A significant cyber breach at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) that saw scammers cheat the public purse out of approximately £47m has been met with dismay from security experts thanks to the sheer simplicity of the attack, which originated via account takeover attempts on legitimate taxpayers. HMRC disclosed the breach to a Treasury Select Committee this week, revealing that hackers accessed the online accounts of about 100,000 people via phishing attacks and managed to claim a significant amount of money in tax rebates before being stopped. It is understood that those individuals affected have been contacted by HMRC – they have not personally lost any money and are not themselves in any trouble. Arrests in the case have already been made. During proceedings, HMRC also came in for criticism by the committee’s chair Meg Hillier, who had learned about the via an earlier news report on the matter, over the length of time taken to come clean over the incident. With phishing emails sent to unwitting taxpayers identified as the initial attack vector for the scammers, HMRC might feel relieved that it has dodged full blame for the incident. But according to Will Richmond-Coggan, a partner specialising in data and cyber disputes at law firm Freeths, even though the tax office had gone to pains to stress its own systems were never actually compromised, the incident underscored just how widespread the consequences of cyber attacks can be – snowballing from simple origins into a multimillion pound loss. “It is clear from HMRC's explanation that the crime against HMRC was only possible because of earlier data breaches and cyber attacks,” said Richmond-Coggan. “Those earlier attacks put personal data in the hands of the criminals which enabled them to impersonate tax payers and apply successfully to claim back tax.” Meanwhile, Gerasim Hovhannisyan, CEO of EasyDMARC, an email security provider, pointed out that phishing against both private individuals and businesses and other organisations had long ago moved beyond the domain of scammers chancing their luck. While this type of scattergun fraud remains a potent threat, particularly to consumers who may not be informed about cyber security matters – the scale of the HMRC phish surely suggests a targeted operation, likely using carefully crafted email purporting to represent HMRC itself, designed to lure self-assessment taxpayers into handing over their accounts. Not only that, but generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) means targeted phishing operations have become exponentially more dangerous in a very short space of time, added Hovhannisyan. “[It] has made [phishing] scalable, polished, and dangerously convincing, often indistinguishable from legitimate communication. And while many organisations have strengthened their security perimeters, email remains the most consistently exploited and underestimated attack vector,” he said. “These scams exploit human trust, using urgency, authority, and increasingly realistic impersonation tactics. If HMRC can be phished, anyone can.” Added Hovhannisyan: “What’s more alarming is that the Treasury Select Committee only learned of the breach through the news. When £47m is stolen through impersonation, institutions can’t afford to stay quiet. Delayed disclosure erodes trust, stalls response, and gives attackers room to manoeuvre.” Once again a service’s end-users have turned out to be the source of a cyber attack and as such, whether they are internal or – as in this case – external, are often considered an organisation’s first line of defence. However, it is not always wise to take this approach, and for an organisation like HMRC daily engaging with members of the public, it is also not really possible. Security education is a difficult proposition at the best of times and although the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) provides extensive advice and guidance on spotting and dealing with phishing emails for consumers – it also operates a phishing reporting service that as of April 2025 has received over 41 million scam reports – bodies like HMRC cannot rely on everybody having visited the NCSC’s website. As such, Mike Britton, chief information officer (CIO) at Abnormal AI, a specialist in phishing, social engineering and account takeover prevention, argued that HMRC could and should have done more from a technical perspective. “Governments will always be a high tier target for cyber criminals due to the valuable information they hold. In fact, attacks against this sector are rising,” he said. “In this case, it looks like criminals utilised account take over to conduct fraud. To combat this, multifactor authentication (MFA) is key, but as attacks grow more sophisticated, further steps must be taken.” Britton said organisations like HMRC really needed to consider adopting more layered security strategies, not only including MFA but also incorporating wider visibility and unified controls across its IT systems. Account takeover attacks such as the ones seen in this incident can unfold quickly, he added, so its cyber function should also be equipped with the tools to identify and remediate compromised accounts on the fly. Read more about trends in phishing Quishing, meaning QR code phishing, is an offputting term for an on-the-rise attack method. Learn how to defend against it. A healthy dose of judicious skepticism is crucial to preventing phishing attacks, said David Fine, supervisory special agent at the FBI, during a presentation at a HIMSS event. Exchange admins got a boost from Microsoft when it improved how it handles DMARC authentication failures to help organisations fight back from email-based attacks on their users.

IT Pros ‘Extremely Worried’ About Shadow AI: Report By John P. Mello Jr. June 4, 2025 5:00 AM PT ADVERTISEMENT Enterprise IT Lead Generation Services Fuel Your Pipeline. Close More Deals. Our full-service marketing programs deliver sales-ready leads. 100% Satisfaction Guarantee! Learn more. Shadow AI — the use of AI tools under the radar of IT departments — has information technology directors and executives worried, according to a report released Tuesday. The report, based on a survey of 200 IT directors and executives at U.S. enterprise organizations of 1,000 employees or more, found nearly half the IT pros (46%) were “extremely worried” about shadow AI, and almost all of them (90%) were concerned about it from a privacy and security viewpoint. “As our survey found, shadow AI is resulting in palpable, concerning outcomes, with nearly 80% of IT leaders saying it has resulted in negative incidents such as sensitive data leakage to Gen AI tools, false or inaccurate results, and legal risks of using copyrighted information,” said Krishna Subramanian, co-founder of Campbell, Calif.-based Komprise, the unstructured data management company that produced the report. “Alarmingly, 13% say that shadow AI has caused financial or reputational harm to their organizations,” she told TechNewsWorld. Subramanian added that shadow AI poses a much greater problem than shadow IT, which primarily focuses on departmental power users purchasing cloud instances or SaaS tools without obtaining IT approval. “Now we’ve got an unlimited number of employees using tools like ChatGPT or Claude AI to get work done, but not understanding the potential risk they are putting their organizations at by inadvertently submitting company secrets or customer data into the chat prompt,” she explained. “The data risk is large and growing in still unforeseen ways because of the pace of AI development and adoption and the fact that there is a lot we don’t know about how AI works,” she continued. “It is becoming more humanistic all the time and capable of making decisions independently.” Shadow AI Introduces Security Blind Spots Shadow AI is the next step after shadow IT and is a growing risk, noted James McQuiggan, security awareness advocate at KnowBe4, a security awareness training provider in Clearwater, Fla. “Users use AI tools for content, images, or applications and to process sensitive data or company information without proper security checks,” he told TechNewsWorld. “Most organizations will have privacy, compliance, and data protection policies, and shadow AI introduces blind spots in the organization’s data loss prevention.” “The biggest risk with shadow AI is that the AI application has not passed through a security analysis as approved AI tools may have been,” explained Melissa Ruzzi, director of AI at AppOmni, a SaaS security management software company, in San Mateo, Calif. “Some AI applications may be training models using your data, may not adhere to relevant regulations that your company is required to follow, and may not even have the data storage security level you deem necessary to keep your data from being exposed,” she told TechNewsWorld. “Those risks are blind spots of potential security vulnerabilities in shadow AI.” Krishna Vishnubhotla, vice president of product strategy at Zimperium, a mobile security company based in Dallas, noted that shadow AI extends beyond unapproved applications and involves embedded AI components that can process and disseminate sensitive data in unpredictable ways. “Unlike traditional shadow IT, which may be limited to unauthorized software or hardware, shadow AI can run on employee mobile devices outside the organization’s perimeter and control,” he told TechNewsWorld. “This creates new security and compliance risks that are harder to track and mitigate.” Vishnubhotla added that the financial impact of shadow AI varies, but unauthorized AI tools can lead to significant regulatory fines, data breaches, and loss of intellectual property. “Depending on the scale of the agency and the sensitivity of the data exposed, the costs could range from millions to potentially billions in damages due to compliance violations, remediation efforts, and reputational harm,” he said. “Federal agencies handling vast amounts of sensitive or classified information, financial institutions, and health care organizations are particularly vulnerable,” he said. “These sectors collect and analyze vast amounts of high-value data, making AI tools attractive. But without proper vetting, these tools could be easily exploited.” Shadow AI Everywhere and Easy To Use Nicole Carignan, SVP for security and AI strategy at Darktrace, a global cybersecurity AI company, predicts an explosion of tools that utilize AI and generative AI within enterprises and on devices used by employees. “In addition to managing AI tools that are built in-house, security teams will see a surge in the volume of existing tools that have new AI features and capabilities embedded, as well as a rise in shadow AI,” she told TechNewsWorld. “If the surge remains unchecked, this raises serious questions and concerns about data loss prevention, as well as compliance concerns as new regulations start to take effect.” “That will drive an increasing need for AI asset discovery — the ability for companies to identify and track the use of AI systems throughout the enterprise,” she said. “It is imperative that CIOs and CISOs dig deep into new AI security solutions, asking comprehensive questions about data access and visibility.” Shadow AI has become so rampant because it is everywhere and easy to access through free tools, maintained Komprise’s Subramanian. “All you need is a web browser,” she said. “Enterprise users can inadvertently share company code snippets or corporate data when using these Gen AI tools, which could create data leakage.” “These tools are growing and changing exponentially,” she continued. “It’s really hard to keep up. As the IT leader, how do you track this and determine the risk? Managers might be looking the other way because their teams are getting more done. You may need fewer contractors and full-time employees. But I think the risk of the tools is not well understood.” “The low, or in some cases non-existent, learning curve associated with using Gen AI services has led to rapid adoption, regardless of prior experience with these services,” added Satyam Sinha, CEO and co-founder of Acuvity, a provider of runtime Gen AI security and governance solutions, in Sunnyvale, Calif. “Whereas shadow IT focused on addressing a specific challenge for particular employees or departments, shadow AI addresses multiple challenges for multiple employees and departments. Hence, the greater appeal,” he said. “The abundance and rapid development of Gen AI services also means employees can find the right solution [instantly]. Of course, all these traits have direct security implications.” Banning AI Tools Backfires To support innovation while minimizing the threat of shadow AI, enterprises must take a three-pronged approach, asserted Kris Bondi, CEO and co-founder of Mimoto, a threat detection and response company in San Francisco. They must educate employees on the dangers of unsupported, unmonitored AI tools, create company protocols for what is not acceptable use of unauthorized AI tools, and, most importantly, provide AI tools that are sanctioned. “Explaining why one tool is sanctioned and another isn’t greatly increases compliance,” she told TechNewsWorld. “It does not work for a company to have a zero-use mandate. In fact, this results in an increase in stealth use of shadow AI.” In the very near future, more and more applications will be leveraging AI in different forms, so the reality of shadow AI will be present more than ever, added AppOmni’s Ruzzi. “The best strategy here is employee training and AI usage monitoring,” she said. “It will become crucial to have in place a powerful SaaS security tool that can go beyond detecting direct AI usage of chatbots to detect AI usage connected to other applications,” she continued, “allowing for early discovery, proper risk assessment, and containment to minimize possible negative consequences.” “Shadow AI is just the beginning,” KnowBe4’s McQuiggan added. “As more teams use AI, the risks grow.” He recommended that companies start small, identify what’s being used, and build from there. They should also get legal, HR, and compliance involved. “Make AI governance part of your broader security program,” he said. “The sooner you start, the better you can manage what comes next.” John P. Mello Jr. has been an ECT News Network reporter since 2003. His areas of focus include cybersecurity, IT issues, privacy, e-commerce, social media, artificial intelligence, big data and consumer electronics. He has written and edited for numerous publications, including the Boston Business Journal, the Boston Phoenix, Megapixel.Net and Government Security News. Email John. Leave a Comment Click here to cancel reply. Please sign in to post or reply to a comment. New users create a free account. Related Stories More by John P. Mello Jr. view all More in IT Leadership

Published June 4, 2025 10:00am EDT close Windows bug leaves computer Wi-Fi vulnerable to hackers Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson explains how to keep your Windows computer safe and the security risks of online retail giant Temu. NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! Hackers are no longer targeting only tech giants or hospitals. Any business that collects valuable personal information, such as names, phone numbers, email addresses or even basic financial details, is now a target.Companies that rely heavily on third-party vendors or outsourced customer support are even more at risk, especially if they are not particularly strong in the technology sector.German retailer Adidas learned this the hard way. The company recently confirmed a data breach involving one of its external partners, and although it has acknowledged the issue, many important details are still missing. A hacker at work (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)Adidas confirms vendor breach: Here’s what we knowAdidas has officially acknowledged that a third-party vendor suffered a breach, resulting in unauthorized access to consumer data. In a public notice titled "Data Security Information," the company revealed that a "third-party customer service provider" had been compromised. While the brand was initially silent on the scope, it had already been reported earlier this month that customers in Turkey and Korea had received breach notifications.MASSIVE DATA BREACH EXPOSES 184 MILLION PASSWORDS AND LOGINSAdidas posted this information on both its German and English websites. However, no specific region or number of affected individuals has been confirmed. The company’s statement did clarify that no payment information, such as credit card details, nor passwords were included in the breach. Instead, it involved contact details submitted by users to Adidas’ help desk in the past.Data obtained reportedly includes names, phone numbers, email addresses and dates of birth. While this might seem limited compared to financial data, this type of information can be exploited for phishing scams and identity theft.  An Adidas sign (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)What Adidas told customers after the breachIn the wake of the breach, Adidas began notifying potentially affected customers directly. The company's email to customers below aimed to reassure recipients and clarify what information was involved. Here is the full text of the notification sent to affected individuals.Dear customer,We are writing to inform you of an issue that we recently became aware of which may have impacted some of your data.What happenedadidas recently learned that an unauthorized external party gained access to certain customer data through a third-party customer service provider.What information was involvedThe affected data does not contain passwords, credit card or any other payment-related information. Nor have any Social Security numbers been impacted.It mainly consists of contact information relating to customers who had contacted our customer service help desk in the past. This may have included one or more of the following: name, email address, telephone number, gender and/or birth date.What we are doing Privacy and the security of your data is our priority. Upon becoming aware of this incident, adidas took proactive and immediate steps to investigate and contain the incident. This includes further enhancing security measures and resetting passwords for customer service accounts.What you can doWe are currently unaware of any harm (such as identity theft or fraud) being caused to our customers as a result of this incident. There are no immediate steps that you need to take. Although, as always, please remain vigilant and look out for any suspicious messages. As a reminder, adidas will never directly contact you to ask that you provide us with financial information, such as your credit card details, bank account information or passwords.Who you can contactIf you have any questions, then please contact our Customer Service team at https://www.adidas.com/us/helpWe apologise for any inconvenience caused by this incident.adidas TeamWhat Adidas hasn’t said about the vendor hackDespite the official acknowledgment, several questions remain unanswered. Adidas has yet to clarify whether this is a single breach affecting multiple regions or several separate incidents. The lack of transparency around the name of the third-party vendor and the absence of concrete numbers or locations for affected users has created frustration among observers and possibly among customers themselves.The earlier regional reports from Turkey and Korea might suggest that this incident was either global in scale or that similar third-party vendors were independently targeted. In either case, the company's current handling of the situation has left room for speculation. Adidas claims it is in the process of informing potentially affected customers, but it has not detailed the method or timeline for this outreach.We reached out to adidas for a comment, and a representative referred us to this statement on their website. In part, the company said, "We remain fully committed to protecting the privacy and security of our consumers, and sincerely regret any inconvenience or concern caused by this incident."GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE An Adidas shoe (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)6 critical steps to take after the Adidas data breachIf you think you were affected or just want to be cautious, here are some steps you can take right now to stay safe from the Adidas data breach:1. Scrub your data from the internet using a personal data removal service: The more exposed your personal information is online, the easier it is for scammers to use it against you. Following the Adidas breach, consider removing your information from public databases and people-search sites. Check out my top picks for data removal services here.Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web.2. Watch out for phishing scams and use strong antivirus software: With access to your email and phone number, Adidas attackers can craft convincing phishing emails pretending to be from healthcare providers or banks. These emails might include malicious links designed to install malware or steal login information. To defend yourself, use a strong antivirus program. Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android and iOS devices.3. Safeguard against identity theft and use identity theft protection: Hackers now have access to high-value information from the Adidas breach. This makes you a prime target for identity theft. You might want to consider investing in identity theft protection, which can also assist you in freezing your bank and credit card accounts to prevent further unauthorized use by criminals. Signing up for identity theft protection gives you 24/7 monitoring, alerts for unusual activity and support if your identity is stolen. See my tips and best picks on how to protect yourself from identity theft.4. Set up fraud alerts: Requesting fraud alerts notifies creditors that they need extra verification before issuing credit in your name. You can request fraud alerts through any one of the three major credit bureaus; they’ll notify the others. This adds another layer of protection without completely freezing access to credit.5. Change passwords and use a password manager: Update passwords on any accounts tied to compromised data. Use unique passwords that are hard to guess and let a password manager do the heavy lifting by generating secure ones for you. Reused passwords are an easy target after breaches. Consider password managers for convenience and security. Get more details about my best expert-reviewed password managers of 2025 here.6. Be wary of social engineering attacks: Hackers may use stolen details like names or birthdates from breaches in phone scams or fake customer service calls designed to trick you into revealing more sensitive info. Never share personal details over unsolicited calls or emails. Social engineering attacks rely on trust, and vigilance is key.Kurt’s key takeawayThe Adidas breach shows that even companies with decades of brand equity and a massive global footprint are not immune to lapses in data security. It underscores the need for companies to go beyond basic compliance and actively evaluate the cybersecurity standards of every partner in their ecosystem. Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the trade-offs they make when sharing their personal information, and brands that fail to meet this moment may find their reputations eroding faster than they expect.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPShould retailers be penalized for neglecting basic cybersecurity practices? Let us know by writing us atCyberguy.com/Contact.For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/Newsletter.Ask Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved. Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on "FOX & Friends." Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

Jun 05, 2025Ravie LakshmananNetwork Security / Vulnerability Cisco has released security patches to address a critical security flaw impacting the Identity Services Engine (ISE) that, if successfully exploited, could allow unauthenticated actors to carry out malicious actions on susceptible systems. The security defect, tracked as CVE-2025-20286, carries a CVSS score of 9.9 out of 10.0. It has been described as a static credential vulnerability. "A vulnerability in Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) cloud deployments of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to access sensitive data, execute limited administrative operations, modify system configurations, or disrupt services within the impacted systems," the company said in an advisory. The networking equipment maker, which credited Kentaro Kawane of GMO Cybersecurity for reporting the flaw, noted it's aware of the existence of a proof-of-concept (PoC) exploit. There is no evidence that it has been maliciously exploited in the wild. Cisco said the issue stems from the fact that credentials are improperly generated when Cisco ISE is being deployed on cloud platforms, causing different deployments to share the same credentials as long as the software release and cloud platform are the same. Put differently, the static credentials are specific to each release and platform, but are not valid across platforms. As the company highlights, all instances of Cisco ISE release 3.1 on AWS will have the same static credentials. However, credentials that are valid for access to a release 3.1 deployment would not be valid to access a release 3.2 deployment on the same platform. Furthermore, Release 3.2 on AWS would not have the same credentials as Release 3.2 on Azure. Successful exploitation of the vulnerability could permit an attacker to extract the user credentials from the Cisco ISE cloud deployment and then use it to access Cisco ISE deployed in other cloud environments through unsecured ports. This could ultimately allow unauthorized access to sensitive data, execution of limited administrative operations, changes to system configurations, or service disruptions. That said, Cisco ISE is only affected in cases where the Primary Administration node is deployed in the cloud. Primary Administration nodes that are on-premises are not impacted. The following versions are affected - AWS - Cisco ISE 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 Azure - Cisco ISE 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 OCI - Cisco ISE 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 While there are no workarounds to address CVE-2025-20286, Cisco is recommending that users restrict traffic to authorized administrators or run the "application reset-config ise" command to reset user passwords to a new value. However, it bears noting that running the command will reset Cisco ISE to the factory configuration. Found this article interesting? Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post. SHARE    

Qualcomm warns OEMs now need to apply the fix in their devices.

Qualcomm has released security patches for three zero-day vulnerabilities in the Adreno Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) driver that impact dozens of chipsets and are actively exploited in targeted attacks. [...]

Given their abundance in American backyards, gardens and highway corridors these days, it may be surprising to learn that white-tailed deer were nearly extinct about a century ago. While they currently number somewhere in the range of 30 million to 35 million, at the turn of the 20th century, there were as few as 300,000 whitetails across the entire continent: just 1% of the current population. This near-disappearance of deer was much discussed at the time. In 1854, Henry David Thoreau had written that no deer had been hunted near Concord, Massachusetts, for a generation. In his famous “Walden,” he reported: “One man still preserves the horns of the last deer that was killed in this vicinity, and another has told me the particulars of the hunt in which his uncle was engaged. The hunters were formerly a numerous and merry crew here.” But what happened to white-tailed deer? What drove them nearly to extinction, and then what brought them back from the brink? As a historical ecologist and environmental archaeologist, I have made it my job to answer these questions. Over the past decade, I’ve studied white-tailed deer bones from archaeological sites across the eastern United States, as well as historical records and ecological data, to help piece together the story of this species. Precolonial rise of deer populations White-tailed deer have been hunted from the earliest migrations of people into North America, more than 15,000 years ago. The species was far from the most important food resource at that time, though. Archaeological evidence suggests that white-tailed deer abundance only began to increase after the extinction of megafauna species like mammoths and mastodons opened up ecological niches for deer to fill. Deer bones become very common in archaeological sites from about 6,000 years ago onward, reflecting the economic and cultural importance of the species for Indigenous peoples. Despite being so frequently hunted, deer populations do not seem to have appreciably declined due to Indigenous hunting prior to AD 1600. Unlike elk or sturgeon, whose numbers were reduced by Indigenous hunters and fishers, white-tailed deer seem to have been resilient to human predation. While archaeologists have found some evidence for human-caused declines in certain parts of North America, other cases are more ambiguous, and deer certainly remained abundant throughout the past several millennia. Human use of fire could partly explain why white-tailed deer may have been resilient to hunting. Indigenous peoples across North America have long used controlled burning to promote ecosystem health, disturbing old vegetation to promote new growth. Deer love this sort of successional vegetation for food and cover, and thus thrive in previously burned habitats. Indigenous people may have therefore facilitated deer population growth, counteracting any harmful hunting pressure. More research is needed, but even though some hunting pressure is evident, the general picture from the precolonial era is that deer seem to have been doing just fine for thousands of years. Ecologists estimate that there were roughly 30 million white-tailed deer in North America on the eve of European colonization—about the same number as today. A 16th-century engraving depicts Indigenous Floridians hunting deer while disguised in deerskins. [Photo: Theodor de Bry/DEA Picture Library/De Agostini/Getty Images] Colonial-era fall of deer numbers To better understand how deer populations changed in the colonial era, I recently analyzed deer bones from two archaeological sites in what is now Connecticut. My analysis suggests that hunting pressure on white-tailed deer increased almost as soon as European colonists arrived. At one site dated to the 11th to 14th centuries (before European colonization) I found that only about 7% to 10% of the deer killed were juveniles. Hunters generally don’t take juvenile deer if they’re frequently encountering adults, since adult deer tend to be larger, offering more meat and bigger hides. Additionally, hunting increases mortality on a deer herd but doesn’t directly affect fertility, so deer populations experiencing hunting pressure end up with juvenile-skewed age structures. For these reasons, this low percentage of juvenile deer prior to European colonization indicates minimal hunting pressure on local herds. However, at a nearby site occupied during the 17th century—just after European colonization—between 22% and 31% of the deer hunted were juveniles, suggesting a substantial increase in hunting pressure. This elevated hunting pressure likely resulted from the transformation of deer into a commodity for the first time. Venison, antlers and deerskins may have long been exchanged within Indigenous trade networks, but things changed drastically in the 17th century. European colonists integrated North America into a trans-Atlantic mercantile capitalist economic system with no precedent in Indigenous society. This applied new pressures to the continent’s natural resources. Deer—particularly their skins—were commodified and sold in markets in the colonies initially and, by the 18th century, in Europe as well. Deer were now being exploited by traders, merchants and manufacturers desiring profit, not simply hunters desiring meat or leather. It was the resulting hunting pressure that drove the species toward its extinction. 20th-century rebound of white-tailed deer Thanks to the rise of the conservation movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, white-tailed deer survived their brush with extinction. Concerned citizens and outdoorsmen feared for the fate of deer and other wildlife, and pushed for new legislative protections. The Lacey Act of 1900, for example, banned interstate transport of poached game and—in combination with state-level protections—helped end commercial deer hunting by effectively de-commodifying the species. Aided by conservation-oriented hunting practices and reintroductions of deer from surviving populations to areas where they had been extirpated, white-tailed deer rebounded. The story of white-tailed deer underscores an important fact: Humans are not inherently damaging to the environment. Hunting from the 17th through 19th centuries threatened the existence of white-tailed deer, but precolonial Indigenous hunting and environmental management appear to have been relatively sustainable, and modern regulatory governance in the 20th century forestalled and reversed their looming extinction. Elic Weitzel, Peter Buck Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Smithsonian Institution This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Asus' routers and popular and well-reviewed. As such, there's a good chance you have one of its devices powering your home wifi. If you do, you should probably check on it, since thousands of Asus' routers are now compromised. What happened?Cybersecurity company GreyNoise published a blog post about this router attack on Wednesday. GreyNoise says attackers used brute-force login attempts (running millions of login attempts until the right match is found) and authentication bypasses (forcing your way in around traditional authentication protocols) to break into these routers. Notably, hackers used authentication bypass techniques that aren't assigned CVEs (common vulnerabilities and exposures). CVEs are labels used to track publicly disclosed security vulnerabilities, which means the security vulnerabilities were either unknown or known only to a limited circle.Once in, hackers exploited the Asus router's CVE-2023-39780 vulnerability to run whatever commands they wanted. Hackers enabled SSH (secure shell) access through Asus' settings, which let them connect to and control the devices. They then stored the configuration—or backdoor—in NVRAM, rather than the disk of the router. The hackers did not leave malware behind, and even disabled logging, which makes their attacks difficult to detect. It's not clear who is behind these attacks, but GreyNoise did say the following: "The tactics used in this campaign—stealthy initial access, use of built-in system features for persistence, and careful avoidance of detection—are consistent with those seen in advanced, long-term operations, including activity associated with advanced persistent threat (APT) actors and operational relay box (ORB) networks. While GreyNoise has made no attribution, the level of tradecraft suggests a well-resourced and highly capable adversary."How did GreyNoise find out?Sift, GreyNoise’s AI technology, first detected an issue on March 17, noticing unusual traffic. GreyNoise uses fully emulated Asus profiles running factory firmware to test for issues like these, which let researchers observe the attackers' full behavior, reproduce the attack, and discover how the backdoor was installed. Researchers at the company received Sift’s report the following day, and began researching, coordinating with “government and industry partners.” GreyNoise reported that, as of May 27, nearly 9,000 routers were confirmed compromised. The company is pulling that data from Censys, which keeps tabs on internet-facing devices throughout the world. To make matters worse, the affected devices only continue to increase: As of this piece, there were 9,022 impacted routers listed on Censys' site. Luckily, GreyNoise reports that Asus patched the security vulnerability in a recent firmware update. However, if the router was compromised before the patch was installed, the backdoor hackers put into the router will not be removed. Even if this is the case, you can take action to protect your router.If you have an Asus router, do thisFirst, confirm your router is actually made by Asus. If it is, log in to your router via your internet browser. Logging into your router varies by device, but according to Asus, you can head to www.asusrouter.com, or enter your router's IP address into your address bar, then log in with your Asus router username and password. Asus says if this is the first time you've logged into the router, you'll need to set up your account.From here, identify the "Enable SSD" settings option. (You may find this under "Service" or "Administration," according to PCMag.) You'll know the router is compromised if you see that someone can log in via SSH over port 53828 with the following key: ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAABIwAAAQEAo41nBoVFfj4HlVMGV+YPsxMDrMlbdDZ (the rest of the key has been cut for length).Now, disable the SSH entry and block these IP addresses: 101.99.91.151101.99.94.17379.141.163.179111.90.146.237From here, factory reset your router. Unfortunately, the patch alone won't be enough, since the attack survives any update. A total reset is the only way to be sure your router is protected. However, if you see your router was not affected here, install the latest firmware update ASAP. Unaffected routers that install the latest patch will be protected from this type of attack going forward.

The Communications Workers of America, the union representing QA testers at ZeniMax, announced today that it has reached a tentative agreement on a labor contract with Microsoft. If implemented, this contract will be one of the first to go into effect at one of the big AAA game publishers.Last month, the union voted to authorize a strike in response to challenges to the contract negotiation process; this agreement would avoid a strike from being carried out. In a press release, CWA shared that the agreed contract would grant ZeniMax employees significantly increased protections and would raise pay across the board. It would also implement guidelines on the use of AI, restrict "arbitrary dismissal," and create processes to ensure that QA testers adequately receive credit in video games that they contribute to.QA testing has been a hotspot of unionization efforts in the games industry, some of which have been targeted with union-busting efforts. At ZeniMax, the QA testers' union represents around 300 employees and has been fighting for several years for this contract. In response to the agreement, Jessee Leese, a QA tester and union representative at ZeniMax, stated, "Video games have been the revenue titan of the entire entertainment industry for years, and the workers who develop these games are too often exploited for their passion and creativity. Organizing unions, bargaining for a contract, and speaking with one collective voice has allowed workers to take back the autonomy we all deserve."Continue Reading at GameSpot

In April, Paul Graham, the founder of the tech startup accelerator Y Combinator, sent a tweet in response to former YC president and current OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Altman had just bid a public goodbye to GPT-4 on X, and Graham had a follow-up question.  “If you had [GPT-4’s model weights] etched on a piece of metal in the most compressed form,” Graham wrote, referring to the values that determine the model’s behavior, “how big would the piece of metal have to be? This is a mostly serious question. These models are history, and by default digital data evaporates.”  There is no question that OpenAI pulled off something historic with its release of ChatGPT 3.5 in 2022. It set in motion an AI arms race that has already changed the world in a number of ways and seems poised to have an even greater long-term effect than the short-term disruptions to things like education and employment that we are already beginning to see. How that turns out for humanity is something we are still reckoning with and may be for quite some time. But a pair of recent books both attempt to get their arms around it with accounts of what two leading technology journalists saw at the OpenAI revolution.  In Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI, Karen Hao tells the story of the company’s rise to power and its far-reaching impact all over the world. Meanwhile, The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI, and the Race to Invent the Future, by the Wall Street Journal’s Keach Hagey, homes in more on Altman’s personal life, from his childhood through the present day, in order to tell the story of OpenAI. Both paint complex pictures and show Altman in particular as a brilliantly effective yet deeply flawed creature of Silicon Valley—someone capable of always getting what he wants, but often by manipulating others.  Hao, who was formerly a reporter with MIT Technology Review, began reporting on OpenAI while at this publication and remains an occasional contributor. One chapter of her book grew directly out of that reporting. And in fact, as Hao says in the acknowledgments of Empire of AI, some of her reporting for MIT Technology Review, a series on AI colonialism, “laid the groundwork for the thesis and, ultimately, the title of this book.” So you can take this as a kind of disclaimer that we are predisposed to look favorably on Hao’s work.  With that said, Empire of AI is a powerful work, bristling not only with great reporting but also with big ideas. This comes across in service to two main themes.  The first is simple: It is the story of ambition overriding ethics. The history of OpenAI as Hao tells it (and as Hagey does too) is very much a tale of a company that was founded on the idealistic desire to create a safety-focused artificial general intelligence but instead became more interested in winning. This is a story we’ve seen many times before in Big Tech. See Theranos, which was going to make diagnostics easier, or Uber, which was founded to break the cartel of “Big Taxi.” But the closest analogue might be Google, which went from “Don’t be evil” to (at least in the eyes of the courts) illegal monopolist. For that matter, consider how Google went from holding off on releasing its language model as a consumer product out of an abundance of caution to rushing a chatbot out the door to catch up with and beat OpenAI. In Silicon Valley, no matter what one’s original intent, it always comes back to winning.   The second theme is more complex and forms the book’s thesis about what Hao calls AI colonialism. The idea is that the large AI companies act like traditional empires, siphoning wealth from the bottom rungs of society in the forms of labor, creative works, raw materials, and the like to fuel their ambition and enrich those at the top of the ladder. “I’ve found only one metaphor that encapsulates the nature of what these AI power players are: empires,” she writes. “During the long era of European colonialism, empires seized and extracted resources that were not their own and exploited the labor of the people they subjugated to mine, cultivate, and refine those resources for the empires’ enrichment.” She goes on to chronicle her own growing disillusionment with the industry. “With increasing clarity,” she writes, “I realized that the very revolution promising to bring a better future was instead, for people on the margins of society, reviving the darkest remnants of the past.”  To document this, Hao steps away from her desk and goes out into the world to see the effects of this empire as it sprawls across the planet. She travels to Colombia to meet with data labelers tasked with teaching AI what various images show, one of whom she describes sprinting back to her apartment for the chance to make a few dollars. She documents how workers in Kenya who performed data-labeling content moderation for OpenAI came away traumatized by seeing so much disturbing material. In Chile she documents how the industry extracts precious resources—water, power, copper, lithium—to build out data centers.  She lands on the ways people are pushing back against the empire of AI across the world. Hao draws lessons from New Zealand, where Maori people are attempting to save their language using a small language model of their own making. Trained on volunteers’ voice recordings and running on just two graphics processing units, or GPUs, rather than the thousands employed by the likes of OpenAI, it’s meant to benefit the community, not exploit it.  Hao writes that she is not against AI. Rather: “What I reject is the dangerous notion that broad benefit from AI can only be derived from—indeed will ever emerge from—a vision of the technology that requires the complete capitulation of our privacy, our agency, and our worth, including the value of our labor and art, toward an ultimately imperial centralization project … [The New Zealand model] shows us another way. It imagines how AI could be exactly the opposite. Models can be small and task-specific, their training data contained and knowable, ridding the incentives for widespread exploitative and psychologically harmful labor practices and the all-consuming extractivism of producing and running massive supercomputers.”  Hagey’s book is more squarely focused on Altman’s ambition, which she traces back to his childhood. Yet interestingly, she also  zeroes in on the OpenAI CEO’s attempt to create an empire. Indeed, “Altman’s departure from YC had not slowed his civilization-building ambitions,” Hagey writes. She goes on to chronicle how Altman, who had previously mulled a run for governor of California, set up experiments with income distribution via Tools for Humanity, the parent company of Worldcoin. She quotes Altman saying of it, “I thought it would be interesting to see … just how far technology could accomplish some of the goals that used to be done by nation-states.”  Overall, The Optimist is the more straightforward business biography of the two. Hagey has packed it full with scoops and insights and behind-the-scenes intrigue. It is immensely readable as a result, especially in the second half, when OpenAI really takes over the story. Hagey also seems to have been given far more access to Altman and his inner circles, personal and professional, than Hao did, and that allows for a fuller telling of the CEO’s story in places. For example, both writers cover the tragic story of Altman’s sister Annie, her estrangement from the family, and her accusations in particular about suffering sexual abuse at the hands of Sam (something he and the rest of the Altman family vehemently deny). Hagey’s telling provides a more nuanced picture of the situation, with more insight into family dynamics.  Hagey concludes by describing Altman’s reckoning with his role in the long arc of human history and what it will mean to create a “superintelligence.” His place in that sweep is something that clearly has consumed the CEO’s thoughts. When Paul Graham asked about preserving GPT-4, for example, Altman had a response at the ready. He replied that the company had already considered this, and that the sheet of metal would need to be 100 meters square.