Contract seafarers in Ukraine are turning to online whisper networks to keep themselves from being hired into Russia’s sanctions-busting shadow fleet.

_This story originally appeared in Hakai Magazine and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration._

A new video appears on the social media network Telegram: footage of the smoking area aboard a large vessel. The curtains are ripped, the lights are broken, and ash and glass litter the floor. “This is how they drink on our ship,” says the young Ukrainian deck worker filming the scene, turning to show the furniture thrown to the corner of the room. “I’m freaked out.”

A Telegram administrator asks the deck worker if he can share the vessel’s name. They change the ship’s name multiple times a year, replies Feliks Bondar, whose own name has been changed for this story. “I don’t even know what name to tell you,” he writes in Ukrainian. “Our ship was originally called _Eagle_, but in Venezuela, we were _Matador_ and then _Shoyo Maru_.”

A chorus of similar messages had flooded the chat in recent months: stories of dangerously rundown ships, operators withholding pay, abandoned crew members, and vessel owners changing ship names or manipulating their automatic identification systems (AIS)—the global network meant to help ships recognize each other.

The Telegram group hosts over 8,000 sailors. Some are fresh out of maritime college, others are seasoned captains. All are drawn to the group by a desire to stay safe on the high seas. By telling their stories and naming names—when they can—these sailors have been gathering information about problematic vessels, detailing everything from those with low-quality food to ships where crews often experience pay delays.

But in recent years, as more sailors are finding themselves unwittingly involved in the so-called shadow fleet—smuggling oil for Iran, Russia, or other clients that have been hit by strict sanctions to restrict their sales of oil—the social media whisper network has evolved. As well as a place to find a reputable employer, it’s become something else: a way for seafarers to avoid helping the other side of a war.

Life as a contract seafarer has never been easy. Workers frequently hop from ship to ship, contract to contract, and country to country. But the rise of the shadow fleet—along with Russia’s war in Ukraine—poses a new kind of risk.

About a year and a half ago, in early 2023, Bondar sought out the seafarers’ Telegram network after a particularly troubling gig. Booked to the job by an Ukraine-based crewing agency, Bondar found that the name of his assigned vessel had been painted over, and the AIS was, once again, unplugged. A note on top of the device warned seafarers not to turn it on.

After a six-month voyage smuggling sanctioned oil to China, Bondar says the crew was told its next operation would begin in Koz’mino, Russia. Russia’s most recent invasion of Ukraine had begun while he was at sea and had already been underway for over four months. Bondar and the other Ukrainians on board refused to work smuggling Russian oil. The ship’s operator allegedly fired them all, ditching them at the nearest port in China.

“Nothing will surprise me anymore,” Bondar wrote in the Telegram group. “I have accumulated enough ‘sea stories’ for the rest of my life.”

The war in Ukraine is taking a huge toll, not only on the soldiers on the front lines but on Ukrainians worldwide. Earlier this year, Stella Maris, an English charity committed to seafarer well-being, reported that depression and anxiety are rising among Ukrainian seafarers. These Ukrainians are trying to provide for their families while worrying about the safety of their loved ones, the future of their homeland, tensions with Russian seafarers, and the fear of conscription if they return home. With Russian troops capitalizing on Ukraine’s temporary weapons shortage—caused by the delayed delivery of Western aid—the plight of Ukraine’s people, including its seafarers, shows little sign of letting up.

Bondar’s was not an isolated incident. Recruitment for the shadow fleet is a complex web of crewing agencies, shell companies, and absentee ship owners. Crewing agencies, tasked with finding seafarers to fill contracts, often know very little about the ships, their cargo, or their owners, creating the ideal conditions for deception. But maritime recruitment data shows that at least six Ukrainian crewing agencies have been involved in sourcing seafarers for 10 Russian ships smuggling oil since Russia began its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Tracking vessels through their myriad identity changes is difficult, but possible. The names of vessels in the fleet change regularly, but their identification numbers do not.

Photo by Em Campos/Alamy Stock Photo

Mazhnuna Karaca, head of operations at Dese Crew Management, a Ukraine-based crewing agency, says she only found out after the fact that her company had been unintentionally trying to solicit seafarers for illegal Russian oil-smuggling operations.

On February 8, 2023, an advertisement seeking crew for a large oil tanker appeared on maritime job forums. The ship’s official identification number along with anything else that might easily identify the vessel were conveniently absent. Karaca, however, confirmed the ship to be the _Danica_, a vessel that had been featured on a shadow fleet watch list compiled by United Against Nuclear Iran, a US-based nonprofit, since December 2022.

Ships such as the _Danica_ that transport illegal oil violate sanctions meant to restrict the economic opportunities of nations that threaten global security. In so doing, the vessels’ owners enable those nations to fund their activities.

Dese Crew Management tried to recruit seafarers for the _Danica_ and two other ships that were later revealed to be part of the Russian shadow fleet. Fortunately, says Karaca, her company never succeeded in sending anyone to the _Danica_ or any of the other known shadow fleet ships during their illicit operations. But only “because rumors spread quickly between sailors,” she says.

Each time Dese found a suitable candidate for the _Danica_, the sailor would abruptly change their mind and refuse to board. That had puzzled Karaca and her staff—until she learned about a different online seafarer whisper network, where details were whirling.

Among seafarers, the company that owns the _Danica_ had a reputation. Digging in deeper, Karaca says the company was originally named Sand & Sea Marine—before it rebranded to Linda Shipping in an attempt to escape its reputation for unsafe conditions, withholding pay, and abandoning crew.

Once aware of the _Danica_’s and the other ships’ involvement in the shadow fleet, Dese Crew Management promptly blacklisted the vessels. Other crewing agencies, however, have been less helpful. On Telegram, some seafarers even believe that crewing agencies have infiltrated the group to post fake positive reviews about the conditions aboard vessels for which they are trying to recruit crew.

Fortunately, the seafarers aren’t so gullible: “This is automated bots or the manager has told everyone to write for them,” one sailor wrote below a suspiciously positive set of reviews. “They shout so much that they are not scammers that I think the opposite,” another adds with a laugh.

During an assembly in December 2023, the International Maritime Organization (IMO)—the branch of the United Nations tasked with managing international maritime transport—urged member states to do more to derail the shadow fleet.

The IMO has encouraged cooperation between coastal member states to help identify suspicious ship-to-ship transfer operations and AIS manipulation, citing risks to “the safety, well-being, and potential criminalization of the crew.” The European Union has called for similar actions while also announcing new sanctions that require the details of any tanker being sold to a Russian entity—including information about the buyer and seller—to be disclosed publicly, opening the door for governments to step in and block the sale if they think the ship might find its way into the shadow fleet.

So far, international regulators have yet to comment on the role crewing agencies play in supplying workers to the shadow fleet. Future guidance could extend the Maritime Labour Convention, calling on member states to ensure that independent crewing agencies operating within their territory receive the IMO numbers of the vessels they work with before advertising positions to seafarers.

Until the shadow fleet is brought under control, seafarers will continue whispering over the water and doing what they can to keep themselves—and each other—safe.

Ukrainian Sailors Are Using Telegram to Avoid Being Tricked Into Smuggling Oil for Russia

Plus: US lawmakers have nothing to say about an Israeli influence campaign aimed at US voters, a former LA Dodgers owner wants to fix the internet, and more.

Despite years worth of efforts to eliminate the scourge of ransomware targeting schools, hospitals, and critical infrastructure worldwide, experts are warning that the crisis is only heating up, with criminal gangs growing ever more aggressive in their tactics. The threat of real-world violence now looms, some experts warn, as the data stolen grows increasingly sensitive and millions in potential profits hang in the balance. “We know where your CEO lives,” read a message reportedly received by one victim. Attacks targeting the medical sector are blooming in response to the $44 million payout by Change Healthcare this March.

United States lawmakers and intelligence officials are circling their wagons following the revelation of Israel’s involvement in a malign influence campaign that targeted US voters—an attempt by America’s Middle East ally to artificially boost support for an increasingly unpopular war that was kicked off by Hamas’ unprecedented Oct. 7th attack. The sock-puppet operation, which was launched by an Israeli contractor on X, Facebook, and Instagram and utilized OpenAI’s ChatGPT software, impersonated mostly Black Americans and targeted “Black and Democratic” lawmakers. A weeks’ worth of efforts by WIRED to get answers from US officials who may have been notified about the operation prior to a vote on enhancing military aide to Israel went ignored. Strikingly, the National Security Council denied having ever heard of it.

Frank McCourt, a real estate mogul and former owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers, explained why he’s spearheading an effort to purchase TikTok, which the United States is slated to ban unless its current owner, ByteDance, decides to sell the platform to a US company—a decision that will undoubtedly require the consent of the Chinese government. McCourt sees the internet as being imperiled by closed-off platforms like Facebook and X and is embracing the growing interest in decentralized networks. Decentralized platforms such as Mastodon have been popular among a subset of users for many years, allowing people to effectively own their own social networks and moderate them according to their own rules. These private networks are free to connect with others using the same software but can also sever connections to communities that embrace harmful content. (Think of these user-controlled networks as “islands” with diplomatic ties between them.) McCourt says purchasing and decentralizing TikTok could be the first step in raising the internet out of the siloed swamp that it is today thanks to Meta and its competitors.

But that’s not all. Each week, we round up the security news we didn’t cover in depth ourselves. Click the headlines to read the full stories, and stay safe out there.

****Pentagon Led Anti-Vax Psyops Against Filipinos Under Trump****

A bombshell Reuters investigation has unearthed a malign influence campaign launched by the US military at the height of the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic. The campaign utilized sock-puppet accounts on X, Facebook, and Instagram and was focused on convincing citizens of the Philippines that vaccines produced by China were dangerous and—preying on the religious beliefs of Muslims—full of pig parts. Infectious disease experts expressed dismay at the Pentagon’s actions. According to Reuters, the campaign was ordered to an end by the Biden White House shortly after the president’s inauguration, though the Pentagon was apparently slow to enact the commander in chief’s orders. The private contractor responsible for producing the Pentagon’s disinformation was recently awarded a $493 million US government contract.

****Microsoft Hid Major Vulnerability Tied to Historic SolarWinds Attack****

ProPublica recounts how, in 2016, a top cybersecurity specialist raised alarms about a cloud-based vulnerability at Microsoft, a major US government contractor. The weakness threatened to expose national security secrets among other sensitive data. The specialist “pleaded” with the company to address the problem, but his concerns were dismissed by the tech giant as it strived to secure a multibillion-dollar government contract in the cloud computing space. Frustrated, the specialist quit the company and, months later, as predicted, Russian hackers carried out SolarWinds, one of the largest cyberattacks in US history. The reporting brings into question testimony by Microsoft president Brad Smith, who assured Congress in 2016 there was no way the hackers had exploited his company’s software.

****Police Victims of Face-Recognition Errors Decry California Bill as Inadequate****

Three Black men jailed in the US for crimes they didn't commit—after having been falsely identified by police face-recognition software—are speaking out _against_ pending legislation in California that lawmakers claim would protect citizens from such egregious mistakes. The men say the bill, which passed with unanimous support from the state assembly last month and now is under scrutiny in its upper chamber, would have done nothing to stop them from being falsely arrested. Said one of the men: “In my case, as in others, the police did exactly what AB 1814 would require them to do,” adding, “Once the facial recognition software told them I was the suspect, it poisoned the investigation. This technology is racially biased and unreliable and should be prohibited.”

****The Other Threat From Surveillance Data Brokers: Garbage Data****

While much of the scrutiny facing the data broker industry concerns its power to monitor people’s movements and attendance at sensitive locations such abortion clinics and mental health facilities, there’s another issue at play: Much of the data it markets is “inaccurate trash,” The Record reports. A chief privacy officer at Acxiom, a leading third-party data broker, acknowledged as much in an interview last month, saying the “inferences” drawn by his company are, at best, “informed guesses.” Experts are growing increasingly concerned about the downstream effects, with some highlighting how insurance companies are relying more and more on data brokers to inform how much customers should pay. Another expert tells The Record that data brokers may be incentivized not to scrutinize the data too closely, noting that customers aren’t too worried if a fraction of it leads them to false assumptions.

Ransomware Attacks Are Getting Worse

Cybersecurity firm Recorded Future counted 44 health-care-related incidents in the month after Change Healthcare’s payment came to light—the most it’s ever seen in a single month.

In fact, ransomware attacks on health care targets were on the rise even before the Change Healthcare attack, which crippled the United Healthcare subsidiary's ability to process insurance payments on behalf of its health care provider clients starting in February of this year. Recorded Future's Liska points out that every month of 2024 has seen more health care ransomware attacks than the same month in any previous year that he's tracked. (While this May's 32 health care attacks is lower than May 2023's 33, Liska says he expects the more recent number to rise as other incidents continue to come to light.)

Yet Liska still points to the April spike visible in Recorded Future's data in particular as a likely follow-on effect of Change's debacle—not only the outsize ransom that Change paid to AlphV, but also the highly visible disruption that the attack caused. “Because these attacks are so impactful, other ransomware groups see an opportunity,” Liska says. He also notes that health care ransomware attacks have continued to grow even compared to overall ransomware incidents, which stayed relatively flat or fell overall: The first four months of this year, for instance, saw 1,153 incidents compared to 1,179 in the same period of 2023.

When WIRED reached out to United Healthcare for comment, a spokesperson for the company pointed to the overall rise in health care ransomware attacks beginning in 2022, suggesting that the overall trend predated Change's incident. The spokesperson also quoted from testimony United Healthcare CEO Andrew Witty gave in a congressional hearing about the Change Healthcare ransomware attack last month. “As we have addressed the many challenges in responding to this attack, including dealing with the demand for ransom, I have been guided by the overriding priority to do everything possible to protect peoples’ personal health information,” Witty told the hearing. "As chief executive officer, the decision to pay a ransom was mine. This was one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever had to make. And I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.”

Change Healthcare's deeply messy ransomware situation was complicated further—and made even more attention-grabbing for the ransomware hacker underworld—by the fact that AlphV appears to have taken Change's $22 million extortion fee and jilted its hacker partners, disappearing without giving those affiliates their cut of the profits. That led to a highly unusual situation where the affiliates then offered the data to a different group, RansomHub, which demanded a second ransom from Change while threatening to leak the data on its dark web site.

That second extortion threat later inexplicably disappeared from RansomHub's site. United Healthcare has declined to answer WIRED's questions about that second incident or to answer whether it paid a second ransom.

Many ransomware hackers nonetheless widely believe that Change Healthcare actually paid two ransoms, says Jon DiMaggio, a security researcher with cybersecurity firm Analyst1 who frequently talks to members of ransomware gangs to gather intelligence. “Everyone was talking about the double ransom,” DiMaggio says. “If the people I’m talking to are excited about this, it’s not a leap to think that other hackers are as well.”

The noise that situation created, as well as the scale of disruption to health care providers from Change Healthcare's downtime and its hefty ransom, served as the perfect advertisement for the lucrative potential of hacking fragile, high-stakes health care victims, DiMaggio says. “Health care has always had so much to lose, it’s just something the adversary has realized now because of Change,” he says. “They just had so much leverage.”

As those attacks snowball—and some health care victims have likely forked over their own ransoms to control the damage to their life-saving systems—the attacks aren't likely to stop. “It’s always looked like an easy target,” DiMaggio notes. “Now it looks like an easy target that’s willing to pay.”

_Updated 6/12/24 9:35am ET: This story has been updated to reflect that ransomware incident totals comprise the fist four months of the year, not just April._

Medical-Targeted Ransomware Is Breaking Records After Change Healthcare’s $22M Payout

Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has joined US intelligence officials in ignoring repeated inquiries about Israel’s “malign” efforts to covertly influence US voters.

Federal lawmakers in the US have dodged repeated inquiries over the past week about a covert operation ordered by the Israeli government to artificially boost support among Americans for its war in Gaza. At the same time, senior White House officials charged with advising President Joe Biden on matters of national security are claiming to have no knowledge of the operation—first disclosed publicly more than four months ago.

The operation, formally tied to the Israeli government by a New York Times reporter last week, kicked off in October 2023 following the surprise attack by Hamas in southern Israel. Researchers internationally began work to expose the campaign in February, identifying a flood of “suspicious accounts” on US-based social networking apps, most masquerading as Americans avowing support for the Israeli military response.

In addition to eroding support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides assistance to 5.6 million Palestinian refugees, a chief aim of the Israeli operation, researchers say, was to sway the opinions of Black Americans. Per the Times—which cited four current and former Israeli officials in confirming their government had commissioned the campaign—its primary targets included the account of US congressman Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the Democrats in the House, among others who are “Black and Democratic.”

Accounts tied to the operation—many of which, at the time of writing, remain active on X, despite being suspended on other platforms—promoted a Black Lives Matter hashtag and shared images of Martin Luther King Jr. alongside fabricated quotes. A website created for the operation included articles with titles such as “The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement and Their Support of Jewish People and Israel.”

Several examples of accounts used in the operation, many of which were created weeks prior to the Hamas attack on October 7 that killed an estimated 1,200 people, advertised themselves as “Christian.” One of the stolen identities used in the operation, first identified by a researcher in Qatar, was that of Kyle Jean-Baptiste, an up-and-coming Broadway star who died in 2015 after falling from a fire escape.

**Got a Tip?**

_If you have information about the work of the intelligence community or its congressional overseers, contact Dell Cameron at dell\_cameron@wired.com or via Signal at dell.3030._

Multiple inquiries placed with senior members of Jeffries’ staff, including his communications director, Andy Eichar, have gone unacknowledged for nearly a week. WIRED has attempted to resolve whether Jeffries ever received notification of the operation from US intelligence while Congress was in the midst of debating $14 billion in funding to supplement Israel’s war effort.

Israeli forces have killed more than 36,000 Palestinians since Hamas’ October 7 attack, according to Gaza health officials’ estimates, including dozens last Thursday at a United Nations school compound, where the Israeli military is accused of making “improper use” of a US-made bomb.

With the exception of the White House’s National Security Council, which on Thursday claimed to have no knowledge of the operation, and Senate Intelligence Committee chair Mark Warner, whose office told WIRED it planned to request a briefing on the matter, press inquiries concerning Israel’s attempts to secretly influence US opinion on the war have been met with a stonewall.

It is unclear whether Biden may have received a briefing on the operation that included information not shared with his own national security advisers. Said a spokesperson for the National Security Council: “We take all allegations of foreign malign influence seriously.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, led by Avril Haines—formerly No. 2 at the CIA—declined to say whether US intelligence had any knowledge of the operation prior to the June 5 New York Times’ story. It would not reveal whether it issued any notifications to Jeffries or any other US officials targeted by Israel.

The ODNI maintains what it calls a “disclosure framework” for notifying victims of influence operations connected with US elections. It is unclear, however, whether the ODNI considers the operation election-related, despite national elections approaching and the deep political divide among US voters over Congress’ support for the Israeli war effort.

Haines has previously spoken publicly on how US intelligence responds to this scenario: “When relevant intelligence is collected concerning a foreign influence operation aimed at our election,” she said, a “notification framework” exists to ensure “appropriate notice is given to those who are being targeted so that they can take action.”

Multiple attempts to solicit comment over the past week from the House Intelligence Committee have likewise gone unacknowledged by representatives Mike Turner and Jim Himes, the committee’s chair and ranking member, respectively. It is unclear whether they are taking steps similar to their Senate counterparts to investigate the matter.

Many of the Israeli operation’s fake posts were found to have been generated using ChatGPT, the digital assistant software developed by OpenAI, which is being integrated into everything from Apple’s new iPhones to the next Microsoft Windows operating system. Notably, OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, was recently appointed an adviser to the Homeland Security Department. According to the agency, his role is to advise the US government on how to “prevent and prepare for AI-related disruptions.”

Both OpenAI and social media giant Meta have publicly confirmed that the operation was launched by a Tel Aviv–based company called Stoic. Neither US company, however, has disclosed having any knowledge of Stoic being commissioned by the Israeli government.

Oft described as an Israeli “campaign marketing firm,” Stoic is reminiscent of Russia’s Internet Research Agency, which similarly used fake accounts registered on social media to promote the Kremlin’s interests, namely by working to influence the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. OpenAI disclosed earlier this month that Stoic had similarly been tracked using fraudulent accounts in an effort to influence the outcome of India’s recent elections.

Meta and OpenAI have not responded to requests for comment.

A US intelligence assessment published in February that identified threats from foreign countries accused of launching malign influence operations against the US references Israel dozens of times; however, it strictly portrays the Middle East ally as the victim of such campaigns.

The annual assessment, published by the ODNI three days after Israel’s “multi-platform deception operation” was first revealed publicly by Marc Owen Jones—an assistant professor of Qatar University specializing in disinformation—speaks only broadly of the influence efforts of US rivals and contains few if any details about any specific operations. The report mentions, for instance, that the Chinese government “reportedly targeted” US politicians on TikTok using accounts run by a propaganda office ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

The revelation of Israel’s involvement follows months of hearings in Washington concerning the impact of what US intelligence calls “malign foreign influence campaigns.” Much of the focus by lawmakers centered on allegations that China might potentially manipulate TikTok to sway public opinion in the US.

Jeffries, who is rumored to be the Democratic party’s next choice to become Speaker of the House, was among the 360 US representatives to support taking drastic steps in April that may soon lead to a ban on TikTok in US app stores.

Jeffries has joined other US leaders in extending an invitation to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress next month. A letter from Jeffries and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell to the prime minister last week read: “To build on our enduring relationship and to highlight America's solidarity with Israel, we invite you to share the Israeli government's vision for defending democracy, combatting terror, and establishing a just and lasting peace in the region.”

_Update 1 pm ET, June 11, 2024: Added additional details about the Israeli influence campaign._

US Leaders Dodge Questions About Israel’s Influence Campaign

As the fight against ransomware slogs on, security experts warn of a potential escalation to “real-world violence.” But recent police crackdowns are successfully disrupting the cybercriminal ecosystem.

Today, people around the world will head to school, doctor’s appointments, and pharmacies, only to be told, “Sorry, our computer systems are down.” The frequent culprit is a cybercrime gang operating on the other side of the world, demanding payment for system access or the safe return of stolen data.

The ransomware epidemic shows no signs of slowing down in 2024—despite increasing police crackdowns—and experts worry that it could soon enter a more violent phase.

“We’re definitely not winning the fight against ransomware right now,” Allan Liska, a threat intelligence analyst at Recorded Future, tells WIRED.

Ransomware may be the defining cybercrime of the past decade, with criminals targeting a wide range of victims including hospitals, schools, and governments. The attackers encrypt critical data, bringing the victim’s operation to a grinding halt, and then extort them with the threat of releasing sensitive information. These attacks have had serious consequences. In 2021, the Colonial Pipeline Company was targeted by ransomware, forcing the company to pause fuel delivery and spurring US president Joe Biden to implement emergency measures to meet demand. But ransomware attacks are a daily event around the world—last week, ransomware hit hospitals in the UK—and many of them don’t make headlines.

“There is a visibility problem into incidents; most organizations don't disclose or report them,” says Brett Callow, a threat analyst at Emsisoft. He adds that this makes it “hard to ascertain which way they are trending” on a month-by-month basis.

Researchers are forced to rely on information from public institutions that disclose attacks, or even criminals themselves. But “criminals are lying bastards,” says Liska.

By all indications, the problem is not going away and may even be accelerating in 2024. According to a recent report by security firm Mandiant, a Google subsidiary, 2023 was a record-breaking year for ransomware. Reporting indicates that victims paid more than $1 billion to gangs—and those are just the payments that we know about.

A major trend identified in the report was more frequent posts by gangs to so-called “shame sites,” where attackers leak data as part of an extortion attempt. There was a 75 percent jump in posts to data leak sites in 2023 compared to 2022, according to Mandiant. These sites employ flashy tactics like countdowns to when the sensitive data of victims will be made public if they don’t pay. This illustrates how ransomware gangs are ramping up the severity of their intimidation tactics, experts told WIRED.

“Generally speaking, their tactics are becoming progressively more brutal,” Callow says.

For example, hackers have also begun to directly threaten victims with intimidating phone calls or emails. In 2023, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle was struck by a ransomware attack, and cancer patients were individually sent emails threatening to release their personal information if they did not pay.

“My concern is that this will spill over into real-world violence very soon,” says Callow. “When there are millions to be had, they might do something bad to an executive of a company that was refusing to pay, or a member of their family.”

Ransomware Is ‘More Brutal’ Than Ever in 2024

Plus: A media executive is charged in an alleged money-laundering scheme, a ransomware attack disrupts care at London hospitals, and Google’s former CEO has a secretive drone project up his sleeve.

That’s not all. 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.

At Apple’s Worldwide Developer Conference next week, the company will reportedly announce its own stand-alone password manager that will compete with apps like 1Password and LastPass. Dubbed simply Passwords, according to Bloomberg News, the app will reportedly have features that go well beyond the iCloud or Mac Keychain tools Apple already offers, allowing users to save passwords for Wi-Fi networks, store passkeys, and organize login credentials into categories. Passwords will also reportedly work on Windows machines, but it’s unclear whether people who use Android devices can get in on the security tool.

**Epoch Times Executive Charged With Money Laundering**

US prosecutors on Monday charged an executive at The Epoch Times newspaper with carrying out a massive money-laundering scheme. According to the US Department of Justice, Epoch Times chief financial officer Weidong “Bill” Guan engaged in “a transnational scheme to launder at least approximately $67 million of illegally obtained funds to benefit himself and the media company.”

The scheme, according to the indictment against Guan, largely involved using cryptocurrency to purchase prepaid debit cards “loaded with US dollars that had been obtained through various frauds”—including funds obtained through unemployment benefits fraud—for less than the funds on the prepaid debit cards. The purchase of the cards was carried out by members of The Epoch Times’ “Make Money Online” team, which Guan managed, according to the DOJ. The so-called MMO team would allegedly then use “stolen personal identification information” to open various accounts, which were used to transfer money from the prepaid debit cards to bank accounts associated with The Epoch Times and its employees. Guan faces one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, two counts of bank fraud, and could face decades in prison if convicted.

**Eric Schmidt Ramps Up His Secret AI Military Drone Business**

Google’s former CEO, billionaire Eric Schmidt, is quietly building a military drone company, reports Forbes. The company, called White Stork, has been testing devices at both its Hillspire office complex in Menlo Park, California, and in Ukraine. Relatively little has been publicly revealed about the company or the specifics of its technology. According to Forbes, however, “individuals flying small drones” have been spotted near the Hillspire property, and Schmidt has reportedly hired alumni from Google, SpaceX, and Apple to carry out his secretive project, providing some clues about its ambitions.

**Russian Cybercriminals Blamed for London Health Care Ransomware Attack**

A cyberattack against an organization that facilitates blood transfusions and other sensitive medical care disrupted hospitals and other health care entities across London this week. The attack targeted Synnovis, which manages a partnership between King’s College Hospitals trust and Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital trust, and Synlab, a European medical testing firm. In a statement published on Tuesday, Synnovis said the attack “has affected all Synnovis IT systems, resulting in interruptions to many of our pathology services.” This forced hospitals to cancel surgeries involving blood transfusions and other procedures. Ciaran Martin, a former top UK cybersecurity official, blamed the attack on Qilin, a cybercriminal gang believed to have ties to Russia.

Apple Is Coming for Your Password Manager

After weeks of withering criticism and exposed security flaws, Microsoft has vastly scaled back its ambitions for Recall, its AI-enabled silent recording feature, and added new privacy features.

When Microsoft named its new Windows feature Recall, the company intended the word to refer to a kind of perfect, AI-enabled memory for your device. Today, the other, unintended definition of “recall”—a company's admission that a product is too dangerous or defective to be left on the market in its current form—seems more appropriate.

On Friday, Microsoft announced that it would be making multiple dramatic changes to its rollout of its Recall feature, making it an opt-in feature in the Copilot+ compatible versions of Windows where it had previously been turned on by default, and introducing new security measures designed to better keep data encrypted and require authentication to access Recall's stored data.

“We are updating the set-up experience of Copilot+ PCs to give people a clearer choice to opt-in to saving snapshots using Recall,” reads a blog post from Pavan Davuluri, Microsoft's corporate vice president for Windows and devices. “If you don’t proactively choose to turn it on, it will be off by default.”

The changes come amid a mounting barrage of criticism from the security and privacy community, which has described Recall—which silently stores a screenshot of the user's activity every five seconds as fodder for AI analysis—as a gift to hackers: essentially unrequested, preinstalled spyware built into new Windows computers.

In the preview versions of Recall, that screenshot data, complete with the user's every bank login, password, and porn site visit would have been indefinitely collected on the user's machine by default. And though that highly sensitive data is stored locally on the user's machine and not uploaded to the cloud, cybersecurity experts have warned that it all remains accessible to any hacker who so much as gains a temporary foothold on a user's Recall-enabled device, giving them a long-term panopticon view of the victim's digital life.

"It makes your security very fragile,” as Dave Aitel, a former NSA hacker and founder of security firm Immunity, described it—more charitably than some others—to WIRED earlier this week. “Anyone who penetrates your computer for even a second can get your whole history. Which is not something people want.”

In addition to making Recall an opt-in feature, Microsoft’s Davuluri also writes that the company will make changes to better safeguard the data Recall collects and more closely police who can turn it on, requiring that users prove their identity via its Microsoft Hello authentication function any time they either enable Recall or access its data, which can require a PIN or biometric check of the user’s face or thumbprint. Davuluri says Recall’s data will remain encrypted in storage until the user authenticates.

All of that is a “great improvement,” says Jake Williams, another former NSA hacker who now serves as VP of R&D at the cybersecurity consultancy Hunter Strategy, where he says he's been asked by some of the firm's clients to test Recall's security before they add Microsoft devices that use it to their networks. But Williams still sees serious risks in Recall, even in its latest form.

Many users will turn on Recall, he points out, partly due to Microsoft’s high-profile marketing of the feature. And when they do, they’ll still face plenty of unresolved privacy problems, from domestic abusers that often demand partners give up their PINs to subpoenas or lawsuits that compel them to turn over their historical data. “Satya Nadella has been out there talking about how this is a game changer and the solution to all problems,” Williams says, referring to Microsoft's CEO. “If customers turn it on, there’s still a huge threat of legal discovery. I can’t imagine a corporate legal team that’s ready to accept the risk of all of a user’s actions being turned over in discovery.”

For Microsoft, the Recall rollback comes in the midst of an embarrassing string of cybersecurity incidents and breaches—including a leak of terabytes of its customers' data and a shocking penetration of government email accounts enabled by a cascading series of Microsoft security slipups—that have grown so problematic as to become a sticking point given its uniquely close relationship with the US government.

Those scandals have escalated to the degree that Microsoft's Nadella issued a memo just last month declaring that Microsoft would make security its first priority in any business decision. “If you’re faced with the trade-off between security and another priority, your answer is clear: **Do security**,” Nadella's memo read (emphasis his). “In some cases, this will mean prioritizing security above other things we do, such as releasing new features or providing ongoing support for legacy systems.”

By all appearances, Microsoft's rollout of Recall—even after today's announcement—displays the opposite approach, and one that seems more in line with business as usual in Redmond: Announce a feature, get pummeled for its glaring security failures, then belatedly scramble to control the damage.

Microsoft Will Switch Off Recall by Default After Security Backlash

A new discovery that the AI-enabled feature’s historical data can be accessed even by hackers without administrator privileges only contributes to the growing sense that the feature is a “dumpster fire.”

Microsoft's CEO Satya Nadella has hailed the company's new Recall feature, which stores a history of your computer desktop and makes it available to AI for analysis, as “photographic memory” for your PC. Within the cybersecurity community, meanwhile, the notion of a tool that silently takes a screenshot of your desktop every five seconds has been hailed as a hacker's dream come true and the worst product idea in recent memory.

Now, security researchers have pointed out that even the one remaining security safeguard meant to protect that feature from exploitation can be trivially defeated.

Since Recall was first announced last month, the cybersecurity world has pointed out that if a hacker can install malicious software to gain a foothold on a target machine with the feature enabled, they can quickly gain access to the user's entire history stored by the function. The only barrier, it seemed, to that high-resolution view of a victim's entire life at the keyboard was that accessing Recall's data required administrator privileges on a user's machine. That meant malware without that higher-level privilege would trigger a permission pop-up, allowing users to prevent access, and that malware would also likely be blocked by default from accessing the data on most corporate machines.

Then on Wednesday, James Forshaw, a researcher with Google's Project Zero vulnerability research team, published an update to a blog post pointing out that he had found methods for accessing Recall data _without_ administrator privileges—essentially stripping away even that last fig leaf of protection. “No admin required ;-)” the post concluded.

“Damn,” Forshaw added on Mastodon. “I really thought the Recall database security would at least be, you know, secure.”

Forshaw's blog post described two different techniques to bypass the administrator privilege requirement, both of which exploit ways of defeating a basic security function in Windows known as access control lists that determine which elements on a computer require which privileges to read and alter. One of Forshaw's methods exploits an exception to those control lists, temporarily impersonating a program on Windows machines called AIXHost.exe that can access even restricted databases. Another is even simpler: Forshaw points out that because the Recall data stored on a machine is considered to belong to the user, a hacker with the same privileges as the user could simply rewrite the access control lists on a target machine to grant themselves access to the full database.

That second, simpler bypass technique “is just mindblowing, to be honest,” says Alex Hagenah, a cybersecurity strategist and ethical hacker. Hagenah recently built a proof-of-concept hacker tool called TotalRecall designed to show that someone who gained access to a victim's machine with Recall could immediately siphon out all the user's history recorded by the feature. Hagenah's tool, however, still required that hackers find another way to gain administrator privileges through a so-called “privilege escalation” technique before his tool would work.

With Forshaw's technique, “you don’t need any privilege escalation, no pop-up, nothing,” says Hagenah. “This would make sense to implement in the tool for a bad guy.”

In fact, just an hour after speaking to WIRED about Forshaw's finding, Hagenah added the simpler of Forshaw's two techniques to his TotalRecall tool, then confirmed that the trick worked by accessing all the Recall history data stored on another user's machine for which he didn't have administrator access. “So simple and genius,” he wrote in a text to WIRED after testing the technique.

That confirmation removes one of the last arguments Recall's defenders have had against criticisms that the feature acts as, essentially, a piece of pre-installed spyware on a user's machine, ready to be exploited by any hacker who can gain a foothold on the device. “It makes your security very fragile, in the sense that anyone who penetrates your computer for even a second can get your whole history,” says Dave Aitel, the founder of the cybersecurity firm Immunity and a former NSA hacker. “Which is not something people want.”

For now, security researchers have been testing Recall in preview versions of the tool ahead of its expected launch later this month. Microsoft said it plans to integrate Recall on compatible Copilot+ PCs with the feature turned on by default. WIRED reached out to the company for comment on Forshaw's findings about Recall's security issues, but the company has yet to respond.

The revelation that hackers can exploit Recall without even using a separate privilege escalation technique only contributes further to the sense that the feature was rushed to market without a proper review from the company's cybersecurity team—despite the company's CEO Nadella proclaiming just last month that Microsoft would make security its first priority in every decision going forward. “You cannot convince me that Microsoft's security teams looked at this and said ‘that looks secure,’” says Jake Williams, a former NSA hacker and now the VP of R&D at the cybersecurity consultancy Hunter Strategy, where he says he's been asked by some of the firm's clients to test Recall's security before they add Microsoft devices that use it to their networks.

“As it stands now, it’s a security dumpster fire,” Williams says. “This is one of the scariest things I’ve ever seen from an enterprise security standpoint.”

Microsoft’s Recall Feature Is Even More Hackable Than You Thought

The number of alleged hacks targeting the customers of cloud storage firm Snowflake appears to be snowballing into one of the biggest data breaches of all time.

A hack against customers of the cloud storage company Snowflake looks like it may turn into one of the biggest-ever data breaches. Last week, Snowflake, which allows companies to store huge datasets on its servers, revealed that criminal hackers had been attempting to access its customers’ accounts using stolen login details. Data breaches targeting Ticketmaster and Santander have been linked to the attacks.

In the days since Snowflake first said a “limited number” of customer accounts had been accessed, however, cybercriminals have publicly claimed to be selling stolen data from two other major firms and alleged the information was taken from Snowflake accounts. At the same time, TechCrunch has reported that hundreds of Snowflake customer passwords have been found online and are accessible to cybercriminals.

Amid the claims, there remains uncertainty about the scope and scale of the attempted attack against Snowflake customers, who the attackers may be, and how an attack tool callously named “rapeflake” operates. It also highlights the growth in the use of infostealer malware in recent years and underscores the need for third-party software providers and companies to turn on multifactor authentication to reduce the chances of accounts being compromised.

**Snowballing**

A large proportion of the Snowflake drama has, so far, played out on the notorious cybercrime marketplace BreachForums. The FBI seized the forum in mid May, but another version quickly appeared, and its owners, hacker group ShinyHunters, claimed to be selling 560 million records from Ticketmaster and 30 million from Santander. Both companies have said they have suffered from data breaches, with Ticketmaster directly linking the incident to Snowflake while Santander said it had seen unauthorized access to one of its databases “hosted by a third-party provider.” Neither company has confirmed the size of the breaches.

In recent days, a BreachForums account going by the handle Sp1d3r has posted two more companies whose data it claims is related to the Snowflake incident: automotive giant Advance Auto Parts, which Sp1d3r claims to have 380 million customer details from, and financial services company LendingTree and subsidiary QuoteWizard, from which it claims to have data linked to 190 million people.

Some Advance Auto Parts staff and customer email addresses listed in sample data by the hacker appear to be legitimate accounts; emails WIRED sent to those addresses did not bounce nor were they otherwise rejected. BleepingComputer reports it has verified customer data from Advance Auto Parts.

“We are aware of reports that Advance may be involved in a security incident related to Snowflake,” Darryl Carr, a spokesperson from the company, tells WIRED. “We are investigating the matter and do not have further information to share at this time. We have not experienced any impact to our operations or systems.”

LendingTree has not responded to multiple requests from WIRED about the alleged breaches sent in the past few days. Neither LendingTree nor Advance Auto Parts has filed breach notifications with the Securities and Exchange Commission at the time of writing. Both companies have been listed by Snowflake as customers previously.

Since Snowflake acknowledged that accounts had been targeted, it has provided some more information about the incident. Brad Jones, Snowflake’s chief information security officer, said in a blog post that threat actors used login details to accounts that had been “purchased or obtained through infostealing malware,” which is designed to pull usernames and passwords from devices that have been compromised. The incident appears to be a “targeted campaign directed at users with single-factor authentication,” Jones added.

Jones’ post said Snowflake, alongside cybersecurity companies CrowdStrike and Mandiant, which it employed to investigate the incident, did not find evidence showing the attack was “caused by compromised credentials of current or former Snowflake personnel.” However, it has found one former employee's demo accounts were accessed, claiming they did not contain sensitive data.

When asked about potential breaches of specific companies’ data, a Snowflake person pointed to Jones’ statement: “We have not identified evidence suggesting this activity was caused by a vulnerability, misconfiguration, or breach of Snowflake’s platform.” The company did not provide an on-record comment clarifying what was meant by a “breach.” (Security company Hudson Rock said it removed a research post including various unverified claims about the Snowflake incident after receiving a legal letter from Snowflake).

The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has issued an alert about the Snowflake incident, while Australia's Cyber Security Center said it is “aware of successful compromises of several companies utilizing Snowflake environments.”

**Unclear Origins**

Little is known about the Sp1d3r account advertising data on BreachForums, and it is not clear whether ShinyHunters obtained the data it was selling from another source or directly from victims’ Snowflake accounts—information about a Ticketmaster and Santander breach was originally posted on another cybercrime forum by a new user called SpidermanData.

The Sp1d3r account posted on BreachForums that the 2 terabytes of alleged LendingTree and QuoteWizard data was for sale for $2 million; while 3 TB of data allegedly from Advance Auto Parts would cost someone $1.5 million. “The price set by the threat actor appears extremely high for a typical listing posted to BreachForums,” says Chris Morgan, a senior cyber-threat intelligence analyst at security firm ReliaQuest.

Morgan says the legitimacy of Sp1d3r is not clear; however, he points out there is a nod to teenage hacking group Scattered Spider. “Interestingly, the threat actor's profile picture is taken from an article referencing the threat group Scattered Spider, although it is unclear whether this is to make an intentional association with the threat group.”

While the exact source of the alleged data breaches is unclear, the incident highlights how interconnected companies can be when relying on products and services from third-party providers. “I think a lot of this is just a recognition of how interdependent these services now are and how hard it is to control the security posture of third parties,” security researcher Tory Hunt told WIRED when the incidents first emerged.

As part of its response to the attacks, Snowflake has told all customers to make sure they enforce multifactor authentication on all accounts and allow traffic only from authorized users or locations. Companies that have been impacted should also reset their Snowflake login credentials. Enabling multifactor authentication vastly reduces the chances that online accounts will be compromised. As mentioned, TechCrunch reported this week that it has seen “hundreds of alleged Snowflake customer credentials'' taken by infostealing malware from computers of people who have accessed Snowflake accounts.

In recent years, coinciding with more people working from home since the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been a rise in the use of infostealer malware. “Infostealers have become more popular because they’re in high demand and pretty easy to create,” says Ian Gray, the vice president of intelligence at security company Flashpoint. Hackers have been seen to be copying or modifying existing infostealers and selling them on for as little as $10 for all the login details, cookies, files, and more from one infected device.

“This malware can be delivered in different ways and targets sensitive info like browser data (cookies and credentials), credit cards, and crypto wallets,” Gray says. “Hackers might comb through the logs for enterprise credentials to break into accounts without permission.”

The Snowflake Attack May Be Turning Into One of the Largest Data Breaches Ever

ZeroMark wants to build a system that will let soldiers easily shoot a drone out of the sky with the weapons they’re already carrying—and venture capital firm a16z is betting the startup can pull it off.

Drones have changed war. Small, cheap, and deadly robots buzz in the skies high above the world’s battlefields, taking pictures and dropping explosives. They’re hard to counter. ZeroMark, a defense startup based in the United States, thinks it has a solution. It wants to turn the rifles of frontline soldiers into “handheld Iron Domes.”

The idea is simple: Make it easier to shoot a drone out of the sky with a bullet. The problem is that drones are fast and maneuverable, making them hard for even a skilled marksman to hit. ZeroMark’s system would add aim assistance to existing rifles, ostensibly helping soldiers put a bullet in just the right place.

“We’re mostly a software company,” ZeroMark CEO Joel Anderson tells WIRED. He says that the way it works is by placing a sensor on the rail mount at the front of a rifle, the same place you might put a scope. The sensor interacts with an actuator either in the stock or the foregrip of the rifle that makes adjustments to the soldier’s aim while they’re pointing the rifle at a target.

A soldier beset by a drone would point their rifle at the target, turn on the system, and let the actuators solidify their aim before pulling the trigger. “So there’s a machine perception, computer vision component. We use lidar and electro-optical sensors to detect drones, classify them, and determine what they’re doing,” Anderson says. “The part that is ballistics is actually quite trivial … It’s numerical regression, it’s ballistic physics.”

According to Anderson, ZeroMarks’ system is able to do things a human can’t. “For them to be able to calculate things like the bullet drop and trajectory and windage … It’s a very difficult thing to do for a person, but for a computer, it’s pretty easy,” he says. “And so we predetermined where the shot needs to land so that when they pull the trigger, it’s going to have a high likelihood of intersecting the path of the drone.”

ZeroMark makes a tantalizing pitch—one so attractive that venture capital firm Andreesen Horowitz invested $7 million in the project. The reasons why are obvious for anyone paying attention to modern war. Cheap and deadly flying robots define the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Every month, both sides send thousands of small drones to drop explosives, take pictures, and generate propaganda.

With the world’s militaries looking for a way to fight back, counter-drone systems are a growth industry. There are hundreds of solutions, many of them not worth the PowerPoint slide they’re pitched from.

Can a machine-learning aim-assist system like what ZeroMark is pitching work? It remains to be seen. According to Anderson, ZeroMark isn’t on the battlefield anywhere, but the company has “partners in Ukraine that are doing evaluations. We’re hoping to change that by the end of the summer.”

There’s good reason to be skeptical. “I’d love a demonstration. If it works, show us. Till that happens, there are a lot of question marks around a technology like this,” Arthur Holland Michel, a counter-drone expert and senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, tells WIRED. “There’s the question of the inherent unpredictability and brittleness of machine-learning-based systems that are trained on data that is, at best, only a small slice of what the system is likely to encounter in the field.”

Anderson says that ZeroMark’s training data is built from “a variety of videos and drone behaviors that have been synthesized into different kinds of data sets and structures. But it’s mostly empirical information that’s coming out of places like Ukraine.”

Michel also contends that the physics, which Anderson says are simple, are actually quite hard. ZeroMark’s pitch is that it will help soldiers knock a fast-moving object out of the sky with a bullet. “And that is very difficult,” Michel says. “It’s a very difficult equation. People have been trying to shoot drones out of the sky \[for\] as long as there have been drones in the sky. And it’s difficult, even when you have a drone that is not trying to avoid small arms fire.”

That doesn’t mean ZeroMark doesn’t work—just that it’s good to remain skeptical in the face of bold claims from a new company promising to save lives. “The only truly trustworthy metric of whether a counter-drone system works is if it gets used widely in the field—if militaries don’t just buy three of them, they buy thousands of them,” Michel says. “Until the Pentagon buys 10,000, or 5,000, or even 1,000, it’s hard to say, and a little skepticism is very much merited.”

Source

Wired