Details About Romania Cyberattack

• The Government of Romania: This is not the first time that the country’s official site was hacked. In 2022, Pro-Russia hacker group Killnet claimed to have carried out cyberattacks on websites of the government and Defense Ministry. However, at that time, the Romania Government claimed that there was no compromise of data due to the attack and the websites were soon restored.
• National Bank of Romania: The National Bank of Romania is the central bank of Romania and was established in April 1880. Its headquarters are in the capital city of Bucharest.
• Aedificium Bank for Housing: A banking firm that provides residential lending, home loans, savings, and financing services. It was founded in 2004 and has branches in the European Union (EU), and Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA).
• Bucharest Stock Exchange: The Bucharest Stock Exchange is the stock exchange of Romania located in Bucharest. As of 2023, there were 85 companies listed on the BVB.

Romania Cyberattacks Are Not Uncommon

How to Mitigate NoName DDoS attacks

Decoding the New META Stealer v5.0: Features and Capabilities

Previous META Stealer Promises and Upgrades 

Sagar Steven Singh and Nicholas Ceraolo pleaded guilty to hacking a database maintained by a US federal law enforcement agency.

The post Two Men Plead Guilty to Hacking Law Enforcement Database for Doxing appeared first on SecurityWeek.

The BadSpace backdoor is being distributed via drive-by attacks involving infected websites and JavaScript downloaders.

The post New BadSpace Backdoor Deployed in Drive-By Attacks appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Entro’s platform is designed to bring order to the increasingly chaotic management of non-human identities.

The post Non-human Identity Lifecycle Firm Entro Security Raises $18 Million appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Researchers have targeted the MTE security feature in Arm CPUs and showed how attackers could bypass protections.

The post New TikTag Attack Targets Arm CPU Security Feature  appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Source: www.databreachtoday.com – Author: 1 Fraud Management & Cybercrime , Healthcare , Industry Specific Rubrik’s Steve Stone on Reducing Data-Related Vulnerabilities in Healthcare June 18, 2024     Steve Stone, head of Zero Labs, Rubrik The recent ransomware attack on a key UK National Health Service IT vendor has forced two London hospitals to reschedule […]

La entrada NHS Ransomware Attack: What Makes Healthcare a Prime Target for Ransomware? – Source: www.databreachtoday.com se publicó primero en CISO2CISO.COM & CYBER SECURITY GROUP.

Source: www.databreachtoday.com – Author: 1 Cybercrime , Fraud Management & Cybercrime , Government Justice Says Sagar Steven Singh and Nicholas Ceraolo Doxed and Threatened Victims Chris Riotta (@chrisriotta) • June 17, 2024     Image: Shutterstock Two hackers pleaded guilty Monday in federal court to conspiring to commit computer intrusion and aggravated identity theft. Authorities […]

La entrada Hackers Plead Guilty After Breaching Law Enforcement Portal – Source: www.databreachtoday.com se publicó primero en CISO2CISO.COM & CYBER SECURITY GROUP.

Source: www.databreachtoday.com – Author: 1 Fraud Management & Cybercrime , Geo Focus: Asia , Geo-Specific Hackers Used Dozens of Servers to Distribute Malicious Android Apps Jayant Chakravarti (@JayJay_Tech) • June 17, 2024     The Singapore Police Force arrested a man they said is a cybercrime ringleader from Malaysia. (Image: Public Affairs Department, Singapore Police […]

La entrada Police Dismantle Asian Crime Ring Behind $25M Android Fraud – Source: www.databreachtoday.com se publicó primero en CISO2CISO.COM & CYBER SECURITY GROUP.

Source: www.databreachtoday.com – Author: 1 Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning , Governance & Risk Management , Government US Cyber Defense Agency Developing AI Security Incident Collaboration Playbook Chris Riotta (@chrisriotta) • June 17, 2024     The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is crafting a comprehensive framework to unify government, industry and global partners in […]

La entrada CISA Conducts First-Ever AI Security Incident Response Drill – Source: www.databreachtoday.com se publicó primero en CISO2CISO.COM & CYBER SECURITY GROUP.

China-linked threat actor Velvet Ant leveraged a legacy F5 BIG-IP appliance for three-year access to a victim’s network.

The post Chinese Hackers Leveraged Legacy F5 BIG-IP Appliance for Persistence appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Serious vulnerabilities that can allow remote code execution and privilege escalation have been patched in VMware vCenter Server.

The post Critical Code Execution Vulnerabilities Patched in VMware vCenter Server appeared first on SecurityWeek.

There is a lot written about technology’s threats to democracy. Polarization. Artificial intelligence. The concentration of wealth and power. I have a more general story: The political and economic systems of governance that were created in the mid-18th century are poorly suited for the 21st century. They don’t align incentives well. And they are being hacked too effectively.

At the same time, the cost of these hacked systems has never been greater, across all human history. We have become too powerful as a species. And our systems cannot keep up with fast-changing disruptive technologies.

We need to create new systems of governance that align incentives and are resilient against hacking … at every scale. From the individual all the way up to the whole of society.

For this, I need you to drop your 20th century either/or thinking. This is not about capitalism versus communism. It’s not about democracy versus autocracy. It’s not even about humans versus AI. It’s something new, something we don’t have a name for yet. And it’s “blue sky” thinking, not even remotely considering what’s feasible today.

Throughout this talk, I want you to think of both democracy and capitalism as information systems. Socio-technical information systems. Protocols for making group decisions. Ones where different players have different incentives. These systems are vulnerable to hacking and need to be secured against those hacks.

We security technologists have a lot of expertise in both secure system design and hacking. That’s why we have something to add to this discussion.

And finally, this is a work in progress. I’m trying to create a framework for viewing governance. So think of this more as a foundation for discussion, rather than a road map to a solution. And I think by writing, and what you’re going to hear is the current draft of my writing—and my thinking. So everything is subject to change without notice.

OK, so let’s go.

We all know about misinformation and how it affects democracy. And how propagandists have used it to advance their agendas. This is an ancient problem, amplified by information technologies. Social media platforms that prioritize engagement. “Filter bubble” segmentation. And technologies for honing persuasive messages.

The problem ultimately stems from the way democracies use information to make policy decisions. Democracy is an information system that leverages collective intelligence to solve political problems. And then to collect feedback as to how well those solutions are working. This is different from autocracies that don’t leverage collective intelligence for political decision making. Or have reliable mechanisms for collecting feedback from their populations.

Those systems of democracy work well, but have no guardrails when fringe ideas become weaponized. That’s what misinformation targets. The historical solution for this was supposed to be representation. This is currently failing in the US, partly because of gerrymandering, safe seats, only two parties, money in politics and our primary system. But the problem is more general.

James Madison wrote about this in 1787, where he made two points. One, that representatives serve to filter popular opinions, limiting extremism. And two, that geographical dispersal makes it hard for those with extreme views to participate. It’s hard to organize. To be fair, these limitations are both good and bad. In any case, current technology—social media—breaks them both.

So this is a question: What does representation look like in a world without either filtering or geographical dispersal? Or, how do we avoid polluting 21st century democracy with prejudice, misinformation and bias. Things that impair both the problem solving and feedback mechanisms.

That’s the real issue. It’s not about misinformation, it’s about the incentive structure that makes misinformation a viable strategy.

This is problem No. 1: Our systems have misaligned incentives. What’s best for the small group often doesn’t match what’s best for the whole. And this is true across all sorts of individuals and group sizes.

Now, historically, we have used misalignment to our advantage. Our current systems of governance leverage conflict to make decisions. The basic idea is that coordination is inefficient and expensive. Individual self-interest leads to local optimizations, which results in optimal group decisions.

But this is also inefficient and expensive. The U.S. spent $14.5 billion on the 2020 presidential, senate and congressional elections. I don’t even know how to calculate the cost in attention. That sounds like a lot of money, but step back and think about how the system works. The economic value of winning those elections are so great because that’s how you impose your own incentive structure on the whole.

More generally, the cost of our market economy is enormous. For example, $780 billion is spent world-wide annually on advertising. Many more billions are wasted on ventures that fail. And that’s just a fraction of the total resources lost in a competitive market environment. And there are other collateral damages, which are spread non-uniformly across people.

We have accepted these costs of capitalism—and democracy—because the inefficiency of central planning was considered to be worse. That might not be true anymore. The costs of conflict have increased. And the costs of coordination have decreased. Corporations demonstrate that large centrally planned economic units can compete in today’s society. Think of Walmart or Amazon. If you compare GDP to market cap, Apple would be the eighth largest country on the planet. Microsoft would be the tenth.

Another effect of these conflict-based systems is that they foster a scarcity mindset. And we have taken this to an extreme. We now think in terms of zero-sum politics. My party wins, your party loses. And winning next time can be more important than governing this time. We think in terms of zero-sum economics. My product’s success depends on my competitors’ failures. We think zero-sum internationally. Arms races and trade wars.

Finally, conflict as a problem-solving tool might not give us good enough answers anymore. The underlying assumption is that if everyone pursues their own self interest, the result will approach everyone’s best interest. That only works for simple problems and requires systemic oppression. We have lots of problems—complex, wicked, global problems—that don’t work that way. We have interacting groups of problems that don’t work that way. We have problems that require more efficient ways of finding optimal solutions.

Note that there are multiple effects of these conflict-based systems. We have bad actors deliberately breaking the rules. And we have selfish actors taking advantage of insufficient rules.

The latter is problem No. 2: What I refer to as “hacking” in my latest book: “A Hacker’s Mind.” Democracy is a socio-technical system. And all socio-technical systems can be hacked. By this I mean that the rules are either incomplete or inconsistent or outdated—they have loopholes. And these can be used to subvert the rules. This is Peter Thiel subverting the Roth IRA to avoid paying taxes on $5 billion in income. This is gerrymandering, the filibuster, and must-pass legislation. Or tax loopholes, financial loopholes, regulatory loopholes.

In today’s society, the rich and powerful are just too good at hacking. And it is becoming increasingly impossible to patch our hacked systems. Because the rich use their power to ensure that the vulnerabilities don’t get patched.

This is bad for society, but it’s basically the optimal strategy in our competitive governance systems. Their zero-sum nature makes hacking an effective, if parasitic, strategy. Hacking isn’t a new problem, but today hacking scales better—and is overwhelming the security systems in place to keep hacking in check. Think about gun regulations, climate change, opioids. And complex systems make this worse. These are all non-linear, tightly coupled, unrepeatable, path-dependent, adaptive, co-evolving systems.

Now, add into this mix the risks that arise from new and dangerous technologies such as the internet or AI or synthetic biology. Or molecular nanotechnology, or nuclear weapons. Here, misaligned incentives and hacking can have catastrophic consequences for society.

This is problem No. 3: Our systems of governance are not suited to our power level. They tend to be rights based, not permissions based. They’re designed to be reactive, because traditionally there was only so much damage a single person could do.

We do have systems for regulating dangerous technologies. Consider automobiles. They are regulated in many ways: drivers licenses + traffic laws + automobile regulations + road design. Compare this to aircrafts. Much more onerous licensing requirements, rules about flights, regulations on aircraft design and testing and a government agency overseeing it all day-to-day. Or pharmaceuticals, which have very complex rules surrounding everything around researching, developing, producing and dispensing. We have all these regulations because this stuff can kill you.

The general term for this kind of thing is the “precautionary principle.” When random new things can be deadly, we prohibit them unless they are specifically allowed.

So what happens when a significant percentage of our jobs are as potentially damaging as a pilot’s? Or even more damaging? When one person can affect everyone through synthetic biology. Or where a corporate decision can directly affect climate. Or something in AI or robotics. Things like the precautionary principle are no longer sufficient. Because breaking the rules can have global effects.

And AI will supercharge hacking. We have created a series of non-interoperable systems that actually interact and AI will be able to figure out how to take advantage of more of those interactions: finding new tax loopholes or finding new ways to evade financial regulations. Creating “micro-legislation” that surreptitiously benefits a particular person or group. And catastrophic risk means this is no longer tenable.

So these are our core problems: misaligned incentives leading to too effective hacking of systems where the costs of getting it wrong can be catastrophic.

Or, to put more words on it: Misaligned incentives encourage local optimization, and that’s not a good proxy for societal optimization. This encourages hacking, which now generates greater harm than at any point in the past because the amount of damage that can result from local optimization is greater than at any point in the past.

OK, let’s get back to the notion of democracy as an information system. It’s not just democracy: Any form of governance is an information system. It’s a process that turns individual beliefs and preferences into group policy decisions. And, it uses feedback mechanisms to determine how well those decisions are working and then makes corrections accordingly.

Historically, there are many ways to do this. We can have a system where no one’s preference matters except the monarch’s or the nobles’ or the landowners’. Sometimes the stronger army gets to decide—or the people with the money.

Or we could tally up everyone’s preferences and do the thing that at least half of the people want. That’s basically the promise of democracy today, at its ideal. Parliamentary systems are better, but only in the margins—and it all feels kind of primitive. Lots of people write about how informationally poor elections are at aggregating individual preferences. It also results in all these misaligned incentives.

I realize that democracy serves different functions. Peaceful transition of power, minimizing harm, equality, fair decision making, better outcomes. I am taking for granted that democracy is good for all those things. I’m focusing on how we implement it.

Modern democracy uses elections to determine who represents citizens in the decision-making process. And all sorts of other ways to collect information about what people think and want, and how well policies are working. These are opinion polls, public comments to rule-making, advocating, lobbying, protesting and so on. And, in reality, it’s been hacked so badly that it does a terrible job of executing on the will of the people, creating further incentives to hack these systems.

To be fair, the democratic republic was the best form of government that mid 18th century technology could invent. Because communications and travel were hard, we needed to choose one of us to go all the way over there and pass laws in our name. It was always a coarse approximation of what we wanted. And our principles, values, conceptions of fairness; our ideas about legitimacy and authority have evolved a lot since the mid 18th century. Even the notion of optimal group outcomes depended on who was considered in the group and who was out.

But democracy is not a static system, it’s an aspirational direction. One that really requires constant improvement. And our democratic systems have not evolved at the same pace that our technologies have. Blocking progress in democracy is itself a hack of democracy.

Today we have much better technology that we can use in the service of democracy. Surely there are better ways to turn individual preferences into group policies. Now that communications and travel are easy. Maybe we should assign representation by age, or profession or randomly by birthday. Maybe we can invent an AI that calculates optimal policy outcomes based on everyone’s preferences.

Whatever we do, we need systems that better align individual and group incentives, at all scales. Systems designed to be resistant to hacking. And resilient to catastrophic risks. Systems that leverage cooperation more and conflict less. And are not zero-sum.

Why can’t we have a game where everybody wins?

This has never been done before. It’s not capitalism, it’s not communism, it’s not socialism. It’s not current democracies or autocracies. It would be unlike anything we’ve ever seen.

Some of this comes down to how trust and cooperation work. When I wrote “Liars and Outliers” in 2012, I wrote about four systems for enabling trust: our innate morals, concern about our reputations, the laws we live under and security technologies that constrain our behavior. I wrote about how the first two are more informal than the last two. And how the last two scale better, and allow for larger and more complex societies. They enable cooperation amongst strangers.

What I didn’t appreciate is how different the first and last two are. Morals and reputation are both old biological systems of trust. They’re person to person, based on human connection and cooperation. Laws—and especially security technologies—are newer systems of trust that force us to cooperate. They’re socio-technical systems. They’re more about confidence and control than they are about trust. And that allows them to scale better. Taxi driver used to be one of the country’s most dangerous professions. Uber changed that through pervasive surveillance. My Uber driver and I don’t know or trust each other, but the technology lets us both be confident that neither of us will cheat or attack each other. Both drivers and passengers compete for star rankings, which align local and global incentives.

In today’s tech-mediated world, we are replacing the rituals and behaviors of cooperation with security mechanisms that enforce compliance. And innate trust in people with compelled trust in processes and institutions. That scales better, but we lose the human connection. It’s also expensive, and becoming even more so as our power grows. We need more security for these systems. And the results are much easier to hack.

But here’s the thing: Our informal human systems of trust are inherently unscalable. So maybe we have to rethink scale.

Our 18th century systems of democracy were the only things that scaled with the technology of the time. Imagine a group of friends deciding where to have dinner. One is kosher, one is a vegetarian. They would never use a winner-take-all ballot to decide where to eat. But that’s a system that scales to large groups of strangers.

Scale matters more broadly in governance as well. We have global systems of political and economic competition. On the other end of the scale, the most common form of governance on the planet is socialism. It’s how families function: people work according to their abilities, and resources are distributed according to their needs.

I think we need governance that is both very large and very small. Our catastrophic technological risks are planetary-scale: climate change, AI, internet, bio-tech. And we have all the local problems inherent in human societies. We have very few problems anymore that are the size of France or Virginia. Some systems of governance work well on a local level but don’t scale to larger groups. But now that we have more technology, we can make other systems of democracy scale.

This runs headlong into historical norms about sovereignty. But that’s already becoming increasingly irrelevant. The modern concept of a nation arose around the same time as the modern concept of democracy. But constituent boundaries are now larger and more fluid, and depend a lot on context. It makes no sense that the decisions about the “drug war”—or climate migration—are delineated by nation. The issues are much larger than that. Right now there is no governance body with the right footprint to regulate Internet platforms like Facebook. Which has more users world-wide than Christianity.

We also need to rethink growth. Growth only equates to progress when the resources necessary to grow are cheap and abundant. Growth is often extractive. And at the expense of something else. Growth is how we fuel our zero-sum systems. If the pie gets bigger, it’s OK that we waste some of the pie in order for it to grow. That doesn’t make sense when resources are scarce and expensive. Growing the pie can end up costing more than the increase in pie size. Sustainability makes more sense. And a metric more suited to the environment we’re in right now.

Finally, agility is also important. Back to systems theory, governance is an attempt to control complex systems with complicated systems. This gets harder as the systems get larger and more complex. And as catastrophic risk raises the costs of getting it wrong.

In recent decades, we have replaced the richness of human interaction with economic models. Models that turn everything into markets. Market fundamentalism scaled better, but the social cost was enormous. A lot of how we think and act isn’t captured by those models. And those complex models turn out to be very hackable. Increasingly so at larger scales.

Lots of people have written about the speed of technology versus the speed of policy. To relate it to this talk: Our human systems of governance need to be compatible with the technologies they’re supposed to govern. If they’re not, eventually the technological systems will replace the governance systems. Think of Twitter as the de facto arbiter of free speech.

This means that governance needs to be agile. And able to quickly react to changing circumstances. Imagine a court saying to Peter Thiel: “Sorry. That’s not how Roth IRAs are supposed to work. Now give us our tax on that $5B.” This is also essential in a technological world: one that is moving at unprecedented speeds, where getting it wrong can be catastrophic and one that is resource constrained. Agile patching is how we maintain security in the face of constant hacking—and also red teaming. In this context, both journalism and civil society are important checks on government.

I want to quickly mention two ideas for democracy, one old and one new. I’m not advocating for either. I’m just trying to open you up to new possibilities. The first is sortition. These are citizen assemblies brought together to study an issue and reach a policy decision. They were popular in ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy, and are increasingly being used today in Europe. The only vestige of this in the U.S. is the jury. But you can also think of trustees of an organization. The second idea is liquid democracy. This is a system where everybody has a proxy that they can transfer to someone else to vote on their behalf. Representatives hold those proxies, and their vote strength is proportional to the number of proxies they have. We have something like this in corporate proxy governance.

Both of these are algorithms for converting individual beliefs and preferences into policy decisions. Both of these are made easier through 21st century technologies. They are both democracies, but in new and different ways. And while they’re not immune to hacking, we can design them from the beginning with security in mind.

This points to technology as a key component of any solution. We know how to use technology to build systems of trust. Both the informal biological kind and the formal compliance kind. We know how to use technology to help align incentives, and to defend against hacking.

We talked about AI hacking; AI can also be used to defend against hacking, finding vulnerabilities in computer code, finding tax loopholes before they become law and uncovering attempts at surreptitious micro-legislation.

Think back to democracy as an information system. Can AI techniques be used to uncover our political preferences and turn them into policy outcomes, get feedback and then iterate? This would be more accurate than polling. And maybe even elections. Can an AI act as our representative? Could it do a better job than a human at voting the preferences of its constituents?

Can we have an AI in our pocket that votes on our behalf, thousands of times a day, based on the preferences it infers we have. Or maybe based on the preferences it infers we would have if we read up on the issues and weren’t swayed by misinformation. It’s just another algorithm for converting individual preferences into policy decisions. And it certainly solves the problem of people not paying attention to politics.

But slow down: This is rapidly devolving into technological solutionism. And we know that doesn’t work.

A general question to ask here is when do we allow algorithms to make decisions for us? Sometimes it’s easy. I’m happy to let my thermostat automatically turn my heat on and off or to let an AI drive a car or optimize the traffic lights in a city. I’m less sure about an AI that sets tax rates, or corporate regulations or foreign policy. Or an AI that tells us that it can’t explain why, but strongly urges us to declare war—right now. Each of these is harder because they are more complex systems: non-local, multi-agent, long-duration and so on. I also want any AI that works on my behalf to be under my control. And not controlled by a large corporate monopoly that allows me to use it.

And learned helplessness is an important consideration. We’re probably OK with no longer needing to know how to drive a car. But we don’t want a system that results in us forgetting how to run a democracy. Outcomes matter here, but so do mechanisms. Any AI system should engage individuals in the process of democracy, not replace them.

So while an AI that does all the hard work of governance might generate better policy outcomes. There is social value in a human-centric political system, even if it is less efficient. And more technologically efficient preference collection might not be better, even if it is more accurate.

Procedure and substance need to work together. There is a role for AI in decision making: moderating discussions, highlighting agreements and disagreements helping people reach consensus. But it is an independent good that we humans remain engaged in—and in charge of—the process of governance.

And that value is critical to making democracy function. Democratic knowledge isn’t something that’s out there to be gathered: It’s dynamic; it gets produced through the social processes of democracy. The term of art is “preference formation.” We’re not just passively aggregating preferences, we create them through learning, deliberation, negotiation and adaptation. Some of these processes are cooperative and some of these are competitive. Both are important. And both are needed to fuel the information system that is democracy.

We’re never going to remove conflict and competition from our political and economic systems. Human disagreement isn’t just a surface feature; it goes all the way down. We have fundamentally different aspirations. We want different ways of life. I talked about optimal policies. Even that notion is contested: optimal for whom, with respect to what, over what time frame? Disagreement is fundamental to democracy. We reach different policy conclusions based on the same information. And it’s the process of making all of this work that makes democracy possible.

So we actually can’t have a game where everybody wins. Our goal has to be to accommodate plurality, to harness conflict and disagreement, and not to eliminate it. While, at the same time, moving from a player-versus-player game to a player-versus-environment game.

There’s a lot missing from this talk. Like what these new political and economic governance systems should look like. Democracy and capitalism are intertwined in complex ways, and I don’t think we can recreate one without also recreating the other. My comments about agility lead to questions about authority and how that interplays with everything else. And how agility can be hacked as well. We haven’t even talked about tribalism in its many forms. In order for democracy to function, people need to care about the welfare of strangers who are not like them. We haven’t talked about rights or responsibilities. What is off limits to democracy is a huge discussion. And Butterin’s trilemma also matters here: that you can’t simultaneously build systems that are secure, distributed, and scalable.

I also haven’t given a moment’s thought to how to get from here to there. Everything I’ve talked about—incentives, hacking, power, complexity—also applies to any transition systems. But I think we need to have unconstrained discussions about what we’re aiming for. If for no other reason than to question our assumptions. And to imagine the possibilities. And while a lot of the AI parts are still science fiction, they’re not far-off science fiction.

I know we can’t clear the board and build a new governance structure from scratch. But maybe we can come up with ideas that we can bring back to reality.

To summarize, the systems of governance we designed at the start of the Industrial Age are ill-suited to the Information Age. Their incentive structures are all wrong. They’re insecure and they’re wasteful. They don’t generate optimal outcomes. At the same time we’re facing catastrophic risks to society due to powerful technologies. And a vastly constrained resource environment. We need to rethink our systems of governance; more cooperation and less competition and at scales that are suited to today’s problems and today’s technologies. With security and precautions built in. What comes after democracy might very well be more democracy, but it will look very different.

This feels like a challenge worthy of our security expertise.

This text is the transcript from a keynote speech delivered during the RSA Conference in San Francisco on April 25, 2023. It was previously published in Cyberscoop. I thought I posted it to my blog and Crypto-Gram last year, but it seems that I didn’t.

The Internet of Things (IoT) can be a daunting field to get into. With many different tools and products available on the market it can be confusing to even know where to start. Having performed dozens of IoT assessments, I felt it would be beneficial to compile a basic list of items that are essential to getting started delving into the realm of testing embedded devices. The tools that will be covered in this post are primarily used to interact with the debug interface of embedded devices, however, many of them have multiple functions, from reading data from a memory chip to removing components from the physical circuit board. I would like to note that neither I, nor Rapid7, benefit in any way from the sale of any of these products. We honestly believe they are useful tools for any beginner.

1) Serial Debugger

One of the most used items when it comes to IoT testing would be a device used to interface with low-speed interfaces available on embedded devices. Gaining access to the debug interface on embedded devices is the easiest way to get a look under the hood of how the device is operating. One of the most popular and readily available devices on the market currently would be the Tigard.

The Tigard is a great open-source tool that has support for all the commonly used interfaces you might encounter on modern day embedded devices. It has support for Universal Asynchronous Receiver-Transmitter (UART), Joint Test Access Group (JTAG), Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI), Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C), and Serial Wire Debug (SWD) connections. This device allows you to connect to various serial consoles or even extract the contents of commonly found flash memory chips. It is powered by a USB-C connection and also has the ability to select commonly used voltage supplies to power components when needed.

Link: https://www.crowdsupply.com/securinghw/tigard

2) PCByte Probes

A tool that saves a ton of time when it comes to connecting to serial interfaces and on-board components is a set of PCByte Probes. Without these probes, you would often have to resort to soldering on header pins or trying to attach to onboard components using probe connectors.

The starter level probe set includes 4 hands-free probes, a set of PCB holders, a magnetic base, and accessories. Oftentimes embedded devices contain small components on the circuit board that are not easily accessible due to size requirements. These probes allow for quick, solder-free, connections to be made to embedded devices. All you need to do is position the spring-loaded probes on areas of the circuit board and connect the included dupont wires to either a logic analyzer or a serial debugger to interface with the target device. The included circuit board holders are a nice touch to ensure the circuit board is kept firmly in position while working.

Link: https://sensepeek.com/pcbite-20

3) Rework Station

While working with embedded devices, there might be scenarios you run into that involve removing small components from the embedded device for offline analysis. There are many options for rework stations out on the internet, all with various levels of price and functionality. A model that hits the sweet spot of price and functionality is the Aoyue 968A+ Professional SMD Digital Hot Air Rework Station.

This rework station includes a number of tools to make any reworking job easy in one simple package. It includes a soldering iron, hot air rework gun, vacuum pickup tool, and a fume extractor. There are many times when performing embedded testing that it is necessary to either solder wires onto connections or remove components from the board for data extraction. The 70 watt soldering iron and 550 watt hot air gun provides plenty of power for quick soldering jobs and component rework.

Link: https://www.amazon.com/Aoyue-968A-Digital-Rework-Station/dp/B006FA481G?th=1

4) Logic Analyzer

Another important tool to have on hand when testing embedded devices is a logic analyzer. Many times, you will find that the debug port on an embedded device is not labeled on the circuit board. That is when a logic analyzer comes in handy to identify what various components on the board are without unnecessary guesswork. Logic analyzers are used to decode signals found on the board to identify and decode protocols such as UART, SPI, and I2C. There are many out on the market, but the sweet spot for price and functionality would be the Saleae Logic 8.

Saleae offers many different models of logic analyzers that all come in at different price points. Typically, the base model which supports 8 channels at a max speed of 100MS/s is sufficient for the majority, however, they do offer additional models that support a larger number of channels at higher speeds. Saleae includes the Logic 2 software which allows you to seamlessly interact with the device and identify protocols and decode signals on the board.

Link: https://usd.saleae.com/products/saleae-logic-8

As we've explored in this blog post, there are many options out on the market for conducting detailed analysis on embedded devices. Many of the tools out there are available at different price points and offer various levels of functionality and ease of interacting and interfacing with embedded devices. The goal with this guide is not to provide a comprehensive list of all available options, however to cover the basic tools used to begin your IoT journey.

By centralizing, enriching and correlating identities to events, the suggestion is that security and platform teams can break silos and readily share findings to expedite investigations.

The post Sysdig Bids to Bolster Brittle Cloud Infrastructure Layers appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Articles related to cyber risk quantification, cyber risk management, and cyber resilience.

The post Cyber Materiality Reporting for Smaller Companies | Kovrr appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Reading Time: 11 min Cybersecurity remains a top concern for most industries, including logistics. Learn five ways to protect your logistics company's cybersecurity.

The post Top 5 Ways To Protect Your Logistics Company From Fraud appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Reading Time: 6 min Is that Google security alert real? Learn how to identify scams & secure your account in 5 easy steps.

The post Google Critical Security Alert Email appeared first on Security Boulevard.

This blog delves into CMMC, the introduction of CMMC 2.0, what's changed, and what it means for your business.

The post CMMC 1.0 & CMMC 2.0 – What’s Changed? appeared first on Scytale.

The post CMMC 1.0 & CMMC 2.0 – What’s Changed? appeared first on Security Boulevard.

In March 2024, the European Parliament overwhelmingly approved the EU Cyber Resilience Act, or CRA, which will now be formally adopted with the goal of improving the cybersecurity of digital products. It sets out to do this by establishing essential requirements for manufacturers to ensure their products reach the market with fewer vulnerabilities.

The post Start building your CRA compliance strategy now appeared first on Security Boulevard.

As retailers compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace, they invest a great deal of resources in becoming household names. But brand recognition is a double-edged sword when it comes to cybersecurity. The bigger your name, the bigger the cyber target on your back. Data breaches in the retail sector cost an average of $3.28 million...

The post Navigating Retail: Overcoming the Top 3 Identity Security Challenges appeared first on Silverfort.

The post Navigating Retail: Overcoming the Top 3 Identity Security Challenges appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Understanding the MEDUSA Ransomware Attack

Who is the MEDUSA Ransomware Group?

History of MEDUSA Ransomware Attacks

What Exactly Happened?

Admission of Violations and Settlement

Government Response and Accountability

Initiative to Address Cybersecurity Risks

Blackbaud was ordered to pay $6.75 million to the California Attorney General’s Office over the 2020 data breach.

The post Blackbaud Settles With California for $6.75 Million Over 2020 Data Breach appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Understanding the TA571 and ClearFake Campaign 

Attack Variants, Evolution, and Recommendations

Why Communication is Important in Election Security

How Tailored Communication Enhances Election Security

To Wrap UP

Cybercriminals are not about to give up – this is how they make their living. So it’s up to cybersecurity professionals to stay vigilant and learn as much as they can about the forces they face.

The post Are We Turning the Corner in the Fight Against Cybercrime? It’s Complicated. appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Runtime enforcement is the future of software security, if we can only make it accessible to the developers that understand their applications the best.

The post Runtime Enforcement: Software Security After the Supply Chain Ends appeared first on Security Boulevard.

As enterprises shift from on-premises to cloud systems, hybrid cloud solutions have become essential for optimizing performance, scalability, and user ease. However, risks arise when poorly configured environments connect to the cloud. A compromised Microsoft Active Directory can fully compromise a synchronized Microsoft Entra ID tenant, undermining the integrity and trust of connected services.

The post Key Takeaways From Horizon3.ai’s Analysis of an Entra ID Compromise appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Threat Actor ‘UTA0137’ Linked to Campaign

• The Pakistani time zone was hardcoded in one malware sample.
• There are weak infrastructure links to SideCopy, a known Pakistan-based threat actor.
• The Punjabi language was used in the malware.

Attack Starts With DSOP PDF

Discord Emojis Used for C2 Communication

• YARA rules
• Single value indicators

Decoding the TETRA Technologies Cyberattack Claim by Akira Ransomware

TETRA Technologies Releases New Processes for Managing Cybersecurity Risks and Governance

Data Breach at Los Angeles County DPH: What Happened

• First and last names
• Dates of birth
• Diagnosis and prescription details
• Medical record numbers/patient IDs
• Medicare/Med-Cal numbers
• Health insurance information
• Social Security numbers
• Other financial information

 Data Breach at Los Angeles County DPH Notification 

Response and Preventive Measures

Steps for Individuals to Protect Themselves

• Reviewing Medical Records: Individuals should review their medical records and Explanation of Benefits statements for any discrepancies or unauthorized services. Any irregularities should be reported to their healthcare provider or health plan.
• Requesting Credit Reports: Individuals should remain vigilant against identity theft and fraud by regularly reviewing their financial statements and credit reports. Under US law, individuals are entitled to one free credit report annually from each of the three major credit reporting bureaus: Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. Free credit reports can be requested at www.annualcreditreport.com or by calling 1-877-322-8228.
• Placing Fraud Alerts: Individuals can place a fraud alert on their credit files, which notifies creditors to take additional steps to verify identity before granting credit. Fraud alerts can be set up by contacting any of the major credit bureaus.
• Security Freezes: A security freeze can also be placed on credit reports, which prevents credit bureaus from releasing any information without written authorization. This measure can help prevent unauthorized credit activity but may delay the approval of new credit requests.