security
Cyber Security Cyber Threats CyberCrime Cybercrime Ecosystem Microsoft Microsoft security

Microsoft, Europol and Industry Partners Disrupt Amadey and StealC Cybercrime Infrastructure

 

Surprisingly, global police forces took down two key cybercrime systems at once - unusual given past efforts typically focused on one threat. Backing came from Microsoft, adding weight to actions targeting Amadey, a program that loads malicious software. 

Meanwhile, StealC was also hit; it specializes in stealing user data. Though often seen working hand-in-hand during digital break-ins, both were struck together this time. Shifting tactics like this disrupted not just the tools but their entire support network. Recovery now becomes harder simply because so much of their foundation is gone. 

With infrastructure damaged across multiple points, launching new attacks will take far longer than before. Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit joined forces with law enforcement, cyber defense companies, and intelligence teams to tackle organized digital threats. From the start, findings on Amadey emerged through collaboration between ESET, BitSight, Lumen, and Mitsui Bussan Secure Directions. 

Meanwhile, tracking StealC unfolded thanks to insights from Europol, Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office, authorities in the Netherlands and Denmark, alongside IBM X-Force and Proofpoint. One thread led to another until distinct probes merged into a clearer picture of an extensive crime network. 

From the start, law enforcement leveraged the RICO Act - typically tied to mob-related prosecutions - to dismantle over 200 command hubs controlling malicious software networks. While not obvious at first glance, patterns uncovered by Microsoft’s Copilot system, driven by artificial intelligence, revealed connections across distinct malware groups. Because of these findings, officials began viewing the threats as branches of one coordinated operation rather than separate incidents. 

Microsoft reported that just in the first week of May, systems tied to Amadey and StealC reached over 140,000 machines globally. Though it appeared only in 2023, StealC functions like a rental-based attack tool - focused on grabbing login details from browsers, crypto wallets, messages, email accounts, even game profiles. 

Those using it adjust their attacks individually, while handling what they collect via online control panels built for ease. First seen in 2018, Amadey operates by delivering malicious software to compromised devices. Because of its design, cybercriminals often leverage it to introduce programs like StealC. One breach may lead - through this tool - to several layers of intrusion. 

Though initially subtle, the consequences multiply quickly once active. Modern cybercrime often works like a factory, experts note, where the link between these tools shows how tasks get split up. One crew might build something, another circulate it, while someone else runs it - yet everything fits. Because pieces snap together smoothly, attackers can stack actions into longer sequences even if they never talk. 

The setup thrives on separation, not teamwork. Targeting entire networks of malicious software could work better than going after single components, Microsoft suggests. Instead of isolated attacks on specific tools, focusing on how these systems connect might weaken criminal infrastructure more deeply. 

When security teams hit several points in an attacker's process simultaneously, it becomes harder, slower, and costlier to bounce back. Disrupting coordination between different parts slows down rebuilding attempts significantly. Each broken link adds friction, making revival less likely or much delayed.
Read more »
Web & App Activity
Cyber Security Google Play privacy Google privacy settings Search Services History Web & App Activity

Google Introduces New Privacy Controls for Search and Play to Give Users More Control Over Data

 

Google is introducing a fresh set of privacy controls for its Search services and Google Play, allowing users to better manage their saved activity and personalized recommendations. The company announced the changes through an email titled "New privacy settings for Search services," stating that the update is designed to offer users greater transparency and control over how their information is stored and used.

According to Google, Search services include Search, Maps, Shopping, Hotels, Flights, Translate and News. The updated settings will begin appearing in users' Google Accounts over the next few days.

Previously, history tracking and personalization for these services were managed through the Web & App Activity setting. With the latest update, Google is separating these functions into two independent controls—Search Services History and Personalized Recommendations.

"Previously, saving history and personalization were managed by Web & App Activity," Google said in the email. "Going forward, you can better tailor your Search services experience using your new Search Services History and Personalized Recommendations settings."

"These settings let you revisit your past searches and decide if you want your experience to be personalized," Google added.

Under the new system, Search Services History will determine whether activity from Google's Search-related services is saved to a user's account. This includes searches, Maps activity, Shopping searches, Flights and Hotels activity, Translate usage, News activity and other interactions.

Google says this change is intended to make it easier for users to revisit previous searches while continuing to access newer interactive Search features.

The company also noted that media generated during Search interactions will now be included in Search Services History.

"As people increasingly search in new ways, like searching a photo with Lens, Search Services History now includes media from your interactions, which you can stop saving at any time," Google noted in the email.

According to Google, saved media may include images, files, audio and videos generated during interactions with Search services.

"Saved media includes your images, files, audio and video from your interactions with Search services to help improve your experience," Google said.

This functionality covers experiences such as Google Lens visual searches and voice-based Search interactions.

"For example, this lets you revisit your past visual searches with Lens or continue a Search Live conversation about a song you heard," Google noted in the email. "To support these types of interactive product experiences, Google will now save your media to your Search Services History, applying robust privacy and security protections."

Google also confirmed that this saved media may contribute to improving its products and technologies, including artificial intelligence systems.

"Like your Search Services History, your saved media is also used to develop and improve Google services and technologies, including AI models and safety measures," Google said.

Users will have the option to disable the Save Media sub-setting whenever they choose. They can also remove individual media files from their history.

Google explained that if Web & App Activity is already enabled, the new Search Services History setting, along with the Save Media option, will automatically be enabled once the transition is complete.

The company further confirmed that users can later disable media saving and "delete individual pieces of media from your history."

Alongside history controls, Google is also introducing a separate Personalized Recommendations setting for Search services. This control determines whether the company uses saved activity to customize recommendations and content shown across Search services.

The separation of history storage and personalization gives users greater flexibility. Those who want the convenience of saved search history can continue storing their activity without necessarily allowing Google to personalize recommendations using that data.

Following the rollout, Web & App Activity will function independently from the new Search settings, meaning changes made to one will not automatically affect the others

Google is extending a similar approach to Google Play by launching dedicated Play History and Personalization in Play settings.

"For Google Play, you'll have new Play History and Personalization in Play settings, even if you’ve never used this service," Google said.

The company said these new settings will reflect users' existing preferences wherever applicable.

"Your prior choice from Web & App Activity for how long your history is saved will also apply to Search Services History and Play History," Google said.

As a result, previously configured auto-delete periods will carry over to the new settings. Users will continue to have the ability to review, delete or modify their saved activity whenever they choose.

Overall, the update provides more granular privacy controls by separating Search history, Search personalization, Play history and Play personalization into distinct settings rather than relying on a single Web & App Activity switch.

Google said the new privacy controls will gradually become available to users through their Google Accounts over the coming days.
Read more »
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)