Senior Department arms control official Paul Dean on Thursday urged China and Russia to declare that artificial intelligence would never make decisions on deploying nuclear weapons. Washington had made a "clear and strong commitment" that humans had total control over nuclear weapons, said Dean. Britain and France have made similar commitments. Reuters reports: "We would welcome a similar statement by China and the Russian Federation," said Dean, principal deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence and Stability. "We think it is an extremely important norm of responsible behaviour and we think it is something that would be very welcome in a P5 context," he said, referring to the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Independent, published last month: Humans now share the web equally with bots, according to a major new report -- as some fear that the internet is dying. In recent months, the so-called "dead internet theory" has gained new popularity. It suggests that much of the content online is in fact automatically generated, and that the number of humans on the web is dwindling in comparison with bot accounts. Now a new report from cyber security company Imperva suggests that it is increasingly becoming true. Nearly half, 49.6 per cent, of all internet traffic came from bots last year, its "Bad Bot Report" indicates. That is up 2 percent in comparison with last year, and is the highest number ever seen since the report began in 2013. In some countries, the picture is worse. In Ireland, 71 per cent of internet traffic is automated, it said.

Some of that rise is the result of the adoption of generative artificial intelligence and large language models. Companies that build those systems use bots scrape the internet and gather data that can then be used to train them. Some of those bots are becoming increasingly sophisticated, Imperva warned. More and more of them come from residential internet connections, which makes them look more legitimate. "Automated bots will soon surpass the proportion of internet traffic coming from humans, changing the way that organizations approach building and protecting their websites and applications," said Nanhi Singh, general manager for application security at Imperva. "As more AI-enabled tools are introduced, bots will become omnipresent."

"Players who made Steam purchases of Helldivers 2 are now, months after the fact, being told by Sony that their games will be useless unless linked to a PSN account," writes longtime Slashdot reader Baron_Yam. From a report: Publisher Sony Interactive Entertainment announced today that Helldivers 2 players on Steam will soon be required to link their in-game profiles to a PlayStation Network account -- a feature that was optional at launch due to "technical issues" -- or risk losing access to the game. SIE explained that account linking allows players to take advantage of "safety and security" provided by PlayStation, as it can more easily protect folks from "griefing and abuse by enabling the banning of players that engage in that type of behavior."

Many Steam players haven't responded well to the news. As of the time of writing, over 2,500 negative user reviews have been submitted to the game's storefront page today, blemishing an otherwise spotless "Very Positive" rating. Some reviews cite data harvesting and security concerns as potential worries. Others point to the fact that Sony waited months after launch to make account linking mandatory. How this affects players in regions that don't have access to the PlayStation Network is a bigger concern, though. In the Helldivers 2 Discord, community manager Thomas 'Twinbeard' Petersson said they aren't yet sure what these rule changes meant for players in areas without PSN access, which could be another factor contributing to the negative downturn.

A bipartisan group of senators, led by Jeff Merkley, John Kennedy, and Roger Marshall, is advocating for limitations on the Transportation Security Administration's use of facial recognition technology due to concerns about privacy and civil liberties. PBS reports: In a letter on Thursday, the group of 14 lawmakers called on Senate leaders to use the upcoming reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration as a vehicle to limit TSA's use of the technology so Congress can put in place some oversight. "This technology poses significant threats to our privacy and civil liberties, and Congress should prohibit TSA's development and deployment of facial recognition tools until rigorous congressional oversight occurs," the senators wrote.

The effort, led by Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., John Kennedy, R-La., and Roger Marshall, R-Kan., "would halt facial recognition technology at security checkpoints, which has proven to improve security effectiveness, efficiency, and the passenger experience," TSA said in a statement. The technology is currently in use at 84 airports around the country and is planned to expand in the coming years to the roughly 430 covered by TSA.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Relations between Russia and Germany were already tense, with Germany providing military support to Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said Russian state hackers were behind a cyberattack last year that targeted the Social Democrats, the leading party in the governing coalition. "Russian state hackers attacked Germany in cyberspace," she said at a news conference in the Australian city of Adelaide. "We can attribute this attack to the group called APT28, which is steered by the military intelligence service of Russia."

"This is absolutely intolerable and unacceptable and will have consequences," she said. The Russian Embassy in Germany on Friday denied Moscow was involved in a 2023 cyberattack. In a statement the embassy said its envoy "categorically rejected the accusations that Russian state structures were involved in the given incident ... as unsubstantiated and groundless." The Council of the EU later said that Czechia's institutions have also been a target of the cyber campaign. In a statement by the EU's top diplomat, Josep Borrell, the bloc's nations said they "strongly condemn the malicious cyber campaign conducted by the Russia-controlled Advanced Persistent Threat Actor 28 (APT28) against Germany and Czechia." Further reading: EU and NATO Condemn Russian Cyber Attacks Against Germany and Czechia.

The UK government's climate action plan is unlawful, the high court has ruled, as there is not enough evidence that there are sufficient policies in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. From a report: The energy secretary, Claire Coutinho, will now be expected to draw up a revised plan within 12 months. This must ensure that the UK achieves its legally binding carbon budgets and its pledge to cut emissions by more than two-thirds by 2030, both of which the government is off track to meet. The environmental charities Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth took joint legal action with the Good Law Project against the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) over its decision to approve the carbon budget delivery plan (CBDP) in March 2023.

In a ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Sheldon upheld four of the five grounds of the groups' legal challenge, stating that the decision by the former energy security and net zero secretary Grant Shapps was "simply not justified by the evidence." He said: "If, as I have found, the secretary of state did make his decision on the assumption that each of the proposals and policies would be delivered in full, then the secretary of state's decision was taken on the basis of a mistaken understanding of the true factual position."

The judge agreed with ClientEarth and Friends of the Earth that the secretary of state was given "incomplete" information about the likelihood that proposed policies would achieve their intended emissions cuts. This breached section 13 of the Climate Change Act, which requires the secretary of state to adopt plans and proposals that they consider will enable upcoming carbon budgets to be delivered. Sheldon also agreed with the environment groups that the central assumption that all the department's policies would achieve 100% of their intended emissions cuts was wrong. The judge said the secretary of state had acted irrationally, and on the basis of an incorrect understanding of the facts. This comes after the Guardian revealed the government would be allowing oil and gas drilling under offshore wind turbines, a decision criticised by climate experts as "deeply irresponsible."

Microsoft is making security its number one priority for every employee, following years of security issues and mounting criticisms. The Verge: After a scathing report from the US Cyber Safety Review Board recently concluded that "Microsoft's security culture was inadequate and requires an overhaul," it's doing just that by outlining a set of security principles and goals that are tied to compensation packages for Microsoft's senior leadership team. Last November, Microsoft announced a Secure Future Initiative (SFI) in response to mounting pressure on the company to respond to attacks that allowed Chinese hackers to breach US government email accounts.

Just days after announcing this initiative, Russian hackers managed to breach Microsoft's defenses and spy on the email accounts of some members of Microsoft's senior leadership team. Microsoft only discovered the attack nearly two months later in January, and the same group even went on to steal source code. These recent attacks have been damaging, and the Cyber Safety Review Board report added fuel to Microsoft's security fire recently by concluding that the company could have prevented the 2023 breach of US government email accounts and that a "cascade of security failures" led to that incident. "We are making security our top priority at Microsoft, above all else -- over all other features," explains Charlie Bell, executive vice president for Microsoft security, in a blog post today. "We will instill accountability by basing part of the compensation of the company's Senior Leadership Team on our progress in meeting our security plans and milestones."

Dan Goodin reports via Ars Technica: A maximum severity vulnerability that allows hackers to hijack GitLab accounts with no user interaction required is now under active exploitation, federal government officials warned as data showed that thousands of users had yet to install a patch released in January. A change GitLab implemented in May 2023 made it possible for users to initiate password changes through links sent to secondary email addresses. The move was designed to permit resets when users didn't have access to the email address used to establish the account. In January, GitLab disclosed that the feature allowed attackers to send reset emails to accounts they controlled and from there click on the embedded link and take over the account.

While exploits required no user interaction, hijackings worked only against accounts that weren't configured to use multi-factor authentication. Even with MFA, accounts remained vulnerable to password resets. The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2023-7028, carries a severity rating of 10 out of a possible 10. The vulnerability, classified as an improper access control flaw, could pose a grave threat. GitLab software typically has access to multiple development environments belonging to users. With the ability to access them and surreptitiously introduce changes, attackers could sabotage projects or plant backdoors that could infect anyone using software built in the compromised environment. An example of a similar supply chain attack is the one that hit SolarWinds in 2021, infecting more than 18,000 of its customers. Other recent examples of supply chain attacks are here, here, and here. These sorts of attacks are powerful. By hacking a single, carefully selected target, attackers gain the means to infect thousands of downstream users, often without requiring them to take any action at all. According to Internet scans performed by security organization Shadowserver, more than 2,100 IP addresses showed they were hosting one or more vulnerable GitLab instances. In order to protect your system, you should enable MFA and install the latest patch. "GitLab users should also remember that patching does nothing to secure systems that have already been breached through exploits," notes Goodin.

According to CNBC, Google is laying off at least 200 employees from its "Core" teams and moving some roles to India and Mexico. From the report: The Core unit is responsible for building the technical foundation behind the company's flagship products and for protecting users' online safety, according to Google's website. Core teams include key technical units from information technology, its Python developer team, technical infrastructure, security foundation, app platforms, core developers, and various engineering roles. At least 50 of the positions eliminated were in engineering at the company's offices in Sunnyvale, California, filings show. Many Core teams will hire corresponding roles in Mexico and India, according to internal documents viewed by CNBC.

Asim Husain, vice president of Google Developer Ecosystem, announced news of the layoffs to his team in an email last week. He also spoke at a town hall and told employees that this was the biggest planned reduction for his team this year, an internal document shows. "We intend to maintain our current global footprint while also expanding in high-growth global workforce locations so that we can operate closer to our partners and developer communities," Husain wrote in the email. [...] "Announcements of this sort may leave many of you feeling uncertain or frustrated," Husain wrote in the email to developers. He added that his message to developers is that the changes "are in service of our broader goals" as a company. The teams involved in the reorganization have been key to the company's developer tools, an area Google is streamlining as it incorporates more artificial intelligence into the products.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Dropbox said its digital-signature product, Dropbox Sign, was breached by hackers, who accessed user information including emails, user names and phone numbers. The software company said it became aware of the cyberattack on April 24, sought to limit the incident and reported it to law enforcement and regulatory authorities. "We discovered that the threat actor had accessed data related to all users of Dropbox Sign, such as emails and user names, in addition to general account settings," Dropbox said Wednesday in a regulatory filing. "For subsets of users, the threat actor also accessed phone numbers, hashed passwords, and certain authentication information such as API keys, OAuth tokens, and multi-factor authentication."

Dropbox said there is no evidence hackers obtained user accounts or payment information. The company said it appears the attack was limited to Dropbox Sign and no other products were breached. The company didn't disclose how many customers were affected by the hack. The hack is unlikely to have a material impact on the company's finances, Dropbox said in the filing. The shares declined about 2.5% in extended trading after the cyberattack was disclosed and have fallen 20% this year through the close.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) told employees Wednesday that it is blocking access to ChatGPT on agency-issued laptops to "protect our data from security threats associated with use of ChatGPT," 404 Media reported Wednesday. From the report: "NARA will block access to commercial ChatGPT on NARANet [an internal network] and on NARA issued laptops, tablets, desktop computers, and mobile phones beginning May 6, 2024," an email sent to all employees, and seen by 404 Media, reads. "NARA is taking this action to protect our data from security threats associated with use of ChatGPT."

The move is particularly notable considering that this directive is coming from, well, the National Archives, whose job is to keep an accurate historical record. The email explaining the ban says the agency is particularly concerned with internal government data being incorporated into ChatGPT and leaking through its services. "ChatGPT, in particular, actively incorporates information that is input by its users in other responses, with no limitations. Like other federal agencies, NARA has determined that ChatGPT's unrestricted approach to reusing input data poses an unacceptable risk to NARA data security," the email reads. The email goes on to explain that "If sensitive, non-public NARA data is entered into ChatGPT, our data will become part of the living data set without the ability to have it removed or purged."

Microsoft has confirmed that the April 2024 Windows security updates break VPN connections across client and server platforms. From a report: The company explains on the Windows health dashboard that "Windows devices might face VPN connection failures after installing the April 2024 security update or the April 2024 non-security preview update."

"We are investigating user reports, and we will provide more information in the coming days," Redmond added. The list of affected Windows versions includes Windows 11, Windows 10, and Windows Server 2008 and later.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Two months after hackers broke into Change Healthcare systems stealing and then encrypting company data, it's still unclear how many Americans were impacted by the cyberattack. Last month, Andrew Witty, the CEO of Change Healthcare's parent company UnitedHealth Group, said that the stolen files include the personal health information of "a substantial proportion of people in America." On Wednesday, during a House hearing, when Witty was pushed to give a more definitive answer, testifying that the breach impacted "I think, maybe a third [of Americans] or somewhere of that level."

LastPass, the password manager company, has officially separated from its parent company, GoTo, following a series of high-profile hacks in recent years. The company will now operate under a shareholder holding company called LMI Parent.

LastPass -- owned by private equity firms Francisco Partners and Elliott Management -- has faced criticism for its handling of the breaches, which resulted in the theft of customer data and encryption keys. The company has since enforced a 12-character minimum for master passwords to improve security.

Kaiser Permanente is the latest healthcare giant to report a data breach. Kaiser said 13.4 million current and former insurance members had their patient data shared with third-party advertisers, thanks to an improperly implemented tracking code the company used to see how its members navigated through its websites. Dark Reading reports: The shared data included names, IP addresses, what pages people visited, whether they were actively signed in, and even the search terms they used when visiting the company's online health encyclopedia. Kaiser has reportedly removed the tracking code from its sites, and while the incident wasn't a hacking event, the breach is still concerning from a security perspective, according to Narayana Pappu, CEO at Zendata.

"The presence of third-party trackers belonging to advertisers, and the oversharing of customer information with these trackers, is a pervasive problem in both health tech and government space," he explains. "Once shared, advertisers have used this information to target ads at users for complementary products (based on health data); this has happened multiple times in the past few years, including at Goodrx. Although this does not fit the traditional definition of a data breach, it essentially results in the same outcome -- an entity and the use case the data was not intended for has access to it. There is usually no monitoring/auditing process to identify and prevent the issue."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Foss Outpost: Systemd lead developer Lennart Poettering has posted on Mastodon about their upcoming v256 release of Systemd, which is expected to include a sudo replacement called "run0". The developer talks about the weaknesses of sudo, and how it has a large possible attack surface. For example, sudo supports network access, LDAP configurations, other types of plugins, and much more. But most importantly, its SUID binary provides a large attack service according to Lennart: "I personally think that the biggest problem with sudo is the fact it's a SUID binary though -- the big attack surface, the plugins, network access and so on that come after it it just make the key problem worse, but are not in themselves the main issue with sudo. SUID processes are weird concepts: they are invoked by unprivileged code and inherit the execution context intended for and controlled by unprivileged code. By execution context I mean the myriad of properties that a process has on Linux these days, from environment variables, process scheduling properties, cgroup assignments, security contexts, file descriptors passed, and so on and so on."

He's saying that sudo is a Unix concept from many decades ago, and a better privilege escalation system should be in place for 2024 security standards: "So, in my ideal world, we'd have an OS entirely without SUID. Let's throw out the concept of SUID on the dump of UNIX' bad ideas. An execution context for privileged code that is half under the control of unprivileged code and that needs careful manual clean-up is just not how security engineering should be done in 2024 anymore." [...]

He also mentioned that there will be more features in run0 that are not just related to the security backend such as: "The tool is also a lot more fun to use than sudo. For example, by default, it will tint your terminal background in a reddish tone while you are operating with elevated privileges. That is supposed to act as a friendly reminder that you haven't given up the privileges yet, and marks the output of all commands that ran with privileges appropriately. It also inserts a red dot (unicode ftw) in the window title while you operate with privileges, and drops it afterwards."

After convincing the world to buy open source and give up the Morse Code test for ham radio licenses, Bruce Perens has a new gambit: develop a license that ensures software developers receive compensation from large corporations using their work. The new Post-Open Zero Cost License seeks to address the financial disparities in open source software use and includes provisions against using content to train AI models, aligning its enforcement with non-profit performing rights organizations like ASCAP. Here's an excerpt from an interview The Register conducted with Perens: The license is one component among several -- the paid license needs to be hammered out -- that he hopes will support his proposed Post-Open paradigm to help software developers get paid when their work gets used by large corporations. "There are two paradigms that you can use for this," he explains in an interview. "One is Spotify and the other is ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. The difference is that Spotify is a for-profit corporation. And they have to distribute profits to their stockholders before they pay the musicians. And as a result, the musicians complain that they're not getting very much at all."

"There are two paradigms that you can use for this," he explains in an interview. "One is Spotify and the other is ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. The difference is that Spotify is a for-profit corporation. And they have to distribute profits to their stockholders before they pay the musicians. And as a result, the musicians complain that they're not getting very much at all." Perens wants his new license -- intended to complement open source licensing rather than replace it -- to be administered by a 501(c)(6) non-profit. This entity would handle payments to developers. He points to the music performing rights organizations as a template, although among ASCAP, BMI, SECAC, and GMR, only ASCAP remains non-profit. [...]

The basic idea is companies making more than $5 million annually by using Post-Open software in a paid-for product would be required to pay 1 percent of their revenue back to this administrative organization, which would distribute the funds to the maintainers of the participating open source project(s). That would cover all Post-Open software used by the organization. "The license that I have written is long -- about as long as the Affero GPL 3, which is now 17 years old, and had to deal with a lot more problems than the early licenses," Perens explains. "So, at least my license isn't excessively long. It handles all of the abuses of developers that I'm conscious of, including things I was involved in directly like Open Source Security v. Perens, and Jacobsen v. Katzer."

"It also makes compliance easier for companies than it is today, and probably cheaper even if they do have to pay. It creates an entity that can sue infringers on behalf of any developer and gets the funding to do it, but I'm planning the infringement process to forgive companies that admit the problem and cure the infringement, so most won't ever go to court. It requires more infrastructure than open source developers are used to. There's a central organization for Post-Open (or it could be three organizations if we divided all of the purposes: apportioning money to developers, running licensing, and enforcing compliance), and an outside CPA firm, and all of that has to be structured so that developers can trust it." You can read the full interview here.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: The ransomware gang that hacked into U.S. health tech giant Change Healthcare used a set of stolen credentials to remotely access the company's systems that weren't protected by multifactor authentication (MFA), according to the chief executive of its parent company, UnitedHealth Group (UHG). UnitedHealth CEO Andrew Witty provided the written testimony ahead of a House subcommittee hearing on Wednesday into the February ransomware attack that caused months of disruption across the U.S. healthcare system. This is the first time the health insurance giant has given an assessment of how hackers broke into Change Healthcare's systems, during which massive amounts of health data were exfiltrated from its systems. UnitedHealth said last week that the hackers stole health data on a "substantial proportion of people in America."

According to Witty's testimony, the criminal hackers "used compromised credentials to remotely access a Change Healthcare Citrix portal." Organizations like Change use Citrix software to let employees access their work computers remotely on their internal networks. Witty did not elaborate on how the credentials were stolen. However, Witty did say the portal "did not have multifactor authentication," which is a basic security feature that prevents the misuse of stolen passwords by requiring a second code sent to an employee's trusted device, such as their phone. It's not known why Change did not set up multifactor authentication on this system, but this will likely become a focus for investigators trying to understand potential deficiencies in the insurer's systems. "Once the threat actor gained access, they moved laterally within the systems in more sophisticated ways and exfiltrated data," said Witty. Witty said the hackers deployed ransomware nine days later on February 21, prompting the health giant to shut down its network to contain the breach. Last week, the medical firm admitted that it paid the ransomware hackers roughly $22 million via bitcoin.

Meanwhile, UnitedHealth said the total costs associated with the ransomware attack amounted to $872 million. "The remediation efforts spent on the attack are ongoing, so the total costs related to business disruption and repairs are likely to exceed $1 billion over time, potentially including the reported $22 million payment made [to the hackers]," notes The Register.

Maciej Pocwierz, a senior software engineer Semantive, writing on Medium: A few weeks ago, I began working on the PoC of a document indexing system for my client. I created a single S3 bucket in the eu-west-1 region and uploaded some files there for testing. Two days later, I checked my AWS billing page, primarily to make sure that what I was doing was well within the free-tier limits. Apparently, it wasn't. My bill was over $1,300, with the billing console showing nearly 100,000,000 S3 PUT requests executed within just one day! By default, AWS doesn't log requests executed against your S3 buckets. However, such logs can be enabled using AWS CloudTrail or S3 Server Access Logging. After enabling CloudTrail logs, I immediately observed thousands of write requests originating from multiple accounts or entirely outside of AWS.

Was it some kind of DDoS-like attack against my account? Against AWS? As it turns out, one of the popular open-source tools had a default configuration to store their backups in S3. And, as a placeholder for a bucket name, they used... the same name that I used for my bucket. This meant that every deployment of this tool with default configuration values attempted to store its backups in my S3 bucket! So, a horde of misconfigured systems is attempting to store their data in my private S3 bucket. But why should I be the one paying for this mistake? Here's why: S3 charges you for unauthorized incoming requests. This was confirmed in my exchange with AWS support. As they wrote: "Yes, S3 charges for unauthorized requests (4xx) as well[1]. That's expected behavior." So, if I were to open my terminal now and type: aws s3 cp ./file.txt s3://your-bucket-name/random_key. I would receive an AccessDenied error, but you would be the one to pay for that request. And I don't even need an AWS account to do so.

Another question was bugging me: why was over half of my bill coming from the us-east-1 region? I didn't have a single bucket there! The answer to that is that the S3 requests without a specified region default to us-east-1 and are redirected as needed. And the bucket's owner pays extra for that redirected request. The security aspect: We now understand why my S3 bucket was bombarded with millions of requests and why I ended up with a huge S3 bill. At that point, I had one more idea I wanted to explore. If all those misconfigured systems were attempting to back up their data into my S3 bucket, why not just let them do so? I opened my bucket for public writes and collected over 10GB of data within less than 30 seconds. Of course, I can't disclose whose data it was. But it left me amazed at how an innocent configuration oversight could lead to a dangerous data leak! Lesson 1: Anyone who knows the name of any of your S3 buckets can ramp up your AWS bill as they like. Other than deleting the bucket, there's nothing you can do to prevent it. You can't protect your bucket with services like CloudFront or WAF when it's being accessed directly through the S3 API. Standard S3 PUT requests are priced at just $0.005 per 1,000 requests, but a single machine can easily execute thousands of such requests per second.

The United Kingdom has become the first country in the world to ban default guessable usernames and passwords from these IoT devices. Unique passwords installed by default are still permitted. From a report: The Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 (PSTI) introduces new minimum-security standards for manufacturers, and demands that these companies are open with consumers about how long their products will receive security updates for.

Manufacturing and design practices mean many IoT products introduce additional risks to the home and business networks they're connected to. In one often-cited case described by cybersecurity company Darktrace, hackers were allegedly able to steal data from a casino's otherwise well-protected computer network after breaking in through an internet-connected temperature sensor in a fish tank. Under the PSTI, weak or easily guessable default passwords such as "admin" or "12345" are explicitly banned, and manufacturers are also required to publish contact details so users can report bugs.