# Summary
When loading an (untrusted) XML document, for example the SAMLResponse, it's possible to induce an XXE.

## Mitigation:

Remove the `LIBXML_DTDLOAD | LIBXML_DTDATTR` options from `$options` is in: https://github.com/simplesamlphp/saml2/blob/717c0adc4877ebd58428637e5626345e59fa0109/src/SAML2/DOMDocumentFactory.php#L41

## Background / details

To be published on Dec 8.

**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-2x65-fpch-2fcm: SimpleSAMLphp xml-common XXE vulnerability

The usage of String.toLowerCase() and String.toUpperCase() has some Locale dependent exceptions that could potentially result in authorization rules not working properly.

GHSA-q3v6-hm2v-pw99: Spring Framework has Authorization Bypass for Case Sensitive Comparisons

Microsoft is readying a new release of Windows in 2025 that will have significant security controls, such as more resilient drivers and a "self-defending" operating system kernel.

Source: mundissima via Shutterstock

Microsoft is making sweeping changes to its Windows operating system (OS) in the wake of this past summer's flawed CrowdStrike update, which caused millions of commercial devices to crash and cost customers billions of dollars in downtime.

The incident was a major impetus for the new Windows Resiliency Initiative, introduced and outlined during a session at last week's Microsoft Ignite conference. Microsoft officials said the changes are being made based on what they learned from the July 19 event, resulting in what they promised to be a more reliable and secure OS in 2025.

David Weston, Microsoft's vice president of enterprise and OS security, identified three objectives intended to make Windows more secure: faster and simpler recovery times, more resilient drivers, and tools and changes to how the OS kernel is secured to make it "more effective and self-defending."

The changes will also affect software developers and third-party security tool providers.

"We're working together across the industry and will improve reliability, based on lessons from July, with new changes and standards in the OS," said Pavan Davuluri, corporate VP for Windows and devices at Microsoft.

The new Windows release is being designed to resist malware and script attacks with stronger controls for applications and drivers, while improved identity protection aims to prevent phishing attacks. Microsoft is also establishing a new approach to privilege access management, Davuluri said.

Microsoft will release a preview of the new release to Windows Insiders next July. It will include tighter controls over what applications and software drivers are permitted to run, stronger identity management, quick machine recovery, personal data encryption for folders, and improved OS management and configuration capabilities.

The release is poised to arrive just as Microsoft ends support for Windows 10 on Oct. 14, 2025. Although Microsoft has been encouraging customers to upgrade to Windows 11, which was released in 2021, on an ongoing basis, nearly 61% of all PCs worldwide still have Windows 10, according to Statcounter.

**Enabling Security Partners to Build Outside the Kernel**

Further, tied to its long-term Secure Future Initiative announced a year ago, Microsoft is moving to safer programming languages by incrementally shifting from C++ to Rust. A new Windows Resilient Security Platform will enable third-party security product developers to build their products outside of the kernel, Weston explained.

"We're ensuring this platform will enable security solution providers to have the access they need to detect and respond to threats without introducing complexity into the kernel," he said. "This change will help end-user protection and antivirus products provide a high level of security and easier recovery."

While the moves should make Windows more resilient to attacks, Forrester senior analyst Paddy Harrington would like to see Microsoft tighten access even further.

"I would much prefer it if Microsoft bit the bullet and put the walls back up. That would mean recoding for everyone who messes in the kernel driver world, including Microsoft, but it's a safer method of operation," says Harrington, who first opined on that point in a July blog post.

**Post-Incident Security Summit in Redmond**

Two months after the CrowdStrike incident, Microsoft hosted its Windows Endpoint Security Ecosystem Summit, in Redmond, Wash., with security vendors and representatives of the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) on hand to discuss how to make the OS more resilient.

Leading into the meeting, Weston indicated that an examination of Windows crash reports signaled the need to change how kernel drivers are deployed.

"Since kernel drivers run at the most trusted level of Windows, where containment and recovery capabilities are, by nature, constrained, security vendors must carefully balance needs like visibility and tamper resistance with the risk of operating within kernel mode," Weston wrote in a July 27 post.

Following the summit, CISA last month published its Safe Software Deployment white paper, co-authored by the FBI, the Australian Signals Directorate's Australian Cyber Security Centre, and the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative.

Omdia principal analyst Andrew Braunberg says that Microsoft is one of numerous vendors that have issued statements of support for CISA's Secure by Design pledge. However, it remains to be seen if it will follow through.

"It will be interesting to see if there is any change in behavior from Microsoft and other large software companies because of \[Donald\] Trump's win \[of the U.S. presidential election\]," Braunberg says. "These companies may reassess the external benefits of this support given a reduced, or eliminated, CISA under the new administration. There are international drivers for embracing Secure by Design principles, such as the EU Cyber Resiliency Act, but CISA has been the primary advocate in the US."

Nevertheless, Weston described CISA as playing an essential role in determining Microsoft's revamped security and resiliency standards for Windows endpoints.

"They are providing a framework for the whole IT industry to ensure that all partners, customers, and organizations are able to stay ahead of evolving security threats," he said.

Among the vendors at Microsoft's summit was CrowdStrike, which signaled it is endorsing Microsoft's Windows Resiliency Initiative.

"Microsoft's initiatives build on the discussions CrowdStrike participated in at the Windows Endpoint Security Summit in September, and we welcome innovations that enhance resiliency for our shared customers," a CrowdStrike spokesperson said. "The entire industry benefits when we collaborate to create a more resilient and open ecosystem that strengthens security for all."

Endpoint protection provider ESET is offering conditional support for Microsoft's initiative.

"In general, we support this evolution if it demonstrates measurable improvements to stability and strongly stress this must be on condition that any change must not weaken security, affect performance, or limit the choice and differentiation between cybersecurity solutions for customers," says ESET CTO Juraj Malcho.

**Shifting to Trusted Apps and Drivers**

Because many attacks result from users who download malicious or unsafe apps and drivers, Microsoft is adding Smart App Control and App Control for Business to Windows. These features use artificial intelligence to let administrators employ policies that require verified applications, according to Weston. He noted that Microsoft already offers this through App Locker, but it is complicated to manage.

A feature called "robust app control" will ensure that only verified apps can run, eliminating attacks from malicious attachments and socially engineered malware, he added.

**Thwarting Identity-Based Attacks and Overprivileged Accounts**

According to Microsoft's Entra ID data, more than 600 million identity attacks occur every day, 99% of which are password-based. In response, Microsoft has hardened its Windows Hello multifactor authentication capability, which uses biometrics. Microsoft has extended Windows Hello support for passkeys.

As part of its latest Windows Insider build, last week Microsoft released a preview of updates to its implementation of the WebAuthn APIs that will enable plug-in support for passkeys. In the coming months, Microsoft said third-party password managers will work with the native Windows passkey provider using Windows Hello. 

The new Windows release will also aim to reduce attacks resulting from users who have too many privileges and organizations that have insufficient privilege controls, which, according to Microsoft's Digital Defense report, are the cause of 93% of ransomware attacks.

A new feature called "administrator protection" will give employees standard user permissions by default "so they can still make Windows system changes, including app installation, but only when necessary and only after authorizing the change using Windows Hello," Weston said. "Admin protection will be incredibly disruptive to attackers, as they no longer have elevated privileges by default, and it will help ensure that employees do not use malware and remain in control of Windows."

According to Forrester's Harrington, the new app control approach should help organizations lock down their endpoints.

"I think there will be plenty of businesses who still go to third parties because of the flexibility those solutions bring," he says. "But this is a good move by Microsoft to breathe life back into the app control solution. For all those functions, I would have liked to see these moves earlier in the Windows 11 releases, but with Windows 10 going end-of-service next year, the timing works to give more enterprises reasons to move to Windows 11."

**About the Author**

Contributing Writer

Jeffrey Schwartz is a journalist who has covered information security and all forms of business and enterprise IT, including client computing, data center and cloud infrastructure, and application development for more than 30 years. Jeff is a regular contributor to Channel Futures. Previously, he was editor-in-chief of Redmond magazine and contributed to its sister titles Redmond Channel Partner, Application Development Trends, and Virtualization Review. Earlier, he held editorial roles with CommunicationsWeek, InternetWeek, and VARBusiness. Jeff is based in the New York City suburb of Long Island.

Microsoft Boosts Device Security With Windows Resiliency Initiative

The scourge of “malvertising” is nothing new, but the tactic is still so effective that it's contributing to the rise of investment scams and the spread of new strains of malware.

Malicious digital advertisements and “SEO poisoning” that gets those ads to prime spots in search results have been mainstays of the digital scamming ecosystem for years. But as online crime evolves and malicious trends like “pig butchering” investment scams and infostealing malware proliferate, researchers say that so-called “malvertising” is still a key technique for scammers—and still a growing problem.

Instances of malvertising in the US were up 42 percent month-over-month in fall 2023 and increased another 41 percent from July to September of this year, according to data from the security firm Malwarebytes. The company says that scammers typically cycle through the advertising accounts used for malvertising quickly, and 77 percent of the accounts are only used once. The bulk of the activity, though, traces back to South Asia and Southeast Asia, Malwarebytes says, with 90 percent of the ad fraud coming from Pakistan and Vietnam, according to the researchers' telemetry. But as with many components of the digital crime ecosystem, malvertising is often offered as a service where cybercriminals from around the world can purchase ads that distribute their malware or lead potential victims to a malicious website of their choosing.

Jérôme Segura, senior director of threat intelligence at Malwarebytes, emphasizes that a particularly effective place for potential victims to encounter malicious ads is in search results, where sponsored marketing content gains legitimacy just by showing up on the same page as legitimate search results. Such malicious ads can even end up getting prime placement in the layout of search results.

“Scammers are using the power of internet and advertising technology, which allows really immense targeting of the right victim. They can get the right ad with the right intent in front of them at the right time,” Segura says. “The fact that scammers are continuing to spend money on advertising shows that these scams are working and they’re getting a return on their ad spend.”

Malvertising has been and continues to be used in phishing attacks and credit card scams, as well as for distributing malware like cryptominers and ransomware. But researchers are increasingly seeing it being used to infect victims with infostealers as well. And researchers from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report that malicious ads have been incorporated into pig butchering and other investment scams, and even romance scams.

“Malvertising is a cyberattack technique that injects malicious code within digital ads,” UNODC notes in a recent report on evolving cybercrime tactics. “Difficult to detect by both internet users and publishers, these infected ads are usually distributed to consumers through legitimate advertising networks. Because ads are displayed to all website visitors, virtually every page viewer is at risk of infection.”

Researchers regularly see malicious ads in search results representing themselves as coming from legitimate businesses and organizations. Whether it's a regional municipality, a utility like a power company, or a big business, people will use search engines simply to pull up the URL of an organization. And if the first results or the most convenient results to click on are ads, scammers have the opportunity to buy this real estate.

“The volume of these things is immense,” says Sean Gallagher, the senior threat researcher at Sophos. “Search engines like Google will say they check the content of ads to ensure they’re safe, but the thing is that attackers are using ad delivery networks and can redirect the URL after the ad is paid for.”

Google is clearly aware that malicious ad activity is growing and evolving. The company specifically addresses misleading and fraudulent ad activity in its policies, including a “misrepresentation policy,” and says that it takes numerous approaches to vetting ads and detecting malvertising. Attackers have continued to develop circumvention methods, though, to avoid having their ads flagged or removed. In 2023, Google blocked or removed about 5.5 billion ads and suspended more than 12.7 million advertiser accounts.

The company has also taken steps over the years to label ads clearly and delineate them in the search results layout. Still, any search engine that’s supported by ads ultimately has the two types of content side by side, especially on mobile, where users have limited screen space.

“We expressly prohibit ads that attempt to circumvent our enforcement by disguising the advertiser’s identity to deceive users and distribute malware," Google spokesperson Nate Funkhouser told WIRED in a statement. “When we identify an ad that violates this policy, we remove it and suspend the associated advertiser account as quickly as possible.”

Sophos' Gallagher points out that criminals can often get the most for their money when buying ads for more unique searches, where they can dominate the ad space and get to the top of the results more organically. But both Sophos and Malwarebytes researchers also regularly see malicious ads running against frequent searches like those for Google, Walmart, Disney+, Slack, Lowe’s, and Apple. Segura even says that Malwarebytes itself has to invest heavily in buying search engine ads just to keep malvertising at bay for the company's brand.

“We have to defend our brand so much,” he says. “People take advantage of that.”

Malicious Ads in Search Results Are Driving New Generations of Scams

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a far-off dream—it’s here, changing the way we live. From ordering coffee to diagnosing diseases, it’s everywhere. But while you’re creating the next big AI-powered app, hackers are already figuring out ways to break it.
Every AI app is an opportunity—and a potential risk. The stakes are huge: data leaks, downtime, and even safety threats if security

A Guide to Securing AI App Development: Join This Cybersecurity Webinar

Brands have been at the mercy of the algorithm when it comes to where their ads appear online, but they’re about to get more control.

Digital advertising is a whopping $700 billion (£530 billion) industry that remains largely unregulated, with few laws in place to protect brands and consumers. Companies and brands advertising products often don’t know which websites display their ads. I run Check My Ads, an ad tech watchdog, and we constantly deal with situations where advertisers and citizens have been the victims of lies, scams, and manipulations. We have removed ads from websites with serious disinformation about Covid-19, false election content, and even AI-generated obituaries.

Currently, if a brand wants to advertise a product, Google facilitates the ad placement based on desired ad reach and metrics. It may technically follow through on the agreement by delivering views and clicks, but does not provide transparent data about how and where the ad views came from. It is possible that the ad was shown on unsavory websites diametrically opposed to the brand’s values. For example, in 2024, Google was found to be profiting by placing product ads on websites that promoted hardcore pornography, disinformation, and even hate speech, against the brands’ wishes.

In 2025, however, this scandal will end, as we start to enact the first regulations targeting the digital advertising industry. Around the world, lawmakers in Brussels, Ottawa, Washington, and London are already in the early stages of developing regulation that will ensure brands have access to the legal support to ask questions, check ad data, and receive automatic refunds when they find that their digital campaigns have been subject to fraud or safety violations.

In Canada, for example, Parliament is deliberating the enactment of the Online Harms Act, a law to incentivize the removal of sexual content involving minors. The idea behind this law is that if the content is illegal, then making money off it should be illegal, too.

In California and New York, advocates are also proposing legislation that will aim to implement a know-your-customer law to track the global financial trade of advertising. This is significant because these two states power the global ad tech industry. New York has more ad tech companies than any other city in the world. Transparency laws enacted in California, on the other hand, would affect Google’s international advertising business—by far the biggest ad tech company in the world.

Beyond brand and consumer issues, the unregulated nature of the digital advertising landscape is a direct threat to democracy. In the US, for instance, presidential campaign spending remains effectively unregulated. It is estimated that the presidential campaigns will spend up to $2 billion (£1.5 billion) on digital advertising in 2024. With current laws, we will likely have no external data about their refunds or rates.

In 2025, the legislative pressure is on for big tech companies to regulate ad technology.

The Pressure Is on for Big Tech to Regulate the Broken Digital Advertising Industry

Despite advancements in cybersecurity tools, human vulnerability remains the weakest link, with phishing among the most dangerous forms…

Despite advancements in cybersecurity tools, human vulnerability remains the weakest link, with phishing among the most dangerous forms of social engineering. The FBI’s **Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)** identifies phishing as the most commonly reported type of cybercrime, with around 300,000 incidents in 2023 alone resulting in financial losses exceeding $18.23 million. 

Even employees are aware of these risks, even if they lag when it comes to actually ensuring the integrity of their data and access credentials. A recent industry survey found that **71% of working adults** have admitted to risky behaviour, which can include reusing or sharing a password, clicking on links from unverified sources, or giving credentials to untrustworthy websites or apps. Virtually all of these people engage in risky behaviour with full knowledge of the dangers involved.

This discrepancy between awareness and action is therefore a significant challenge. It is essential to **train employees to recognize** and properly deal with phishing attempts. One of the most effective ways to address this is through phishing simulations, which provide a practical and measurable approach to enhancing how employees identify and act on phishing attacks. 

By simulating real-world scenarios, organizations can establish a culture in which each team member can be an active participant in improving cybersecurity.

****Phishing Simulation’s Role and How It Works****

Simulated phishing attacks replicate real-world threats to test employee responses. Unlike passive training methods such as online educational modules or presentations, **phishing simulation can immerse users** in practical scenarios. Going beyond simple emails, simulations now offer advanced algorithms to tailor phishing emails based on organizational context, user behaviour, and other scenarios, which increases the effectiveness of training.

Platforms that provide this service also offer detailed analytics on employee performance, identifying high-risk individuals or departments. These insights allow organizations to implement targeted training, addressing gaps in knowledge or behaviour. Moreover, when simulation tests take place throughout people’s ongoing work, it can reinforce genuine cybersecurity awareness, fostering a culture of vigilance across the team.

Attack scenarios are executed with varying degrees of complexity. For instance, emails are crafted to resemble legitimate communications, often using common phishing tactics like spoofed domains, urgent requests, or enticing offers. These emails prompt employees to interact, asking them to **click on unknown links** or to provide credentials to unauthorized parties. Failing to identify the simulated phishing email, such as when a user clicks a link or logs in to a spoofed site, then triggers educational feedback, serving up micro-lessons explaining the red flags and consequences of such actions.

Organizations can customize simulations to address industry-specific threats. For example, finance teams might encounter simulated spear-phishing attempts targeting financial data, while HR teams might face phishing emails related to payroll fraud. Sophisticated platforms can also integrate threat intelligence, ensuring simulations evolve alongside real-world attack trends.

****The Benefits of Simulation-Based Training****

One of the most significant advantages of phishing simulations is behavioural conditioning. Regular exposure to simulated phishing attempts trains employees to recognize and respond appropriately to phishing threats. 

This repeated practice not only reinforces awareness but also develops instincts for identifying malicious attempts. For instance, it is reported that industries with higher engagement in phishing simulations, such as financial services, achieved reporting rates of up to 29%, indicating **increased employee awareness** and proactive reporting behaviours.

Phishing simulations also play a crucial role in compliance and reporting. Industries bound by stringent regulations, such as GDPR or HIPAA, require organizations to maintain robust cybersecurity training programs. Simulations provide tangible evidence of these efforts, demonstrating compliance during audits. 

By incorporating simulations into their training regimes, companies can fulfil legal obligations while simultaneously building a more security-conscious workforce.

Another key benefit is cost efficiency. Cyberattacks can lead to significant financial losses. IBM’s 2024 **Cost of a Data Breach Repor**t reveals that the global average cost of a data breach is $4.88 million. Thus, preventing just one successful breach can potentially save organizations millions in losses, regulatory penalties, lawsuits, and other costs.

Lastly, an enhanced security posture helps reduce downtime caused by cyberattacks. A successful phishing attempt can lead to operational disruptions that might require extensive recovery efforts. By training employees to identify and report phishing attempts, organizations can minimize disruptions, ensuring business continuity and protecting their bottom line.

****Strategies for Achieving Maximum Impact****

Despite their advantages, phishing simulations face challenges. Employees may feel tricked or resentful, perceiving simulations as punitive rather than educational. To address this, organizations should focus on transparency and communication, framing simulations as a learning opportunity rather than a test to foster cooperation.

Additionally, simulations must strike a balance between realism and ethical boundaries. Overly deceptive tactics can harm trust within the organization. Clear policies and ethical guidelines ensure simulations remain constructive. Organizations also need to establish protocols, such as debriefing, to ensure a collaborative environment and to incorporate lessons learned into further simulation activities.

To maximize the effectiveness of phishing simulations, organizations should implement a structured approach. Start with a baseline assessment to gauge the current level of phishing awareness among employees. This initial evaluation provides a clear starting point and helps identify specific weaknesses that need attention.

Next, regular and varied simulations should be conducted at unpredictable intervals to maintain employee vigilance. By keeping simulations unpredictable, employees remain alert and less likely to become desensitized. Additionally, the simulations should cover a wide range of scenarios to address different phishing tactics, such as email scams, spear phishing, and social engineering, ensuring employees are prepared for all types of attacks.

It is also important to use data-driven adjustments. Analytics from simulations should be used to refine training programs, focusing on areas where employees struggle the most. 

Engaging leadership involvement in the simulations can further strengthen the training. When leadership participates, it sets a positive example and reinforces the importance of cybersecurity across the organization, reducing vulnerabilities like **CEO fraud** or whale phishing.

Finally, establish a continuous feedback loop. After each simulation, provide immediate feedback to employees through debriefing, highlighting key lessons and areas for improvement. This ensures that the learning process remains ongoing.

****The Takeaway****

Phishing simulation can be an impactful component of an organization’s cybersecurity strategy. It bridges the gap between theoretical training and real-world applications. Organizations can use this proactive stance to enhance awareness, empower the workforce, and build a resilient cybersecurity culture.

1.  **4 Ways For Employees To Distinguish Phishing Attacks**
2.  **99% of UAE’s .ae Domains Exposed to Phishing, Spoofing**
3.  **GitLoker-Linked GoIssue Phishing Tool Targets GitHub Users**
4.  **Phishing Attacks Bypass Microsoft 365 Email Safety Warnings**
5.  **Future of Phishing Email Training for Employees in Cybersecurity**

Why Simulating Phishing Attacks Is the Best Way to Train Employees

Mikhail Pavlovich Matveev (aka Wazawaka) has been wanted by the FBI since 2023.

****SUMMARY****

*   **FBI-Wanted Hacker Arrested**: Russian authorities have reportedly detained Mikhail Pavlovich Matveev, known by aliases like Wazawaka and Boriselcin.

*   **Cybercrime Connections**: Matveev is linked to major ransomware groups such as Hive, LockBit, and Babuk, responsible for high-profile attacks on critical infrastructure and government agencies.

*   **Significant Ransom Demand**: The Department of Justice alleges Matveev extorted at least $75 million in ransom payments from global victims.

*   **Notable Attacks**: He is suspected of involvement in the 2021 Babuk attack on Washington D.C.’s police and a 2022 Hive attack on a New Jersey healthcare NGO.

*   **Potential Global Impact**: His arrest could disrupt several ransomware groups, but extradition to the U.S. remains uncertain due to geopolitical tensions.

Mikhail Pavlovich Matveev, known by his online aliases Wazawaka, Uhodiransomwar, m1x, and Boriselcin, is believed to have been arrested in Russia, which could be a potential turning point in the fight against cybercrime since the hacker is wanted by the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation).

Matveev is a big deal in the dark web underworld. He’s been linked to some of the most damaging ransomware attacks in recent years that have targeted critical infrastructure, government agencies, and businesses worldwide. His alleged involvement with groups like Hive, LockBit, and Babuk has made him a powerful cybersecurity threat worldwide.

Reports suggest that he was involved in a lockout attack on the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department from Babuk in April 2021 and a ransomware attack from Hive, targeting a healthcare NGO in New Jersey in 2022.

It is worth noting that in early 2023, the Hive ransomware gang was disrupted by the FBI, Europol, German, and Dutch agencies, seizing their dark web website, The Hive Leak site, preventing the gang from attacking and extorting victims

Also, in 2022, LockBit infected the computer systems of 1,400 victims, including a Holiday Inn hotel in Turkey, likely involving Matveev. The Department of Justice (DoJ) suspects he extracted at least $75 million in ransom payments.

Investigators allege that in January, the accused developed specialized malicious software to encrypt files and data without user consent, intending to use it to encrypt data of commercial organizations and receive ransoms for decryption.

The US government has been on the hunt for Matveev, offering a $10 million reward for information leading to his arrest. The DoJ had previously filed criminal charges against him, accusing him of launching attacks on US law enforcement and healthcare organizations.

While Russian authorities have not officially confirmed the arrest, Russian state news agency PИA Hoвocти reported that the Kaliningrad Interior Ministry and Russian prosecutors have sent a case against “a programmer accused of creating a malicious program to court,” with an anonymous source confirming Matveev as the detained programmer. The charges against him include creating malicious software designed to encrypt files and data, with the intent of extorting ransom payments from victims.

The arrest of Matveev, if confirmed, could have significant implications. It could potentially disrupt the activities of several ransomware groups and deter future attacks. However, the question of whether the US will be able to extradite him remains uncertain, given the complex geopolitical tensions between the two countries.

1.  Russia ”neutralizes” REvil ransomware gang, arrests 14
2.  Infraud Organization Group Members Arrested by Russian
3.  50 hackers Who Stole $25M Arrested by Russian Authorities
4.  Russian Authorities Arrest Nine for Stealing $17M from Banks
5.  FBI Kills Kelihos Botnet Amid Russian Hacker’s Arrest in Spain

FBI-Wanted Hacker Behind Global Ransomware Attacks Arrested in Russia

About Elevation of Privilege – PAN-OS (CVE-2024-9474) vulnerability. An attacker with PAN-OS administrator access to the management web interface can perform actions on the Palo Alto device with root privileges. Linux commands can be injected via unvalidated input in script. The need for authentication and admin access could limit this vulnerability’s impact, but here we […]

**About Elevation of Privilege – PAN-OS (CVE-2024-9474) vulnerability.** An attacker with _PAN-OS administrator access_ to the management web interface can perform actions on the Palo Alto device with root privileges. Linux commands can be injected via unvalidated input in script.

The need for authentication and admin access could limit this vulnerability’s impact, but here we have the previous vulnerability **Authentication Bypass** – PAN-OS (CVE-2024-0012). 😏 Exploitation of this vulnerability chain was noted by Palo Alto on November 17. After November 19, when the watchTowr Labs article was published and exploits appeared, mass attacks began.

On November 21, Shadowserver reported that ~2000 hosts were compromised, mostly in the US and India. According to Wiz, attackers deployed web shells, Sliver implants and cryptominers.

На русском

Hi! My name is Alexander and I am a Vulnerability Management specialist. You can read more about me here. Currently, the best way to follow me is my Telegram channel @avleonovcom. I update it more often than this site. If you haven’t used Telegram yet, give it a try. It’s great. You can discuss my posts or ask questions at @avleonovchat.

А всех русскоязычных я приглашаю в ещё один телеграмм канал @avleonovrus, первым делом теперь пишу туда.

About Elevation of Privilege – PAN-OS (CVE-2024-9474) vulnerability

Printer issues are very common, but searching Google for help may get you into more trouble than you'd expect.

Anyone who has ever used a printer likely has had a frustrating experience at some point. There always seems to be some kind of issue with the software not responding, paper getting jammed or one of many other possible failures.

When people need help, they often turn to Google (and now AI) to look for an answer. This is where scammers come in, preying on unsuspecting and irate users ready to throw their printer out the window.

After clicking on a malicious Google ad, victims are redirected to a fraudulent site often using official brand names and logos. The crooks’ end goal is to get people to call them, and they achieve that by tricking them with fake printer drivers that always fail to install.

In this blog post, we review how this scam works and how to stay away from it.

**Malicious Search Ads**

Two of the most popular printer brands are HP and Canon. If you were to Google for help related to either of those brands right now, you would likely see sponsored results at the top of the search results page.

Unfortunately, in the majority of cases these ads are not from trusted providers but instead from tech support scammers. In the image below, you can see 4 ads shown for the query ‘_hp printer help_‘. It’s only after those that the official HP website appears.

If you were to say that consumers stand no chance, you’d be right. Unless you clicked on the official (organic search results), you’d end up getting scammed.

The list of sites includes:

megadrive\[.\]solutions  
geeksprosoftwareprints\[.\]org  
select-easy123print\[.\]com  
printcaretech\[.\]com

**The driver scam**

A driver is a software program that your computer uses to talk to physical hardware (i.e. your printer). In the early Microsoft Windows days, drivers were very important to get printers, monitors and other peripherals working. Today, the operating system is usually good at detecting new hardware and installing the required drivers automatically. There are some exceptions, not to mention that some manufacturers like to package additional software with their drivers.

After clicking on a malicious ad, the website instructs you to enter your printer’s model number in order to download the required driver, which it proceeds to “install”. This is entirely fake, and the only thing the website displays is a recorded animation that will always end up with the same error message.

This type of error is very similar to those seen in the “Microsoft tech support scam”, typically done via a browser hijack. Scammers want to scare and then get their victims to contact them directly, via phone or live chat.

**Remote access and extortion**

There are many people that fall for these types of scams and entire armies of tech support agents working in poor conditions ready to defraud them. The script is usually standard across scams, with the support agent impersonating a popular brand and requesting personal information from the victim.

It is quite common for scammers to request and be granted remote access to the user’s computer. This gives them leverage to do a number of things, such as stealing data, locking the machine or even using it to log into the victim’s bank account.

This is why it is so important to be extremely cautious with online search ads, and search results in general. Browser extensions such as Malwarebytes Browser Guard will block ads but also the scam or malware sites associated with these schemes.

This won’t help with your printer issues, but at least it’ll save you the trouble of being defrauded. When it comes to such questions, online forums are usually a good place to start, and if you’re lucky to count a computer person in your family, that’s always a good favor to ask for.

Tag

#web