While countries and companies are fighting over access to encrypted files and chats, our data privacy may get crushed.

Data privacy issues are a hot topic in a world where we apparently don’t know who to trust anymore.

A few weeks ago, we reported how the UK had secretly ordered Apple to provide blanket access to protected cloud backups around the world. This week, Apple decided to pull the plug on Advanced Data Protection (ADP) for UK users.

ADP is an opt-in data security tool designed to provide Apple users a more secure way to protect data stored in their iCloud accounts. Enabling ADP would ensure that even Apple could not access the data, which would mean that Apple was unable to hand over any information to law enforcement.

Something similar happened when Sweden’s law enforcement and security agencies started to push legislation which would force Signal and WhatsApp to create technical backdoors, allowing them to access communications sent over the encrypted messaging apps. The proposed bill prescribes that companies like Signal and WhatsApp need to store all messages sent using the apps.

President of the Signal Foundation, Meredith Whittaker, told Swedish SVT News that the company will leave Sweden if the bill becomes a reality.

So basically, by seeking to obtain encryption backdoors, which are not likely to remain exclusive, these governments are undermining the data privacy options of their citizens. A backdoor can and will eventually be found by those that we absolutely didn’t want to snoop around in our backups and chat logs.

It doesn’t just affect the countries at the heart of the request. The US director of national intelligence is reportedly going to investigate whether the UK broke a bilateral agreement by issuing the order that would allow the British to access backups of data in the company’s encrypted cloud storage systems,

The bilateral agreement in question is the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act) Agreement, which—among other things—bars the UK from issuing demands for the data of US citizens and vice versa. The CLOUD Act primarily allows federal law enforcement to compel US-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data is stored in the US or on foreign soil. Provisions in the act state that the United Kingdom may not issue demands for data of US citizens, nationals, or lawful permanent residents, nor is it authorized to demand the data of persons located inside the US.

Globally, governments and law enforcement agencies continue to seek more control over data through new legislations and rules. States regulate data to protect national security and provide domestic firms access to user (and anonymous) data to boost competitiveness, ease law enforcement’s qualms when accessing data, and ward off foreign surveillance.

But at the end of the day, the criminals that law enforcement agencies are after, will end up using expensive private phone networks, and the general population will be left with tools that have been broken on purpose. Backdoors that have been created will be waiting for cybercriminals to find the cracks and access our “encrypted” data.

Meanwhile, privacy is recognized as a universal human right while data protection is not. And it should be. Even if we think we “have nothing to hide” cybercriminals will find a way to use that data against us, if only to make their phishing attempts more credible. Let alone, trade and economic secrets that could fall into the hands of competitors or “unfriendly” nations.

**We don’t just report on threats – we help safeguard your entire digital identity**

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your—and your family’s—personal information by using identity protection.

 Countries and companies are fighting at the expense of our data privacy 

Sweden’s proposal to mandate encryption backdoors faces backlash from Signal, cybersecurity experts, and even its military over privacy and security risks.

Swedish law enforcement and security agencies are advocating for legislation that would compel encrypted messaging services, such as Signal and WhatsApp, to implement backdoors.

This measure aims to grant authorities access to users’ communications for criminal investigations. However, this proposal has met with strong resistance from both the service providers and Sweden’s own military.

Meredith Whittaker, President of the Signal Foundation, has unequivocally stated that Signal would withdraw from the Swedish market rather than compromise its encryption standards. In an interview with SVT Nyheter, Whittaker emphasized that introducing a backdoor would undermine the app’s entire security architecture, stating, “If you create a vulnerability based on Swedish wishes, it would create a way to undermine our entire network.”

She further stated that Signal’s commitment to user privacy and data protection is paramount, and the organization would not acquiesce to demands that jeopardize this principle.

> Signal has announced that it will “leave Sweden” if the Swedish government mandates encryption backdoors. Many are celebrating this as a bold act of resistance. But what does it actually mean?
> 
> Signal has no offices or legal presence in Sweden. Will they block Swedish IP… https://t.co/ffkD1pyz9n
> 
> — Nadim Kobeissi (@kaepora) February 25, 2025

Interestingly, the Swedish Armed Forces, which have recently adopted Signal for secure, non-classified communications, have also expressed concerns regarding the proposed legislation. In a letter to the government, military officials cautioned that mandating backdoors could introduce vulnerabilities exploitable by malicious actors, thereby compromising national security. This stance highlights a discord between Sweden’s defence priorities and the objectives of its law enforcement agencies.

Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer has defended the proposal, arguing that it is essential for law enforcement to effectively access electronic communications in the fight against serious crimes. The bill, which could be presented to the Riksdag (Swedish Parliament) as early as March next year, seeks to balance the needs of national security with individual privacy rights, a balance that is proving contentious.

William Wright, CEO of Closed Door Security, criticized the move, stating:

_“Building backdoors into software is akin to deliberately creating vulnerabilities. Once embedded, threat actors will focus on finding and exploiting them, putting millions at risk. History has shown that even government-backed backdoors, like those exploited in the Salt Typhoon attack, can be turned against the very institutions that created them. The long-term risks far outweigh any short-term benefits for law enforcement.”_

This development in Sweden is similar to debates in other countries. Notably, the United Kingdom recently demanded that Apple provide access to encrypted iCloud accounts. In response, Apple chose to remove the option for British users to protect their accounts with end-to-end encryption rather than compromise its security protocols.

These situations highlight the constant struggle between governments wanting access to private data for security reasons and the need to protect people’s privacy. As Sweden debates this proposal, the final decision could have a major impact, not just on encrypted messaging within the country but also on global conversations about privacy and digital security.

Signal Threatens to Exit Sweden Over Government’s Backdoor Proposal

Cybersecurity researchers have flagged an updated version of the LightSpy implant that comes equipped with an expanded set of data collection features to extract information from social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram.
LightSpy is the name given to a modular spyware that's capable of infecting both Windows and Apple systems with an aim to harvest data. It was first documented in

LightSpy Expands to 100+ Commands, Increasing Control Over Windows, macOS, Linux, and Mobile

Welcome to your weekly roundup of cyber news, where every headline gives you a peek into the world of online battles. This week, we look at a huge crypto theft, reveal some sneaky AI scam tricks, and discuss big changes in data protection.
Let these stories spark your interest and help you understand the changing threats in our digital world.
⚡ Threat of the Week
Lazarus Group Linked to

⚡ THN Weekly Recap: From $1.5B Crypto Heist to AI Misuse & Apple’s Data Dilemma

Plus: Apple turns off end-to-end encrypted iCloud backups in the UK after pressure to install a backdoor, and two spyware apps expose victim data—and the identities of people who installed the apps.

As the so-called Department of Government Efficiency continues to rampage through the United States government by making sweeping cuts to the federal workforce, numerous ongoing lawsuits allege that the group’s access to sensitive data violates the Watergate-inspired Privacy Act of 1974 and that it needs to halt its activity. Meanwhile, DOGE cut staff this week at the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and gained access to CISA’s digital systems after the agency had already frozen its eight-year-old election security initiatives late last week.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology was also bracing this week for roughly 500 staffers to be fired, which could have serious impacts on NIST’s cybersecurity standards and software vulnerability tracking work. And cuts last week at the US Digital Service included the cybersecurity lead for the central Veterans Affairs portal, VA.gov, potentially leaving VA systems and data more vulnerable without someone in his role.

Multiple US government departments are now considering bans on China-made TP-Link routers following recent aggressive Chinese digital espionage campaigns. (The company denies any connection to cyberattacks.) A WIRED investigation found that users of Google’s ad tech can target categories that shouldn’t be available under the company’s policies, including people with chronic diseases or those in debt. Advertisers could also target national security “decision makers” and people involved in the development of classified defense technology.

Google researchers warned this week that hackers tied to Russia have been tricking Ukrainian soldiers with fake QR codes for Signal group invites that exploited a flaw to allow the attackers to spy on target messages. Signal has rolled out updates to stop exploitation. And a WIRED deep dive examines how difficult it can be for even the most connected web users to have nonconsensual intimate images and videos of themselves removed from the web.

And there's more. Each week, we round up the security and privacy news we didn’t cover in depth ourselves. Click the headlines to read the full stories. And stay safe out there.

Running a cryptocurrency exchange is a risky business, as hacking victims like Mt. Gox, Bitfinex, FTX, and plenty of others can attest. But never before has a platform for buying and selling crypto lost a 10-figure dollar sum in a single heist. That new record belongs to ByBit, which on Friday revealed that thieves hacked its Ethereum-based holdings. The hackers made off with a sum that totals to $1.4 billion, according to an estimate by cryptocurrency tracing firm Elliptic—the largest crypto theft of all time by some measures.

ByBit CEO Ben Zhou wrote on X that the hackers had used a “musked transaction”—likely a misspelling of “masked transaction”—to trick the exchange into cryptographically signing a change in the code of the smart contract controlling a wallet holding its stockpile of Ethereum. “Please rest assured that all other cold wallets are secure,” Zhou wrote, suggesting that the exchange remained solvent. “All withdraws are NORMAL.” Zhou later added in another note on X that the exchange would be able to cover the loss, which if true suggests that no users will lose their funds.

The theft dwarfs other historic hacks of crypto exchanges like Mt. Gox and FTX, each of which lost sums of cryptocurrency that were worth hundreds of millions of dollars at the time the thefts were discovered. Even the stolen loot from the 2016 Bitfinex heist, which was worth close to $4.5 billion at the time the thieves were identified and the majority of the funds recovered in 2022, was only worth $72 million at the time of the theft. ByBit’s $1.4 billion is by that measure a far bigger loss and, considering that all crypto thefts in 2024 totaled to $2.2 billion, according to blockchain analysis firm Chainalysis, a stunning new benchmark in crypto crime.

**Bowing to a Government Demand, Apple Disables iCloud End-to-End Encryption in the UK**

The British government earlier this month raised privacy alarms worldwide when it demanded that Apple give it access to users’ end-to-end encrypted iCloud data. That data had been protected with Apple’s Advanced Data Protection feature, which encrypts stored user information such that no one other than the user can decrypt it—not even Apple. Now Apple has caved to the UK’s pressure, disabling that end-to-end encryption feature for iCloud across the country. Even as it turned off that protection, Apple expressed its reluctance in a statement: "Enhancing the security of cloud storage with end-to-end-encryption is more urgent than ever before," the company said. "Apple remains committed to offering our users the highest level of security for their personal data and are hopeful that we will be able to do so in future in the UK." Privacy advocates worldwide have argued that the move—and the UK’s push for it—will weaken the security and privacy of British citizens and leave tech companies vulnerable to similar surveillance demands from other governments around the world.

**Cocospy and Spyic Stalkerware Apps Expose Millions of Victims’ Data Online**

The only thing worse than the scourge of stalkerware apps—malware installed on phones by snooping spouses or other hands-on spies to surveil virtually all of the victim’s movements and communications—is when those apps are so badly secured that they also leak victims’ information onto the internet. Stalkerware apps Cocospy and Spyic, which appear to have been developed by someone in China and largely share the same source code, left data stolen from millions of victims exposed, thanks to a security vulnerability in both apps, according to a security researcher who discovered the flaw and shared information about it with TechCrunch. The exposed data included messages, call logs, and photos, TechCrunch found. In a karmic twist, it also included millions of email addresses of the stalkerware’s registered users, who had themselves installed the apps to spy on victims.

$1.4 Billion Stolen From ByBit in Biggest Crypto Theft Ever

Apple is removing its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature for iCloud from the United Kingdom with immediate effect following government demands for backdoor access to encrypted user data.
The development was first reported by Bloomberg.
ADP for iCloud is an optional setting that ensures that users' trusted devices retain sole access to the encryption keys used to unlock data stored in its

Apple Drops iCloud's Advanced Data Protection in the U.K. Amid Encryption Backdoor Demands

Several government departments are investigating TP-Link routers over Chinese cyberattack fears, but the company denies links.

If you buy something using links in our stories, we may earn a commission. This helps support our journalism. Learn more. Please also consider subscribing to WIRED

TP-Link is one of the most popular router manufacturers in the US, but the company is facing a potential ban due to security concerns about its links to China. A December report from The Wall Street Journal revealed that the US Commerce, Defense, and Justice Departments are investigating TP-Link, though no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing has yet emerged.

“We are a US company,” Jeff Barney, president of TP-Link told WIRED, “We have no affiliation with TP-Link Tech, which focuses on mainland China, and we can prove our separateness.”

The investigation was sparked by a letter from John Moolenaar, a Republican for Michigan, and Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat of Illinois. Both are on the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party. They outlined concerns that Chinese state-sponsored hackers may be able to compromise TP-Link’s routers more easily than other brands and thereby infiltrate US systems, and that TP-Link is subject to Chinese law, meaning it can be forced to hand over sensitive US information by Chinese intelligence officials.

Photograph: Simon Hill

TP-Link was founded in China in 1996 by two brothers, and TP-Link USA was established in 2008. It wasn’t until 2022 that the Chinese and US wings began to split. The process of moving the 170 subsidiaries and all the related ownership out of Hong Kong and into the United States was delayed by the pandemic, says Barney, but it was divested and restructured by 2024.

TP-Link now has headquarters in California and Singapore and manufactures in Vietnam. It researches, designs, develops, and manufactures everything except chipsets in-house, according to Barney. “Our entities in China are governed directly by us, our employees badged by us, secured by us, in our own facilities.” He also says TP-Link has shared documentation with investigators and that its factory in Vietnam was audited by US retail partners like Walmart, Best Buy, and Costco.

“Everybody has a Nexus in China,” Barney says. He claims that American rival Netgear uses Chinese ODMs (original device manufacturers) to build its products and that even Apple relies on manufacturing in China. Netgear says its routers are manufactured in Taiwan, Vietnam, and Thailand, not China.

**Competition Concerns**

The WSJ report suggests that TP-Link has a leading 64.9 percent share of the US router market, but TP-Link disputes this. The company claims its share hovered around 20 percent for the last few years, but jumped to a 36.5 percent unit share and a 30.7 percent dollar share in 2024. But even TP-Link’s lower estimate shows a company in the ascendancy. This dominance has been driven by aggressively low prices and a relatively early roll-out of Wi-Fi 7 routers, perceived by some as a concerted effort to flood the US market.

“Technology should not be exorbitant,” Barney says. “We're trying to democratize these products.”

However, the wide product range raises questions, with many wondering how TP-Link can profit from routers sold at such low prices compared to the competition. Former CNET reviewer Dong Ngo explores this point on the in-depth router review website, Dong Knows.

Concerns about the links between Chinese companies and its government are nothing new. The ban on Huawei’s networking equipment and US sanctions came after years of cybersecurity concerns and intellectual property lawsuits brought by US companies. The TikTok ban is not being enforced by President Donald Trump’s administration, but owner ByteDance is still under pressure to divest its US operations. These situations can be tricky for the average person to navigate because the lines between shoddy security, Chinese espionage, US protectionism, and the growing trade war are distinctly blurry and are not mutually exclusive.

It’s no secret that US competitor Netgear has been lobbying the US government on “cybersecurity and strategic competition with China.” Netgear has had a tough couple of years after adopting a premium pricing strategy that did not resonate with consumers. It has also been embroiled in litigation against TP-Link for patent infringement, resulting in TP-Link paying a $135 million settlement in September 2024.

**Are TP-Link Routers Secure?**

TP-Link has signed CISA’s “Secure by Design” pledge and is part of the Technical Exchange Group. It has a vulnerability disclosure program, where independent researchers and the security community can report potential issues to security@tp-link.com. It claims report response time was 8.4 days on average in 2023, with patches released in an average of 38.5 days. The company is also planning to launch a bug bounty program.

Barney claims TP-Link’s rate of vulnerabilities per product is significantly lower than many of its peers, including Netgear and Cisco, citing public data collected by Finite State, an independent US cybersecurity company, from CVE Details, VulDB, and CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency), but not everyone agrees.

“TP-Link does not have a great reputation for patching vulnerabilities or working with security researchers, which does raise alarm bells,” Pieter Arntz, malware intelligence researcher for Malwarebytes told WIRED via email.

Photograph: TP-Link; Data Source: U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

TP-Link was criticized in a recent Microsoft report over a “password spraying” hack that mostly impacted its routers, and the report suggested Chinese “nation-state threat actor activity.” Barney says these were end-of-service products and that Asus and Netgear routers were also impacted.

Other incidents include a Check Point Research exposé of a malicious firmware implant for TP-Link routers, linked to a Chinese state-sponsored “advanced persistent threat” group dubbed “Camaro Dragon.” Cyfirma researchers also found TP-Link router vulnerabilities for sale on underground forums.

“It’s also a challenge because regardless of the home router vendor, there will always be vulnerabilities found,” Arntz says.

A part of the problem with older routers is that the onus is often on the user to download and install updates, and this is rarely automatic or as simple as clicking on “update,” which means many patches are never installed, creating vulnerable devices for any savvy cybercriminals or nation-states. Even months after TP-Link released patches for a vulnerability on its popular Archer AX21 router, hackers continue to scan for and exploit it on unpatched routers.

These security concerns are moot in the face of built-in backdoors. Backdoors can be pieces of code or even hardware added to the circuit board that enables remote parties to gain access and potentially control the device. There’s no evidence that TP-Link devices have backdoors, but, as Ngo points out, when you use an online account with your router, you are already giving the company access through the front door. Whether remote connectivity is justified by the need for automatic software updates, remote control access, or other features for users, it effectively gives the manufacturer access to your router.

**Should You Worry?**

Ultimately, the concern isn’t so much about the Chinese government or other malicious actors spying on your web browsing habits—though that is possible—it’s the idea they might employ your router as a part of a botnet to launch a cyberattack on a US government agency or major service provider.

The NSA has been concerned about Chinese hackers for some time now, and China's Salt Typhoon spies continue to infiltrate US internet service providers and telecommunications companies. Speaking on the _NatSec Tech_ podcast recently, former special assistant to the president and cybersecurity coordinator on the US National Security Council, Rob Joyce, likened TP-Link routers to a Trojan Horse and suggested China is pre-positioning for a potentially devastating attack on US infrastructure.

While some cybersecurity experts suggest a ban is imminent, Barney is confident that TP-Link routers won’t be banned. Investigations are ongoing. Even if the government doesn't find anything or decides against a ban, it won’t publicly clear TP-Link. It’s more likely the investigation will fade from the news.

Photograph: Simon Hill

For owners of a TP-Link router or anyone considering buying one, it all boils down to trust. We've tested and recommend several TP-Link routers and Deco mesh systems in our buying guides because they offer good value and great performance. But we continually update our guides and will monitor the situation before deciding whether we need to reconsider those recommendations.

There’s no easy fix because all the major router manufacturers have issues with vulnerabilities, and most of them require you to use an online account. You can go down the rabbit hole with router security, or seek out security-focused brands like Firewalla, but expect to pay more for your equipment in both time and money.

Even if you stick with what you have, there are steps you can take to be more secure online. We recommend using a VPN service and learning a little about router settings. Malwarebytes’ Arntz says the most secure router is the one on which you are comfortable changing the settings: credentials, firewall options, and especially installing updates.

Here’s his advice for home TP-Link router owners who are concerned:

*   First, update your login credentials. Ensure you have moved away from the default login credentials set by the router manufacturer (or internet provider). Make this password different from your Wi-Fi name and password. And remember, length equals strength when it comes to passwords.
*   Second, patch your device and set a reminder to check regularly for firmware updates.
*   Third, turn on the firewall and Wi-Fi encryption. You can find these settings by logging into your router from its app or website.
*   Finally, consider purchasing a new router from a different vendor with a less problematic history.

TP-Link also manufactures a wide range of smart home devices marketed under the Tapo brand, including everything from security cameras to water leak detectors. These are not part of the current investigation, which seems to be focused solely on routers. TP-Link says it has applied to the FCC’s Cyber Trust Mark program administered by UL Solutions, which ensures that internet-of-things devices are tested and labeled secure. Sadly, there is no such program for routers.

The US Is Considering a TP-Link Router Ban—Should You Worry?

Fake browser update scams now target Mac, Windows, and Android users, delivering malware like FrigidStealer, Lumma Stealer, and…

Fake browser update scams now target Mac, Windows, and Android users, delivering malware like FrigidStealer, Lumma Stealer, and Marcher trojan through compromised websites.

Cybersecurity researchers at Proofpoint have identified two new cybercriminal groups behind a wave of fake browser update scams designed to infect users with malware. These groups, tracked as TA2726 and TA2727, are using compromised websites to trick visitors into downloading malicious software with now including a newly discovered Mac-specific information stealer called FrigidStealer.

****How the Attack Works****

The scam relies on web injects, a technique where attackers insert malicious code into legitimate websites. When users visit an infected site, they see a fake browser update prompt urging them to download and install an update. Instead of a real update, the download delivers malware that can steal sensitive data or install more dangerous payloads.

****TA2726 and TA2727****

TA2726 operates as a traffic seller, essentially providing this redirection service for other malicious actors. Researchers believe that TA2726 appears to be working alongside TA569, a previously known threat actor and once the main player in “fake update” campaigns. TA2727, on the other hand, according to Proofpoint’s blog post, is actively distributing malware itself, often employing the “fake update” ruse to trick users.

One recent campaign observed TA2727 delivering different malware based on the victim’s location. In the United States and Canada, users were directed to the SocGholish inject, which led to the installation of malware. But in Europe, Windows users encountered a fake browser update prompt that installed the Lumma Stealer, while Android users were targeted with the Marcher banking trojan.

****FrigidStealer macOS Malware****

The new FrigidStealer targets Mac users, and the attack starts with a fake update message that redirects them to a malicious file. If clicked, the file, disguised as a browser update (both Chrome and Safari), installs the information stealer. FrigidStealer then secretly harvests sensitive data like browser cookies, files related to passwords and cryptocurrencies, and even Apple Notes, just like the recently spotted new variant of the XCSSET malware.

Fake Safari and Chrome browser update websites delivering FrigidStealer (Via: Proofpoint)

The malware is written in Go and uses WailsIO, a framework that allows the fake update window to look realistic. It also bypasses Mac’s Gatekeeper security feature by requiring users to right-click and select “Open,” a common trick used by Mac malware authors.

****Windows and Android Users Also Targeted****

Mac users aren’t the only ones at risk. The same attack chain has been found delivering Marcher banking trojan for Android and Lumma Stealer and DeerStealer for Windows.

For Android users, clicking the update downloads Marcher, a banking trojan that has been active since 2013 and is designed to steal login credentials from banking apps. If a Windows user clicks the fake update, they receive an MSI installer that loads a trojanized DLL, ultimately running Lumma Stealer to extract credentials and financial data.

Users can still protect themselves by learning basic cybersecurity practices, learning how to spot a phishing email, avoiding third-party apps and tools, and scanning files and links on sites like VirusTotal or ANY.RUN.

New FrigidStealer Malware Infects macOS via Fake Browser Updates

The continent faces "relentless" military espionage, and increased cyber sabotage at the hands of authoritarian regimes, according to a high-ranking intelligence director.

Source: Christophe Coat via Alamy Stock Photo

Australian intelligence is projecting that foreign nations will increasingly attempt to sabotage its country's critical infrastructure.

On Feb. 19, Mike Burgess, director-general of security in charge of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), delivered an annual threat assessment encompassing the many national security threats facing Australia. Among the most important, he noted, are the ways in which foreign threat actors are weaponizing artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled disinformation and deepfakes, military espionage, and attacks against critical infrastructure that could cause damage to the military, government, and social cohesion.

"ASIO's report reflects an increasingly combative international relations environment, increasing competition between great powers, and Australia's position in all of this — one which is both strategically critical and geographically fragile," Bugcrowd founder Casey Ellis says. "Critical infrastructure is the primary target \[of nation-states\] in the cyber domain. Eleven percent of cybersecurity incidents in the past year in Australia have focused on critical infrastructure, with mounting evidence of adversaries positioning themselves for opportunistic strikes in a way that mirrors tactics observed targeting the US."

**Threats to Australia's Military and Civilians**

Burgess has now made six threat assessments since taking office in 2019, but none quite like his latest. "I think it's fair to say it's the most significant, serious, and sober address so far," he said on Wednesday.

Of the cyber threats to the country, Burgess highlighted a few primary areas of concern.

First, the power that AI gives to malicious governments and criminal threat actors. "Artificial intelligence will enable disinformation and deepfakes that can promote false narratives, undermine factual information, and erode trust in institutions," he explained. "Espionage and foreign interference will be enabled by advances in technology, particularly artificial intelligence and deeper online pools of personal data vulnerable to collection, exploitation, and analysis by foreign intelligence services."

AI has been a source of increasing concern around data collection for years. Major Silicon Valley companies have had no reticence in training their models on unauthorized data around the Web, a practice made even more worrying now that the latest chatbot comes from an authoritarian state.

Burgess also spoke of "greater threats" against Australia's military. "Defence personnel are being targeted in person and online. Some were recently given gifts by international counterparts. The presents contained concealed surveillance devices," he said. He went on to describe the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the UK, and the US (AUKUS) as "a priority target for intelligence collection, including by countries we consider friendly. ASIO has identified foreign services seeking to target AUKUS to position themselves to collect on the capabilities, how Australia intends to use them, and to undermine the confidence of our allies."

**Foreign Nations Eye AUS Critical Infrastructure**

ASIO also assessed that "authoritarian regimes are growing more willing to disrupt or destroy critical infrastructure to impede decision-making, damage war-fighting capabilities, and sow social discord."

Burgess pointed to Russia's war in Ukraine as an obvious case study in how governments can sabotage critical infrastructure to cause both physical and cyber consequences. And it's not like the threat to Australia's infrastructure is merely theoretical, either.

"Cyber units from at least one nation state routinely try to explore and exploit Australia’s critical infrastructure networks, almost certainly mapping systems so they can lay down malware or maintain access in the future," Burgess said. "We recently discovered one of those units targeting critical networks in the US. ASIO worked closely with our American counterpart to evict the hackers and shut down their global accesses, including nodes here in Australia."

Even in times without war, he warned, "foreign regimes are expected to become more determined to, and more capable of, pre-positioning cyber access vectors they can exploit in the future."

**About the Author**

Nate Nelson is a writer based in New York City. He formerly worked as a reporter at Threatpost, and wrote "Malicious Life," an award-winning Top 20 tech podcast on Apple and Spotify. Outside of Dark Reading, he also co-hosts "The Industrial Security Podcast."

Australian Critical Infrastructure Faces 'Acute' Foreign Threats

While AI-generation services and major camera makers are adopting the specification for digitally signed metadata, creating a workflow around the nascent ecosystem is still a challenge.

Source: Thapana\_Studio via Shutterstock

The effort to establish digitally verifiable images, video, and other content using signed metadata known as Content Credentials promises an internet where users can easily determine the source of media and whether it is authentic. An easy-to-use implementation of that vision is still under construction.

The brainchild of the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), Content Credentials allow the signing of a metadata audit trail — a manifest — that accompanies images and other media. A photo could be captured with a smartphone, cropped and lightened with photo-editing software, and then compressed by a content delivery network. Content Credentials show each of those steps as part of an audit log, which provides people with information about whether the content they are viewing is real or has been somehow modified. The companies behind the standard include internet providers, software makers, device technology makers, and media giants.

In the last year, major camera makers — Canon, FujiFilm, Leica, Nikon, and Sony — announced support for the Content Credentials standard, but only a few models with the capability have hit the market. Leica has released its second camera with the technology, the Leica SL3-S. At this year's Consumer Electronics Show in January, Samsung announced its upcoming Galaxy S25 mobile phone will support Content Credentials, but only to label images that have been edited by AI. It will not label the original photo taken with the smartphone's camera.

And other major smartphone makers, such as Apple, have not announced support for the standard yet.

Meanwhile, computer-based editing software that supports Content Credentials is mainly limited to Adobe's products. As a founder of the content-authenticity movement, Adobe has extensive support for Content Credentials in its own products — such as a beta feature in Photoshop and tagging images generated with its generative AI service, Adobe Firefly.

Still, some islands of functionality have appeared: Images from OpenAI's DALL-e and Adobe's Firefly are labeled with Content Credentials tagging them as AI-generated, while end-to-end services, such as Truepic, use the technology in its platform to digitally sign and authenticate images.

It's a good start, but an end-to-end workflow requires more: Cameras or smartphones to generate signed images, support for Content Credentials in a wide variety of image-editing software, and the ability to view authenticated metadata on social media and websites.

"It is crucial to ensure that Content Credentials are enabled on all devices throughout the entire workflow—from capture to editing to sharing," says Nico Köhler, head of product experiences for Leica Camera AG. "This requires that all tools and platforms involved in the process support Content Credentials. ... Ensuring compatibility across the entire workflow is key to preserving the authenticity of the content."

**Where Does the Content Credential Work?**

Closed end-to-end ecosystems that incorporate the Content Credentials specification show the potential of the digital authentication feature.

Truepic, for example, essentially created its own end-to-end authenticated image service based on Content Credentials, allowing companies to know the provenance of images. Credit bureaus can request authenticated images of office locations to verify legitimate businesses, dispensing with the need for expensive on-site visits. Insurance companies can request photos of damaged assets from policyholders, avoiding deepfake and edited photos from claiming fictitious damages.

Because smartphones do not yet have the Content Credential technology embedded in the device, Truepic requires its app be used to take photos and video.

"We believe that unless a digital process is backed and secured by image and data authentication, enterprises will not be able to address or even understand the amount of fraud they are missing," says Mounir Ibrahim, chief communications officer at Truepic. "With widespread adoption of credentials, businesses will have a stronger foundation for detecting tampering and ensuring content authenticity, but they will still need a trusted verification platform that can ingest, analyze, and validate digital content at scale and within their environments."

**Interoperable Workflow is Still Not Ready**

While different manufacturers are releasing specific implementations of Content Credentials, creating an end-to-end workflow for images — from creation to editing to distribution to end users — continues to be a challenge.

In early February, for example, Cloudflare tackled one small part of a typical workflow, the content delivery network, announcing that its CDN service would preserve image credentials, even through automated compression and image resizing. Most current infrastructure inadvertently strips away the Content Credential or invalidates the signature by transforming the image.

The Cloudflare changes allow its Images service to add actions to the Content Credential manifest and re-authenticate using the company's credentials, Will Allen, head of privacy and media products at Cloudflare, wrote in a blog post describing the feature.

"When you use Images to resize or change the file format to your images, these transformations will be cryptographically signed by Cloudflare," he said. "This ensures, for example, that the end-user who sees the photograph on your website can use an open-source verification service ... to verify the full provenance chain."

The Content Credential ecosystem at work. A picture taken with a Leica camera is edited with Adobe Photoshop, with each stage documented in the credential. Source: Contentcredential.org/verify using Leica image

Yet, even companies that are forging ahead with their own services look forward to when the wrinkles in the interoperability are ironed out. Truepic's Ibrahim, for example, argues that greater support is the end goal.

"Although closed ecosystems and business processes are where our clients are deriving the most benefit today, we see this as the first step to a more authentic internet," he says. "Interoperable standards will be the essential foundation to a more trusted digital ecosystem and shared global economy."

**About the Author**

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline Journalism (Online) in 2003 for coverage of the Blaster worm. Crunches numbers on various trends using Python and R. Recent reports include analyses of the shortage in cybersecurity workers and annual vulnerability trends.

Tag

#apple