Cyber scammers give new warnings as they do not stop scamming unsuspecting web shoppers through a new phishing campaign posing to be online stores. Many of these fake stores Google has removed from its search results, but links remain on social media and other sites, hence why all internet users need to know how to spot these dangerous sites.
How the Scam Works
In its latest research, Human Security's Satori team has found that cyber thieves are taking advantage of a method that leads internet users from legitimate online platforms to fake online shopping. The attackers inject a malicious program that creates fake product listings in genuine websites. This tactic pushes these fake listings up to the top rank of the search results; hence, users who click on such pages are attracted by what seems to be a good deal. When you click on such links, you are redirected to a phishing site by a malicious person who actually controls the site.
On such rogue sites, they will force you to pay using the actual service providers that have a history of legitimacy, therefore giving you more confidence. After you pay, you never receive the product and lose your cash. Maybe some consumers have effectively filed a credit card chargeback, but recovery is not always possible.
A Massive Phishing Campaign
According to the latest research, the cybercrooks have managed to compromise more than 1,000 websites to spread false business proposals. The thieves had established 121 fake online shops, where the amount of dollars in money lost by hundreds of thousands of gullible people was going into millions. According to Human Security, hundreds of thousands of people have been duped by these cheats.
Be Alert with These False Sites Signs
The victim will not get caught again if he can see the following signs:
- Deals That Seem Too Good to Be True: Something that you bought a little below its selling price is a red flag. Confirm if the website is legit before you go further.
- Inconsistent Website Names: Sometimes, the domain name, popup titles, and payment processing pages can have different names. Fake sites often have inconsistent names in these details.
- Order Process Quality: Be cautious when the ordering process appears suspicious or lacks most normal security measures, such as autofill with an address.
- Check Reviews: Look for reviews of the website from outside sources. Recognize that some reviews are completely false. Some review sites are much better about guaranteeing legitimacy.
This phishing scam, they have called "Phish 'n' Ships." This campaign effectively makes use of search engine optimization tricks to push these phony listings up as top results, giving them a spurious sense of legitimacy to unsuspecting users. In spite of these having been largely removed by Google, the criminals' strategies are changing day by day.
Continued Threat Against Browser Users
These attacks are highly likely to be affected in all major web browsers, but researchers warn that "Phish 'n' Ships" has not been suppressed, because it remains active.
Even though Google succeeded in taking down some of its parts partially, criminals will most likely change their attack in order to continue scamming further.
Meanwhile, Malwarebytes has detected another threat in Bing search results. Cybercrooks have misused the terms "Keybank login" and other similar ones to reroute innocent surfers fraudulently to phishing sites aimed at stealing banking credentials. Sometimes, even the top result of the search is a malicious link.
Security Tips for Ad Campaigns
Before launching online ads, organisations should make sure that the advertising associates they hire are well-equipped to handle malvertising. Key best practices for this include ad monitoring for threats, latent "cloaked" malicious scanning and processes in place in case of attacks.
By being vigilant and checking websites, users can avoid becoming a victim of these very sophisticated scams.
At the heart of Google's search engine lies an intricate web of algorithms designed to deliver the most relevant results based on a user's query. These algorithms analyze a myriad of factors, including keywords, website popularity, and user behaviour. The goal is to present the most pertinent information quickly. However, these algorithms are not free from bias.
One key concern is the called "filter bubble" phenomenon. This term, coined by internet activist Eli Pariser, describes a situation where algorithms selectively guess what information a user would like to see based on their past behaviour. This means that users are often presented with search results that reinforce their existing beliefs, creating a feedback loop of confirmation bias.
Imagine two individuals with opposing views on climate change. If both search "climate change" on Google, they might receive drastically different results tailored to their browsing history and past preferences. The climate change skeptic might see articles questioning the validity of climate science, while the believer might be shown content supporting the consensus on global warming. This personalization of search results can deepen existing divides, making it harder for individuals to encounter and consider alternative viewpoints.
The implications of this bias extend far beyond individual search results. In a society increasingly polarized by political, social, and cultural issues, the reinforcement of biases can contribute to echo chambers where divergent views are rarely encountered or considered. This can lead to a more fragmented and less informed public.
Moreover, the power of search engines to influence opinions has not gone unnoticed by those in positions of power. Political campaigns, advertisers, and interest groups have all sought to exploit these biases to sway public opinion. By strategically optimizing content for search algorithms, they can ensure their messages reach the most receptive audiences, further entrenching bias.
While search engine bias might seem like an inescapable feature of modern life, users do have some agency. Awareness is the first step. Users can take steps to diversify their information sources. Instead of relying solely on Google, consider using multiple search engines, and news aggregators, and visiting various websites directly. This can help break the filter bubble and expose individuals to a wider range of perspectives.
As cybercrime continues to cost the world economy billions annually, a robust new coalition launched by Google, the DNS Research Federation, and the Global Anti-Scam Alliance (GASA) is working to disrupt online scammers at a global level. By all accounts, this partnership constitutes a "game changer." The United Coalition focuses on revealing and thwarting fraudulent activity online.
Online Scam Fighting via the Global Signal Exchange
The coalition will be launching a data platform called Global Signal Exchange, which will 24/7 scan open cyberspaces for signs of fraudulent activity and issue alerts. For a platform, it will leverage the DNS Research Federation's DAP.live: an aggregation platform that consolidates feeds from over 100 sources to spot potential scams. Google enhances these efforts while providing relevant feeds from DAP.live that should provide an even more comprehensive view of online fraud as it begins to take shape.
A Growing Threat in the Digital Age
Some scams are becoming almost too clever nowadays, to the extent that an estimated $8.6 billion is lost worldwide due to such scams each year, with few cases going to convictions. In the UK alone, each person is targeted nearly 240 times a year by a scammer via emails or texts from fake legitimate businesses or offices asking them for personal information, such as bank or credit card details.
Britain estimates the average loss per person due to scams is £1,169. Overall, 11% of adults admit that they have fallen for online fraud. More alarming is the economic loss in the proportion of older adults, which indicates people aged 55 and above lose an average amount of £2,151. Those between 36 and 54 lose about £1,270, while those less than 35 years old lose about £851.
The Call for International Cooperation
Another challenge while combating online scams is that many of the criminal organisations behind these scams are operating from abroad, often from such countries as Russia and North Korea. This international nature makes it even more difficult for local authorities to keep an eye on and legally prosecute them. The coalition aims to balance this gap by sharing scam information in real time, thereby creating a chance to respond quickly to new emerging threats. This collaborative approach will serve crucially because cybercriminals often operate in groups and have done all of this work so fast, which has made it really hard to fight scams alone by any single organisation.
Scammers collaborate, they pool and they act fast. The days when individual brands could combat cybercrime on their own are gone. Global Signal Exchange usher in a new chapter in the battle against cybercrime, and Google's partnership promises to be the game-changer," said Emily Taylor, Chief Executive of DNS Research Federation.
Scammers Use All Too Familiar Brand Names Trapping Victims
The research carried out by the coalition indicates that fraudsters make use of the identity of conspicuous brands to acquire victims. Some of the very popular brands currently being used in scams are: home delivery and courier services; financial services, including banks, insurance, and loan companies; companies in the Technology, Media, and Telecoms sector; many public sector organisations, including HMRC and local councils; and, in a few instances, prominent charities.
According to DNS Research Federation, the volume of scams seems to peak each year in November during the Black Friday promotions and associated online shopping. Much of such activity is occurring because of heightened online activity. Thus, proper defences are quite essential when activity reaches such peak levels.
An alliance towards consumers' protection around the world
The Global Anti-Scam Alliance was established in 2021 to create a network of businesses that stand together to protect consumers online from fraud. GASA, in partnership with Google and the DNS Research Federation, will decrease the profitability of scams in order to make them less appealing to cybercriminals.
As threats in cyber continue to grow and seemingly intensify, this alliance will very largely form a critical element in the protection of users internationally. The Global Signal Exchange represents a major leap forward in efforts on anti-scam activities as it promises that consumers will be better protected from online fraud, and are able to navigate an increasingly complex digital environment more securely.
Overview of the Exploit
Hackers recently leveraged a serious security weakness, said to be a "zero-day," that exists within the Qualcomm chipsets used in many popular Android devices. Qualcomm confirmed that at the time they were first exploited by hackers, they were unaware of the bug, which was tracked under CVE-2024-43047. This flaw actually existed in real-world cyberattacks where it could have impacted millions of Android users globally.
Vulnerability Details
This zero-day flaw was uncovered in 64 different Qualcomm chipsets, including the highly sought-after flagship Snapdragon 8 (Gen 1), a chipset used by many Android devices from reputable brands such as Motorola, Samsung, OnePlus, Oppo, Xiaomi, and ZTE. In their advisory, Qualcomm states that attackers have been able to exploit the flaw, but the company does not elaborate on who the attackers are or what their motive might be or who they specifically targeted. In light of both Google's Threat Analysis Group (TAG) and the Amnesty International Security Lab investigating the incidents, Qualcomm believes these instances constitute "limited, targeted exploitation," rather than widespread attacks.
Response to Attack
The vulnerability was apparently noticed by the CISA US, who have listed it on their known exploited vulnerabilities list. Qualcomm has issued appreciation to Google Project Zero and Amnesty International's Security Lab for coordinated disclosure of this vulnerability. Through such coordination, Qualcomm has been able to develop its fixes starting from September 2024 that it has since issued to customers, which includes Android device manufacturers operating its own chipsets.
Patch Distribution and User Security
So far, patch development is the task of Android device manufacturers. As Qualcomm has publicly released the fix, users need to ensure that their devices are up to date with respect to security patches from their device manufacturer.
Investigation Continues
The broader investigation into the hack is still going on with Google and Amnesty International digging deeper into the details of the targeted attack. Google TAG didn't have anything further to say, but an Amnesty spokesperson confirmed that it would soon publish more research findings on this vulnerability.
The necessity for security research and collaboration from technology entities and organisations to prevent new threats from happening is highlighted in this case. Android users of devices that use Qualcomm should thus remain vigilant and roll out whichever system updates for now.
Google is introducing new high-level theft protection features for Android 10 and above devices across Google Play services. The new technologies were announced at the I/O 2024 event, with the main idea being to protect users' data and make possible recovery of the device in case it has been stolen. Read the breakdown of these new tools and how they work.
How to Get Theft Protection on Android
Features can be turned on in the Settings app by using the phrase "Theft protection" or in the "Personal & device safety" section, found under the "All services" tab of the new Google services page. These three Theft Protection built-ins, writes the Theft Protection webpage, safeguard personal data if one's device is stolen.
Theft Detection Lock
The first one identifies unusual movement through the combination of sensors, Wi-Fi and smart device connectivity. If some person grabs an unlocked phone and runs away, Theft Detection Lock will automatically lock the screen so that no one can thereafter access private information.
Offline Device Lock
The second feature delivers security when there is no internet connection available. When someone attempts to lock tracking by turning off the internet on the device, this lock will have some conditions triggered, because the device was unlocked and in operation. The screen may be locked up to two times a day through this feature, adding protection to users in the case of theft.
Remote Lock via Website
Remote Lock lets one lock their device from elsewhere using the webpage android.com/lock once a device is stolen. At this point, users are simply required to input a confirmed number and security challenge to lock the phone. It is at this point that Google advises users to use the feature on the device of a trusted person to access the lock screen easily. In many cases, it is said to work faster than "Find My Device".
Limited Testing and Availability
First tested in Brazil in early this year, these theft protection tools have begun rolling out to Android users around the world in lots of different brands including Pixel and Samsung. These features are still found on the beta version of Google Play services (24.40.33) and should reach the stable version soon.
New Theft Protection features from Google mark the advancement of device protection, especially for those whose main fears are stolen devices. As this comes up, users are strongly advised to turn to their settings to help make their devices safer than ever.
In these updates, it becomes clear that Google is doing its best to stay ahead of possible data losses and to minimise the effects brought about by theft incidents in a very digital age.
Using memory-safe programming languages such as Rust, Google has moved towards safe memory, which resulted in a drastic drop in memory-related vulnerabilities of the Android codebase. Memory vulnerabilities in Android decreased from 76% six years ago to 24% now.
Role of Memory-Safe Programming
According to Google, using memory-safe languages like Rust can help cut security risks in the codebase itself. The company has focused on safe code practices so that vulnerabilities do not occur in the first place, which has made this process of coding more scalable and cost-efficient over time. The more unsafe development reduces over time, memory-safe practices take up more space and render fewer vulnerabilities in total. As Jeff Vander Stoep and Alex Rebert of Google explained, the memory vulnerabilities tend to reduce even with new memory-unsafe codes being introduced. This is because vulnerabilities decay in time. Newer or recently modified code is more likely to carry issues.
Google Goes for Rust
In April 2021, the company announced that it was embracing Rust as a memory-safe language for Android development. The company has begun to concentrate on Rust for new development since 2019 and has continued to do so. Since then, memory safety flaws in Android went down from 223 in 2019 to less than 50 in 2024. Such a drastic downfall is partly due to proactive measures and improvement in discoverability tools such as those utilised with Clang sanitizers. Google also shifted its strategy from reactive patching to vulnerability prevention work by its security teams. They now focus on preventing issues before the problems crop up.
Safe Coding: The New Way
Google has learned that memory safety strategies must be evolved. The company abandoned older interventional methods like mitigations and fuzzing, instead opting for more secure-by-design principles. This type of principle allows for the embedding of security within the foundational blocks of coding, and it enables developers to construct code that-in itself-prevents vulnerabilities. This is called Safe Coding and lets Google safely make propositions regarding the code with its properties.
Combining Rust, C++, and Kotlin
In addition to promoting Rust, Google is also aiming to interface the language with other languages such as C++ and Kotlin. Thus, this practical solution allows doing memory-safe practices in ways that are pretty easy for today's needs by not rewriting older code completely. Making memory-safe languages incrementally, in itself, will eliminate entire categories of vulnerabilities and ensure all Android code is safer in the long term.
For instance, the approach of Google is based on the presumption that as the number of vulnerabilities introduced decreased, the existing ones would automatically decrease over time. This change helps improve the design of security and scalability strategies concerning memory safety so they can be applied better to large systems.
Partnership between Arm and a System for Better Security
Related to this, Google has collaborated with Arm to further enhance the security of the GPU software and firmware stack across the Android ecosystem. The result was that the former identified several security issues in the code for it. Such were two memory problems in Pixel's driver - CVE-2023-48409 and CVE-2023-48421 - and a problem in the Arm Valhall GPU firmware, CVE-2024-0153. According to Google and Arm, proactive testing is a very key role to identify vulnerabilities before they are exploited.
Future Prospects
In the future, Google aims to build a safer Android by maintaining its main focus on memory safety while pushing ahead its approach to security. The company's efforts in lessening vulnerabilities in memory, codification practice improvement, and collaboration with industry partners are targeted towards minimising memory leakage, thus ensuring long-term security solutions.
This enhances the vulnerability of Android but also acts as a role model to other tech companies that should establish memory-safe languages and secure-by-design principles in their development processes.
A recent report by Kaspersky suggests the latest version of Necro Trojan was deployed via infected advertising software development kits (SDK) used by Android game mods, authentic apps, and mod variants of famous software, such as Minecraft, Spotify, and WhatsApp. The blog covers key findings from the Kaspersky report, the techniques used by threat actors, and the impact on cybersecurity.
Aka Necro Python, the Necro Trojan is an advanced malware strain active since it first appeared. Malware can perform various malicious activities such as cryptocurrency mining, data theft, and installation of additional payloads. The recent version is more advanced, making it difficult to track and eliminate.
Users sometimes want premium or customized options that official versions don't have. But these unofficial mods, such as GB WhatsApp, Spotify+, and Insta Pro can contain malware. Traditionally, threat actors used these mods because they are distributed on unofficial sites that lack moderation.
However, in the recent trend, experts discovered actors targeting official app stores via infected apps.
In the latest case, Trojan authors abused both distribution vectors, a new variant of multi-stage Necro loader compromised modified versions of Spotify, Minecraft, and other famous apps in unofficial sources, and apps in Google Play. "The modular architecture gives the Trojan’s creators a wide range of options for both mass and targeted delivery of loader updates or new malicious modules depending on the infected application,” said the report.
Google is currently being investigated in Europe over privacy concerns raised about how the search giant has used personal data to train its generative AI tools. The subject of investigation is led by Ireland's Data Protection Commission, which ensures that the giant technical company adheres to strict data protection laws within the European Union. This paper will establish whether Google adhered to its legal process, such as obtaining a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), before using people's private information to develop its intelligent machine models.
Data Collection for AI Training Causes Concerns
Generative AI technologies similar to Google's brand Gemini have emerged into the headlines because these tend to create fake information and leak personal information. This raises the question of whether Google's AI training methods, necessarily involving tremendous amounts of data through which such training must pass, are GDPR-compliant-its measures to protect privacy and rights regarding individuals when such data is used for developing AI.
This issue at the heart of the probe is if Google should have carried out a DPIA, which is an acronym for Data Protection Impact Assessment-the view of any risks data processing activities may have on the rights to privacy of individuals. The reason for conducting a DPIA is to ensure that the rights of the individuals are protected simply because companies like Google process humongous personal data so as to create such AI models. The investigation, however, is specifically focused on how Google has been using its model called PaLM2 for running different forms of AI, such as chatbots and enhancements in the search mechanism.
Fines Over Privacy Breaches
But if the DPC finds that Google did not comply with the GDPR, then this could pose a very serious threat to the company because the fine may amount to more than 4% of the annual revenue generated globally. Such a company as Google can raise billions of dollars in revenue every year; hence such can result in a tremendous amount.
Other tech companies, including OpenAI and Meta, also received similar privacy-based questions relating to their data practices when developing AI.
Other general issues revolve around the processing of personal data in this fast-emerging sphere of artificial intelligence.
Google Response to Investigation
The firm has so far refused to answer questions over specific sources of data used to train its generative AI tools. A company spokesperson said Google remains dedicated to compliance with the GDPR and will continue cooperating with the DPC throughout the course of the investigation. The company maintains it has done nothing illegal. And just because a company is under investigation, that doesn't mean there's something wrong with it; the very act of inquiring itself forms part of a broader effort to ensure that companies using technology take account of how personal information is being used.
Data Protection in the AI Era
DPC questioning of Google is part of a broader effort by the EU regulators to ensure generative AI technologies adhere to the bloc's high data-privacy standards. As concerns over how personal information is used, more companies are injecting AI into their operations. The GDPR has been among the most important tools for ensuring citizens' protection against misuse of data, especially during cases involving sensitive or personal data.
In the last few years, other tech companies have been prosecuted with regard to their data-related activities in AI development. Recently, the developers of ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter), faced investigations and complaints under the law of GDPR. This indicates the growing pressure technological advancement and the seriousness in the protection of privacy are under.
The Future of AI and Data Privacy
In developing AI technologies, firms developing relevant technology need to strike a balance between innovation and privacy. The more innovation has brought numerous benefits into the world-search capabilities and more efficient processes-the more it has opened risks to light by leaving personal data not so carefully dealt with in most cases.
Moving forward, the regulators, including the DPC, would be tracking the manner in which the companies like Google are dealing with the data. It is sure to make rules much more well-defined on what is permissible usage of personal information for developing the AI that would better protect individuals' rights and freedoms in this digital age.
Ultimately, the consequences of this study may eventually shape how AI technologies are designed and implemented in the European Union; it will certainly inform tech businesses around the world.
The CMA’s investigation has revealed that Google has been engaging in anti-competitive practices that stifle competition and innovation. According to the CMA, Google has been leveraging its market power to favor its own ad tech services over those of its competitors. This behavior includes restricting access to key data and tools that rivals need to compete effectively.
The CMA’s provisional findings suggest that Google’s practices have created significant barriers to entry and expansion for other companies in the ad tech market. This has led to reduced competition, which in turn has likely resulted in higher prices and less choice for consumers and businesses.
In response to the CMA’s findings, Google has stated that the conclusions are flawed and that they will respond accordingly. Google argues that its ad tech services benefit publishers and advertisers by providing them with efficient and effective tools to reach their audiences. The company also points out that the digital advertising market is highly dynamic and competitive, with numerous players offering a wide range of services.
Google’s defense highlights the complexity of the digital advertising ecosystem, where multiple factors influence market dynamics. However, the CMA remains concerned that Google’s practices are undermining competition and harming the interests of consumers and businesses.
If the CMA’s provisional findings are upheld, Google could face significant consequences. The CMA has the authority to impose financial penalties and legally binding directions to address anti-competitive behavior. This could include measures to ensure that Google provides fair access to its ad tech services and data, allowing rivals to compete on a level playing field.
Such actions could have a profound impact on the digital advertising landscape. By promoting greater competition, the CMA aims to foster innovation and improve outcomes for publishers, advertisers, and consumers. Increased competition could lead to lower prices, better services, and more choice in the market.
The CMA’s investigation into Google’s ad tech practices is part of a broader trend of regulatory scrutiny of major tech companies. Around the world, regulators are increasingly concerned about the market power of digital giants and their impact on competition and consumer welfare. In the European Union, the Digital Markets Act aims to address similar issues by imposing stricter rules on dominant digital platforms.
In the United States, the Department of Justice and several state attorneys general have launched antitrust lawsuits against Google, alleging anti-competitive practices in the search and advertising markets. These actions reflect a growing consensus among regulators that more needs to be done to ensure fair competition in the digital economy.
As the CMA considers Google’s representations, the outcome of this investigation will be closely watched by stakeholders across the digital advertising ecosystem. Publishers, advertisers, and tech companies will be keen to see how the CMA’s findings are addressed and what measures are put in place to promote competition.
For Google, the stakes are high. The company must navigate a complex regulatory environment while continuing to innovate and provide value to its users. At the same time, it must address the concerns of regulators and demonstrate that its practices are fair and pro-competitive.
Apple has long positioned itself as a champion of user privacy. In its latest campaign, Apple highlights the extensive use of tracking cookies by Google Chrome. These cookies, Apple claims, follow users across the web, collecting data on their browsing habits. Apple argues that Chrome’s Incognito mode, which many users rely on for private browsing, isn’t truly private. According to Apple, Incognito mode still allows websites to track user activity, albeit to a lesser extent.
To counter these privacy concerns, Apple promotes its own browser, Safari, as a more secure alternative. Safari, Apple claims, uses Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP) to limit the ability of advertisers to track users across websites. This feature, combined with other privacy-focused tools, makes Safari a more attractive option for users who prioritize their online privacy.
Google, on the other hand, has defended Chrome’s privacy practices. In response to Apple’s campaign, Google emphasized that Chrome is designed to keep user data safe and give users control over their privacy settings. Google points out that Chrome offers a range of privacy features, including the ability to block third-party cookies and manage site permissions.
Google also highlights its commitment to transparency. The company regularly updates its privacy policies and provides users with clear information about how their data is collected and used. Google argues that this transparency, combined with robust privacy controls, makes Chrome a trustworthy choice for users.
This clash between Apple and Google is part of a larger conversation about online privacy. As more of our lives move online, the amount of data we generate has skyrocketed. This data is incredibly valuable to advertisers, who use it to target ads more effectively. However, this data collection has raised significant privacy concerns.
Many users are unaware of the extent to which their online activities are tracked. Even when using private browsing modes, such as Chrome’s Incognito mode, users may still be tracked by websites and advertisers. This has led to calls for greater transparency and stronger privacy protections.
So, what does this mean for the average user? When choosing a browser, it’s important to consider your privacy needs. If you prioritize privacy and want to limit tracking as much as possible, Safari may be the better choice. Apple’s Intelligent Tracking Prevention and other privacy features can help protect your data from advertisers.
However, if you value customization and control over your browsing experience, Chrome offers a range of privacy tools that can be tailored to your needs. Google’s transparency about its data collection practices also provides users with a clear understanding of how their data is used.
Ultimately, the choice between Safari and Chrome comes down to personal preference. Both browsers have their strengths and weaknesses, and the best choice will depend on your individual privacy needs and browsing habits.