A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in PyTorch 2.6.0. Affected is the function torch.nn.functional.ctc_loss of the file aten/src/ATen/native/LossCTC.cpp. The manipulation leads to denial of service. An attack has to be approached locally. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The name of the patch is 46fc5d8e360127361211cb237d5f9eef0223e567. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue.

**Exploitability Metrics**

Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.

Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.

Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.

User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.

**Vulnerable System Impact Metrics**

Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.

Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).

Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.

**Subsequent System Impact Metrics**

Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.

Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).

Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.

GHSA-887c-mr87-cxwp: PyTorch Improper Resource Shutdown or Release vulnerability

The attacks have been going on since shortly after Microsoft patched the vulnerability in March.

Multiple Groups Exploit NTLM Flaw in Microsoft Windows

Bots now account for half of all internet traffic, according to a new study that shows how non-human activity has grown online.

If you sometimes feel that the internet isn’t the same vibrant place it used to be, you’re not alone. New research suggests that most of the traffic traversing the network isn’t human at all.

Bots (software programs that interact with web sites) have been ubiquitous for years. But in its 2025 Bad Bot Report, application security company Imperva claimed this is the first time traffic from bots became more prevalent than human traffic.

The rise in bots is down to generative artificial intelligence (AI), Imperva said. This is the same technology that now flirts with people online for you and automatically writes heartfelt consolatory emails on behalf of heartless administrators. This tech has made it easier to create bots that do your bidding online. While some of those bots are benign, not all have your best interests at heart.

**The rise of bad bots**

Traffic from “bad bots”—those created with malicious intent—first surpassed good bot traffic in 2016, Imperva’s research said, and it’s been getting worse. Bad bots comprised 37% of internet traffic in 2024, up from 32% the year prior. Good bots accounted for just 14% of the internet’s traffic.

Bad bots do all kinds of unpleasant things. An increasing number try to hijack peoples’ online accounts, which they often do by “credential stuffing.” This is where a bot takes a password and email address that has been stolen and leaked online, and then tries those credentials across a myriad of services in the hope that its owner will have reused the password elsewhere.

These account takeover attacks have skyrocketed lately. December 2024 saw around 330,000 such incidents, up from around 190,000 in December 2023. That could be down to a flood of data breaches that flooded the market with more stolen credentials to try, Imperva said.

Other attacks include scraping data from websites, which is a problem for businesses that don’t want their intellectual property stolen, and also for the individuals who own that data.

Cyber criminals use bots to commit payment fraud by exploiting vulnerabilities in checkout systems. There’s also a thriving business in scalping bots that buy everything from event tickets to new sneakers for high-value resale, denying legitimate customers the opportunity to buy these items for themselves.

The report also found bots targeting specific sectors. The travel industry accounted for 27% of bad bot traffic (the highest by industry) in 2024, up from 21% in 2023. These bots pull tricks such as pretending to book airline seats online and abandoning the purchase at the last minute, which skews seat pricing.

Retail was the second hardest-hit industry in 2024, accounting for 15% of bot traffic, followed by education at 11%.

Bots are also getting better at evading detection. Faking a browser identity (effectively wearing a digital mask that makes them look like Chrome or Firefox) has been a common tactic for years, but now bots are also using other techniques. These include using IP addresses owned by residential users, which are difficult for web site administrators to spot. Bots are also using virtual private networks to cloak their origin.

AI-enabled bots are also getting far better at cracking CAPTCHAs—the tests that help you to pass as a human when accessing a web site. And malicious software developers are now coding bots that learn about the environment they’re up against and change how they approach it to fly under the radar.

Another change is in the method that these bots use to communicate with their targets. Traditionally, bots would often browse a web page directly, interacting with it in the same way that a human would. That’s changing as newer bots communicate directly with the servers running the web application behind the scenes in their own language. They do this using application programming interfaces (APIs), which are communication channels that programs can use to retrieve information from a web application.

As the bots get smarter and more ubiquitous, what can you do? Sadly, fighting bad bots is largely the job of the companies operating the web applications that serve you and use your data. However, there are a couple of things you can do as an individual to protect yourself and the community at large.

*   **Don’t reuse passwords.** Use a different password for every service you use to stop the credential stuffing bots, and make those passwords complex to avoid brute-force attacks. Use a trusted password manager to keep those passwords safe and easily accessible.
*   **Protect your PC.** Install anti-malware software and follow basic cyber hygiene measures. This will help to prevent attackers from compromising your machine and using it for their own online purposes.
*   **Don’t become a proxy.** Attackers might be able to use your IP address as a proxy for their bots if you don’t protect it. Avoid using untrusted VPNs from suspicious sources, as these have been known to sell your IP address on for others to use. Similarly, take a minute to update the hardware on your home router, or ensure that your telecommunications provider does it if the router came from them. Attackers will often compromise vulnerable routers and use them for bot attacks.

**We don’t just report on threats—we remove them**

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

 Hi, robot: Half of all internet traffic now automated 

Researchers discovered new variants of the malware, which is tied to a China-nexus threat group, targeting Windows environments of critical infrastructure networks in Europe.

China-Linked Hackers Lay Brickstorm Backdoors on Euro Networks

Trend Micro researchers detailed an emerging ransomware campaign by a new group known as "CrazyHunter" that is targeting critical sectors in Taiwan.

Ransomware gang 'CrazyHunter' Targets Critical Taiwanese Orgs

The CVE Program is the primary way software vulnerabilities are tracked. Its long-term future remains in limbo even after a last-minute renewal of the US government contract that funds it.

In an eleventh-hour scramble before a key contract was set to expire on Tuesday night, the United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency renewed its funding for the longtime software-vulnerability-tracking project known as the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures Program. Managed by the nonprofit research-and-development group MITRE, the CVE Program is a linchpin of global cybersecurity—providing critical data and services for digital defense and research.

The CVE Program is governed by a board that sets an agenda and priorities for MITRE to carry out using CISA's funding. A CISA spokesperson said on Wednesday that the contract with MITRE is being extended for 11 months. “The CVE Program is invaluable to the cyber community and a priority of CISA,” they said in a statement. “Last night, CISA executed the option period on the contract to ensure there will be no lapse in critical CVE services. We appreciate our partners’ and stakeholders’ patience.”

MITRE's vice president and director of the Center for Securing the Homeland, Yosry Barsoum, said in a statement on Wednesday that “CISA identified incremental funding to keep the Programs operational.” With the clock ticking down before this decision came out, though, some members of the CVE Program's board announced a plan to transition the project into a new nonprofit entity called the CVE Foundation.

“Since its inception, the CVE Program has operated as a US government-funded initiative, with oversight and management provided under contract. While this structure has supported the program’s growth, it has also raised long-standing concerns among members of the CVE Board about the sustainability and neutrality of a globally relied-upon resource being tied to a single government sponsor,” the Foundation wrote in a statement. “This concern has become urgent following an April 15, 2025, letter from MITRE notifying the CVE Board that the US government does not intend to renew its contract for managing the program. While we had hoped this day would not come, we have been preparing for this possibility.”

It is unclear who from the current CVE board is affiliated with the new initiative other than Kent Landfield, a longtime cybersecurity industry member who was quoted in the CVE Foundation statement. The CVE Foundation did not immediately return a request for comment.

CISA did not respond to questions from WIRED about why the fate of the CVE Program contract had been in question and whether it was related to recent budget cuts sweeping the federal government as mandated by the Trump administration.

Researchers and cybersecurity professionals were relieved on Wednesday that the CVE Program hadn't suddenly ceased to exist as the result of unprecedented instability in US federal funding. And many observers expressed cautious optimism that the incident could ultimately make the CVE Program more resilient if it transitions to be an independent entity that isn't reliant on funding from any one government or other single source.

“The CVE Program is critical, and it’s in everyone’s interest that it succeed," says Patrick Garrity, a security researcher at VulnCheck. “Nearly every organization and every security tool is dependent on this information, and it’s not just the US. It’s consumed globally. So it's really, really important that it continues to be a community-provided service, and we need to figure out what to do about this, because losing it would be a risk to everyone.”

Federal procurement records indicate that it costs in the tens of millions of dollars per contract to run the CVE Program. But in the scheme of the losses that can occur from a single cyberattack exploiting unpatched software vulnerabilities, experts tell WIRED, the operational costs seem negligible versus the benefit to US defense alone.

Despite CISA's last-minute funding, the future of the CVE Program is still unclear for the long term. As one source, who requested anonymity because they are a federal contractor, put it: “It's all so stupid and dangerous.”

‘Stupid and Dangerous’: CISA Funding Chaos Threatens Essential Cybersecurity Program

Changes aim to tighten integration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Cybersecurity Framework and help organizations develop a stronger posture to handle privacy risks.

NIST Updates Privacy Framework With AI and Governance Revisions

The tokenizer incorrectly interprets tags with unquoted attribute values that end with a solidus character (/) as self-closing. When directly using Tokenizer, this can result in such tags incorrectly being marked as self-closing, and when using the Parse functions, this can result in content following such tags as being placed in the wrong scope during DOM construction, but only when tags are in foreign content (e.g. <math>, <svg>, etc contexts).

GHSA-vvgc-356p-c3xw: golang.org/x/net vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting

An issue in the component /models/config.py of Whoogle search v0.9.0 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via supplying a crafted search query.

GHSA-2689-cw26-6cpj: Whoogle allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via supplying a crafted search query

Mattermost versions 10.5.x <= 10.5.1, 10.4.x <= 10.4.3, 9.11.x <= 9.11.9 fail to properly enforce the 'Allow users to view/update archived channels' System Console setting, which allows authenticated users to view members and member information of archived channels even when this setting is disabled.

1.  GitHub Advisory Database
2.  GitHub Reviewed
3.  CVE-2025-2564

**Mattermost Incorrect Authorization vulnerability**

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 16, 2025 to the GitHub Advisory Database • Updated Apr 16, 2025

**Package**

gomod github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8 (Go)

**Affected versions**

\>= 10.5.0, < 10.5.2

\>= 10.4.0, < 10.4.4

\>= 9.11.0, < 9.11.10

< 8.0.0-20250314142426-c049748b8863

**Patched versions**

10.5.2

10.4.4

9.11.10

8.0.0-20250314142426-c049748b8863

Published to the GitHub Advisory Database

Apr 16, 2025

Last updated

Apr 16, 2025

Latest News