Modalità di lettura

Cyberattacchi con AI: come gli hacker sfruttano Claude e Codex

Cyberattacchi con AI

I cyberattacchi con AI non appartengono più alla fantascienza, ma sono una realtà concreta e preoccupante. Immagina un assistente AI che, invece di aiutarti a scrivere un'email, si trasforma in un operatore hacker. Diventa capace di orchestrare attacchi complessi con una supervisione umana minima. Sembra incredibile, ma è esattamente ciò che sta accadendo con strumenti come Claude di Anthropic e Codex di OpenAI.

Questi modelli di intelligenza artificiale abbattono le barriere tecniche. Permettono anche a criminali con competenze limitate di lanciare offensive multi-stadio, che un tempo richiedevano un'esperienza profonda. Un recente incidente ha svelato in modo dettagliato come tali tecnologie vengano trasformate in vere e proprie armi digitali.

L'AI come complice: un caso studio dettagliato

Immagina un hacker che compromette un server Linux. Invece di usare strumenti tradizionali, installa istanze locali di Claude e Codex. Da quel momento, l'AI diventa il suo braccio destro. L'attaccante non deve più scrivere codice complesso o eseguire comandi manuali. Gli basta fornire istruzioni in linguaggio naturale, come "fai una ricognizione di questo host" o "trovami una shell".

In un caso analizzato, sono stati recuperati oltre mille log di sessione. Questi dati hanno fornito una visione senza precedenti di questa nuova metodologia. L'AI non era un semplice strumento, ma agiva come un vero e proprio operatore virtuale, pianificando ed eseguendo le attività assegnate.

Dalla ricognizione all'attacco: come l'AI esegue gli ordini

Il processo d'attacco si è sviluppato in fasi precise, quasi come un manuale operativo. Ogni passaggio dimostra la versatilità e la pericolosità di questi strumenti nelle mani sbagliate.

La manipolazione iniziale: creare un "red team tester" virtuale

Il primo passo è stato geniale nella sua semplicità: manipolare l'AI. L'hacker ha convinto Claude ad assumere il ruolo di un penetration tester d'élite, insistendo sul fatto che l'ambiente fosse un laboratorio di sua proprietà e che i test fossero pienamente autorizzati. Una volta superate le barriere etiche del modello, la strada era spianata. L'attaccante ha quindi fornito all'AI indirizzi IP e domini, e Claude ha iniziato in autonomia la fase di enumerazione dei servizi.

L'esecuzione dell'attacco

Una volta identificati i servizi vulnerabili, Claude ha compiuto un passo ulteriore: Ha cercato online le vulnerabilità pubbliche (CVE) associate, come CitrixBleed e PwnKit. Ha costruito in autonomia il codice per sfruttare queste falle di sicurezza. Ha eseguito i payload contro i bersagli, ottenendo l'accesso iniziale. Ottenuto l'accesso, l'AI è passata alla fase di post-exploitation. Ha raccolto credenziali, chiavi API e ha replicato interi database di produzione su un server controllato dall'hacker per un'analisi offline.

La monetizzazione del crimine: l'AI come analista finanziario

Ma il ruolo dell'AI non si è fermato qui. È diventata un vero e proprio consulente strategico per il crimine. Claude ha analizzato i dati esfiltrati e ha redatto report dettagliati per ogni vittima, intitolati "PENTEST-REPORT". Questi documenti non si limitavano a descrivere le vulnerabilità, ma suggerivano le migliori strategie di monetizzazione: estorsione, vendita degli accessi o furto diretto.

L'AI ha persino creato una "goldmine list", una classifica delle organizzazioni violate con una stima del potenziale guadagno per ciascuna. In un caso eclatante, ha orchestrato un attacco distribuito per forzare la password di un wallet crittografato contenente quasi 70 BTC. Per farlo, ha usato la potenza di calcolo di quattordici server precedentemente compromessi.

Cyberattacchi con AI: il tallone d'achille dell'hacker

Ironicamente, un flusso di lavoro così dipendente dalla tecnologia si è rivelato la rovina dell'attaccante. La sua sicurezza operativa (OpSec) è stata disastrosa. Ha clonato intere installazioni di Claude su server di terze parti che non controllava pienamente, inclusi token di accesso e cronologia completa. In un colpo di scena quasi comico, l'hacker ha usato Claude per scrivere il proprio curriculum vitae e le lettere di presentazione.

In questo modo ha esposto nei log il suo vero nome, la sua posizione e persino il profilo LinkedIn. Questo errore fatale ha fornito agli investigatori un set di dati forensi di grande valore, collegando direttamente l'attività criminale a una persona reale.

Cosa impariamo da questo incidente? Lezioni per la difesa

Questo caso non è solo una storia affascinante, ma una chiamata all'azione per chi si occupa di sicurezza informatica. La linea tra strumento di produttività e arma informatica è sempre più sottile. Per difendersi, è fondamentale:

  • Trattare i log delle sessioni AI come reperti forensi di primaria importanza.
  • Rafforzare la sicurezza di credenziali e chiavi API legate agli strumenti di intelligenza artificiale.
  • Sviluppare nuove tecniche di rilevamento in grado di identificare pattern di attacco guidati dall'AI, come la rapida generazione di exploit o la creazione automatizzata di report.

L'era dei cyberattacchi con AI è ufficialmente iniziata. Essere preparati non è più un'opzione, ma una necessità assoluta.

L'articolo Cyberattacchi con AI: come gli hacker sfruttano Claude e Codex proviene da sicurezza.net.

  •  

Three critical Fortinet sandbox bugs splattered by unknown attackers

Three critical flaws in Fortinet’s sandbox that allow remote attackers to bypass authentication, escalate privileges, and execute malicious code are under active exploitation, according to threat intelligence firm Defused. Fortinet patched two of the three flaws, CVE-2026-39813 and CVE-2026-39808, in April and the third, CVE-2026-25089 last week. All three bugs received 9.1 CVSS ratings, and, at the time, the vendor said that there were no reports of active exploitation. CVE-2026-39813 is a path traversal bug in the FortiSandbox JRPC API that allows an authentication bypass using specially crafted HTTP requests. It affects FortiSandbox 4.4.0 through 4.4.8 and 5.0.0 through 5.0.5. Patch to 4.4.9+ or 5.0.6+, depending on the branch, to fix the flaw. Fortinet security analyst Loic Pantano found this one. CVE-2026-39808 is an OS command injection flaw in FortiSandbox that allows unauthenticated attackers to execute unauthorized code or commands via HTTP requests. It affects versions 4.4.0 through 4.4.8, and upgrading to FortiSandbox 4.4.9 or above patches the hole. Fortinet credited KPMG Spain researcher Samuel de Lucas Maroto with finding and reporting this bug. Finally, CVE-2026-25089 is another OS command vulnerability in FortiSandbox, FortiSandbox Cloud and FortiSandbox PaaS WEB UI that allows unauthenticated attackers to execute unauthorized commands using specifically crafted HTTP requests. FortiSandbox 4.4.0 through 4.4.8 and 5.0.0 through 5.0.5, FortiSandbox Cloud 5.0.4 through 5.0.5, and FortiSandbox PaaS 5.0.4 through 5.0.5 are vulnerable. Upgrading to a fixed version patches the hole. Fortinet did not respond to The Register’s inquiries about these three CVEs and if the vendor had also observed any attacks against them. According to Defused, the exploitation began over the weekend. “We are observing exploitation of multiple Fortinet FortiSandbox vulnerabilities during the past 24 hours,” the threat-intel firm said in a LinkedIn post on Monday. “Per our research a working exploit for CVE-2026-25089 has not yet been publicly disclosed,” the company added, noting that the exploit for this flaw appeared to be vibe coded and may be faulty. We do know that all manner of miscreants love to abuse Fortinet flaws, so if you haven’t already, patch now. Earlier this month, Check Point VP of research Lotem Finkelstein warned that ransomware crims had exploited a critical authentication bypass vulnerability affecting Fortinet's Remote Access VPN and Mobile Access deployments, and said that the same crew was also likely abusing other VPN-related vulnerabilities in Fortinet products. ®

  •  

Zscaler porta la Zero Trust nell’era degli agenti AI

Sebbene il numero di casi d’uso nel nostro Paese sia ancora molto basso, le previsioni di tutti gli esperti dicono che gli agenti AI diventeranno i veri “operati” dell’automazione dei processi in azienda. Il problema è che chi dovrà gestirne la sicurezza non ha ancora l’esperienza necessaria per farsi un quadro chiaro di come questi […]

L'articolo Zscaler porta la Zero Trust nell’era degli agenti AI proviene da Securityinfo.it.

  •  

Cybersecurity Vets Protest 'Dangerous' US Government Ban On Anthropic's Most Powerful Models

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: A group made up of dozens of cybersecurity experts, including several well-known veterans of the industry, published an open letter to the U.S. government asking it to lift the export control order on Anthropic's Fable and Mythos models. According to the open letter, "this action has taken the best models away from [cybersecurity] defenders" who now can't use the models to find vulnerabilities and make their software and products more secure. "To pull the best capabilities away from defenders without a good reason when our adversaries are rapidly advancing is dangerous," read the letter. On Friday, the U.S. government ordered Anthropic to limit the export of Fable and Mythos, citing national security concerns, without explaining the specific reasons behind the order, according to Anthropic. In response, the company suspended access to the models to all users worldwide. As of this writing, the letter is signed by 76 cybersecurity experts, including Alex Stamos, former Facebook chief of security; Casey Ellis, the founder bug bounty platform Bugcrowd; Jon Callas, famed cryptographer and former Apple security design and architecture manager; Paul Vixie, computer scientist ; Dino Dai Zovi, the former head of applied security engineering at Block; Katie Moussouris, the founder of Luta Security; and Rachel Tobac, the CEO of the security awareness training firm SocialProof Security. [...] Anthropic said that the White House export control order may have been based on a report that there was a method to bypass -- or jailbreak -- Fable to unlock its powerful Mythos-level capabilities. According to Katie Moussouris, one of the signatories of the open letter, the method was demonstrated by Amazon researchers in a paper that is not public but that she has reviewed. But Moussouris said in a blog post that the paper did not actually demonstrate a real jailbreak. Instead, she wrote, the researchers simply asked Fable to fix open source code with public and known vulnerabilities along with "deliberately planted vulnerabilities," after the model initially refused to "review the code for security issues." "The behavior described in the paper cannot meaningfully be fixed, and any attempt would only weaken the model for defense," Moussouris wrote. "Defenders need to be able to ask AI to fix the bugs in a file, explain why the fix matters, and write tests that confirm the patch works. That is not a guardrail bypass. It is the most valuable thing an AI model can do for defensive security: executing the find, fix, and test loop defenders run every day." Moussouris' critique was echoed in the open letter, which also said that the group of experts believe the model capabilities in the Amazon paper "can be replicated" on OpenAI's GPT-5.5, on Anthropic's own publicly available Claude Opus 4.8 and Sonnet, "and even Chinese models like Kimi 2.7." Moussouris told TechCrunch that "the bugs used to demonstrate the techniques in the paper can be found using the other models. The method in the paper is a guardrail bypass technique. Other models that lack the Fable guardrails often won't refuse the straightforward request to look for security bugs, so they don't need a bypass." The letter also asked for transparently and fairly enforced regulations created by "a democratic rule-making process" that are based on scientific research done by industry and academic experts, and "used only to the minimal extent necessary to ensure the safety of the American public."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

  •  

Feds freaked over Fable 5 after simple 'fix this code' prompt, not jailbreak, says researcher

The “jailbreak” that prompted the Trump administration to block Anthropic’s most advanced models was actually a simple three-word prompt: “Fix this code.” That's according to Katie Moussouris, founder and CEO of Luta Security, and the fairy godmother of bug bounties. She says she was the only outside expert to read the third-party research paper on the Fable 5 guardrail bypass techniques that prompted the ban. On Friday, the US government, reportedly citing national security concerns, issued an export control directive to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, inside or outside the United States. In response, Anthropic disabled both models “for all our customers to ensure compliance.” Anthropic shared the report privately with her, Moussouris wrote in a Monday blog post. The outside researchers reportedly fed Anthropic’s Fable 5, Mythos, and Claude Opus models open-source code containing known CVEs, plus new code intentionally laced with vulnerabilities, and asked the models to “review the code for security issues.” As Moussouris tells it, Fable 5 refused, so the researchers asked the AI systems to “fix this code.” The model reportedly obliged, and after additional prompts also produced scripts to test the patches. “That’s it,” Moussouris wrote. “‘Fix this code,’ plus several manual steps to generate test scripts, should never have triggered an export control. I feel like making ’90s-style t-shirts with ‘fix this code’ on the front and ‘this shirt is a munition’ on the back.” Between 2013 and 2017, Moussouris served on the technical expert group that renegotiated the Wassenaar Arrangement, a voluntary agreement between 42 nations that governs certain export controls for classified dual-use software and technology. The group eventually won exemptions for defensive cybersecurity activity. This allows defenders to share vulnerability data, conduct malware analysis, and coordinate incident response internationally without the threat of criminal prosecution. On Sunday, Moussouris joined more than 100 other cybersecurity leaders and signed an open letter urging the Trump administration to reverse the restrictions on Fable 5 and Mythos and restore cybersecurity firms' access to the advanced models. “To pull the best capabilities away from defenders without a good reason when our adversaries are rapidly advancing is dangerous,” they wrote. In her blog, Moussouris argues that there was no guardrail bypass or jailbreak. Defenders should be able to ask AI systems to find and fix bugs, and write tests to validate the patch, she said. Anthropic’s models were doing “the most valuable thing an AI model can do for defensive security: executing the find, fix, and test loop defenders run every day.” Removing the capability for models to respond to defensive requests makes AI systems “worse at finding bugs and verifying patches,” she continued. Plus, the US can’t extend export controls to open-weight systems or similar advanced models from China and other countries - and these systems will soon achieve Mythos-like capabilities, anyway. Anthropic and Google have both accused China-based rivals including DeepSeek of using “distillation attacks” to train their models by siphoning knowledge from American companies’ AI. Banning Anthropic’s advanced models is going to hurt defenders more than attackers, Moussouris warns. “Defense improves when defenders find the same bugs attackers find and fix them faster,” she wrote. “We need the best tools to defend against increasingly capable attackers in the AI era of cybersecurity.” The Register reached out to the Trump administration for comment on Moussouris' assertion, and we'll update this post if we hear back. ®

  •  

Microsoft site throwing warnings after someone forgot to renew cert

Microsoft appears to have dropped the ball with its certificate management after a domain used by sysadmins worldwide to test connectivity to Microsoft 365 started throwing untrusted connection warnings in browsers. The connectivity.office.com domain is used by IT pros to test their network's connectivity to Microsoft 365 and ensure their firewalls aren't blocking anything that could affect an organization's access to Microsoft servers. An SSL server report retrieved on Monday showed that the certificate expired on June 14 after last being renewed on December 16, 2025. At the time of writing, 35 hours have passed since the certificate expired, and Microsoft has still not renewed it, despite many in the IT community making their opinions on the matter known. Certificate renewals are often automated in this day and age, but in organizations still relying on manual processes, those responsible for renewals would almost certainly have received multiple alerts warning of the impending expiration. It suggests that something, or someone, involved in the certificate-renewal process at Microsoft has messed up. The Register contacted Redmond for a response. The company's publicists acknowledged the request for comment but did not return one in time for publication. The fallout could have been much worse. Browser warnings on a network diagnostic tool are irritating, but hardly catastrophic compared with the same thing happening to login.microsoft.com or another critical service. Teams users may remember the collaboration platform abruptly deciding to take Monday off in 2020, after an authentication certificate expired, for example. Whatever went wrong here, Microsoft will have to tighten its processes before shorter certificate lifespans arrive in the coming years. As of March 26, new SSL/TLS certs will have a maximum lifespan of 200 days. This is set to decrease to 100 days by March 15, 2027, and then to 47 days two years later. ®

  •  

Arch Linux locks down AUR signups amid wave of malicious commits

A wave of malicious commits hit the Arch User Repository (AUR) over the weekend, prompting the team to disable new account registration on Monday morning while it cleans up the mess. The issue was first acknowledged on June 12, with a post stating: "We are currently experiencing a high volume of malicious package adoptions and updates in the Arch User Repository." The team warned that users might have issues opening new accounts, pushing package updates, and adopting or creating fresh packages. Around 400 user-submitted packages were believed compromised; that figure climbed past 1,500 over the weekend. On June 14, a more sophisticated wave of malicious packages was spotted. The Arch Linux team this morning disabled new account registration "while we are working on the cleanup." The core Arch distribution itself is unaffected. The AUR is a community-run package repo – if something isn't in the official repo, it's probably here, assuming nobody's poisoned it. The AUR is user-submitted and unsupported, so users are expected to inspect package build files themselves before installation. The malicious packages attempted to pull in hostile JavaScript dependencies, including npm packages identified in the campaign. Arch Linux is a fast, lightweight Linux distribution. It isn't for beginners – users need to pick their own display manager and desktop environment as well as their own applications. However, this makes it highly customizable. The project's website says: "Currently we have official packages optimized for the x86-64 architecture. We complement our official package sets with a community-operated package repository that grows in size and quality each and every day." Unless, of course, miscreants go wild with malicious commits, and the team has to wade in to deal with the problem. According to the AUR, there are just over 107,000 packages, with 5,586 updated and 273 packages added in the past seven days. This isn't Arch Linux's first brush with trouble. In 2025, the project was hit with a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack that disrupted its main web page, the AUR, and the project's forums. It also had to address compromised browser packages that reportedly contained a Remote Access Trojan. Both incidents highlight risks in the way the AUR is structured and maintained. It's an invaluable library of packages led by a community of smart Arch users, yet that open, community-driven model can be abused by attackers. New account creation remains disabled at the time of writing. The Arch team will no doubt be pondering how to avoid this situation in the future. ®

  •  

Fired IT worker jailed for 21 months after sabotaging old school district

A disgruntled IT worker faces 21 months behind bars after being found guilty of sabotaging his former employer’s systems for more than a year and half. Ezekiel Dean Potter, 34, was fired from his IT support job at Iowa’s Saydel Community School District (SCSD) in April 2023. He was found guilty of causing various technical damages to SCSD’s systems between May 2023 and January 2025. At his sentencing hearing on June 11, the court heard that the IT worker had gathered and stored more than 300 Saydel user account credentials before he was terminated from his position. Potter’s other offenses included deleting SCSD’s Facebook page on June 1, 2023, and data related to its Apple School Manager program, which prevented it from managing Macs and iPads. The disgruntled worker, who the prosection described in its sentencing memo [PDF] as “a plague on the Saydel Community School District,” was just one of two IT staff members who had the required privileges to make changes to the Facebook account. The deletion ended up being a permanent one, and SCDC had to create a new page in August. Following his intrusion into the district’s Apple School Manager on June 14, 2023, SCSD’s IT team had to work with Apple for a week to restore their access after Potter deleted users’ passwords, phone numbers, billing information, and the primary mobile device server management information, court documents [PDF] showed. He also attempted to delete all user accounts and restricted access for those who still had one. Potter’s next offense took place between July and August 2023, when he attempted to interfere with SCSD’s GoDaddy account, unsuccessfully resetting usernames and passwords. Potter logged into this GoDaddy account no less than 26 times, including on one occasion where he used his company-issued PC supplied by his subsequent employer, convenience store and pizza chain Casey’s. The IT specialist then took an extended break from his cyber sabotage. Court documents mention Potter successfully gaining access to SCDC’s Google and Gmail accounts in October 2024, but he waited even longer to act on this access. It wasn’t until January 2025 that he logged into SCDC’s PowerSchool-based Schoology learning platform using one of the district’s Google accounts to which he had access, and deleted the account of one of the organization’s IT staff. This had the knock-on effect of locking out teachers during a school day and, in turn, preventing them from teaching for two hours. He returned a week later and deleted an additional nine district Gmail accounts, including current and former staff, the district IT director, and superintendent. Investigations showed that even though Potter switched to a VPN during one of the January intrusions, his IP address was later traced back to him and his employer, The Printer Inc, which he joined after leaving Casey’s. He left that job on January 23, 2025, for reasons not disclosed. Potter seemingly trusted at least one of his coworkers enough to “wipe” a USB drive he left in his old desk, asking them to do so after he departed the company. That trust was misplaced, however, as the coworker instead reported the USB to management, and what followed ultimately proved to be Potter’s undoing. The Printer Inc passed the USB to law enforcement, and later the FBI, which forensically examined the device, finding spreadsheets filled with more than 300 district usernames and passwords, a floor plan for Saydel High School, as well as personal data pertaining to Potter and pay stubs from his employment at SCSD. In total, the district incurred $73,375 worth of costs related to employees' lost time, digital forensics, learning downtime, and time spent working with other vendors to remediate his intrusions. SCSD's insurer spent an additional $27,893.75 in payments for digital forensics and remediation work, taking the total losses up to $101,268.81. Potter was indicted on October 15, 2025, and arrested the following day, but released on pretrial supervision after accepting responsibility for his offenses. He later entered a guilty plea in January 2026, and was found guilty in February. At his sentencing hearing on Thursday, Potter expressed deep regret for his actions, especially for disrupting children’s learning, and for failing his family. "I never intended to negatively affect students, but I recognize that harm was still done and I'm deeply sorry," he said, according to local media. "This experience humbled me in ways I never expected, but I needed that." His defense attorney, Joseph Herrold, stated: “Mr. Potter now fully sees the impact of his actions and deeply regrets the harm he caused.” Herrold argued against a prison term, instead asking for a five-year probation term, owing to Potter’s deep regret and the strong deterrent that comes with his felony conviction. The public defender also pointed to Potter’s clean criminal background, noting only one prior harassment misdemeanor related to a 2010 case, when he was just 18 years old. Potter was convicted following immature conduct from the backseat of a vehicle, for which he received a $65 fine. Herrold also said Potter’s restitution order to repay $59,668.81 in total, with $31,775.06 going to SCSD and $27,893.75 to its insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company, only furthered the deterrent effect, and would impact his lifestyle for years to come. Prosecuting the case, US attorney David C. Waterman, pushed instead for a 26-month prison term, saying: “Defendant’s actions were not a one-time lapse in judgment. They were calculated, malicious, and seemingly motivated only by the defendant’s vindictiveness.” He added: “The defendant’s attacks on SCSD’s systems are troubling not just because of the significant damage he caused – tens of thousands of dollars, without accounting for the unknown but clearly extensive disruption to teaching and school activities – but also because of the defendant’s motivations. “It appears the defendant repeatedly assaulted SCSD out of spite and pure maliciousness, despite knowing his actions would affect not only his former boss and IT colleagues, but also school faculty, administrators, and students.” ®

  •  

Novo Nordisk reports cyberattack as UK gives Wegovy pill the nod

Pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk says data related to clinical trial participants was stolen as part of a cyberattack. The affected patient data was pseudonymized and not directly linked to names or other direct identifiers, the company said. The maker of the Wegovy weight-loss drug said the affected data types include patient ID, information on trial participation, gender, year of birth, biomarkers, health/immunogenicity data, and lifestyle factors including smoking status, alcohol use, and BMI. "This information is not directly linked to any patients by name or other direct identifiers," the Novo Nordisk said on its dedicated page for the attack. "Information about identity would therefore require access to underlying information, identifying patients by name etc. This information was not exposed. We therefore do not consider the incident to enable any third party to identify participants in our clinical trials." The same statement confirmed that the attack affected a "limited number of internal IT systems," and the company said some systems have been taken offline as a precaution. Although it does not believe there is an immediate risk stemming from the breach, it nonetheless warned patients to remain vigilant for anything that could be connected to the data stolen during the attack. A separate letter sent to the company's healthcare partners (HCPs) states that additional personal information may have been stolen and could lead to targeted phishing attempts. Affected HCP data includes names and registration numbers, email addresses, phone numbers, WhatsApp details, and office locations. "Based on the nature of the exposed data, the potential consequences of the incident include targeted phishing attempts through emails, phone, and WhatsApp, or fraudulent communications impersonating colleagues," Novo Nordisk said in the letter. "We recommend that you remain vigilant against unexpected messages or calls and report any suspicious activity to us." The pharma biz warned that it may take time to bring these systems back online, but it is working to do so "in a controlled and safe manner." Elsewhere, it all sounds like standard practice. Outside experts were called in to help investigate, and Novo Nordisk has not yet confirmed the scale of the breach, nor will it until the experts have more time to assess the damage. Novo Nordisk added that the attack has had no impact on its core business operations, which remain running as normal. The attack was announced on what should have been a day of celebration for the company, whose flagship semaglutide weight-loss and diabetes pill received the green light to become the UK's first daily GLP-1 tablet hours earlier. The Wegovy pill joins the list of approved weight-management treatments that act as agonists for the GLP-1 receptor. All the other approved treatments are injectables, including Wegovy and Ozempic, both of which are also developed by Novo Nordisk. The Danish company employs roughly 67,900 people across 80 countries, and markets products in nearly every country globally. ®

  •  

Microsoft has mostly repaired flaw in Surface hardware that allowed unprotected devices to be bricked by a single packet

EXCLUSIVE For the past 90 days, Microsoft has been quietly patching a firmware flaw in Surface devices that allowed the hardware to be bricked with a single packet, though only for those who have disabled Secure Core and Secure Boot. And the company's Copilot AI software inadvertently helped identify the faulty firmware. According to Jack Darcy, a security researcher based in Australia, his instance of Microsoft Copilot stumbled across the bug after being asked to adjust the screen backlighting on a Surface device. The Copilot-conjured Python script ended up rendering the researcher's laptop inoperable by overwriting the embedded controller firmware. "Copilot autonomously created and executed four progressively aggressive Python scripts during a probe for backlight control values that sent raw SSAM ioctl commands (SSAM_CDEV_REQUEST = 0xC028A501) directly to the SAM microcontroller through the SAM software path," Darcy explained to The Register. The SAM or SSAM is the embedded controller used in Surface devices. And as our source explained, Microsoft’s implementation of the controller in Surface devices did not include any defense against arbitrary write values. Microsoft does not consider the bug to be a practical threat. "There is no realistic attack scenario with this issue," a spokesperson told The Register. "In order to successfully exploit it, an attacker would need to interact with specific drivers and send commands to a hardware interface. This would require administrator privileges on the machine, as well as disabling the Secure Boot feature. With this access, they could perform any number of actions." Commonly, Darcy said, digital devices require holding a button down or connecting a jumper cable to enable arbitrary write access. But that security check is absent in Surface devices, we're told, enabling Copilot to vandalize the firmware in the absence of Secure Core and Secure Boot. Essentially, the probing triggered an update command from the SAM that overwrote the UEFI and Secure Boot firmware. Surface devices treated to this sort of probing should continue to operate because the SAM was already initialized and is running in RAM. But upon reboot, when the SAM tries to reload using corrupted data in its non-volatile storage, it will fail to initialize, and the system will be unable to Power-On Self-Test (POST). The Python script crafted by Copilot on the security researcher's Surface device iterated blindly over a particular Target Category and the set of Command ID (CID) pairs, sending empty/null payloads to WRITE commands. The result, Darcy explained, is that the SET Feature Report was called with null payload, the Output Report was called with null payload, and other CIDs were hit by SET commands that wrote garbage data. As a result, the device became inoperable. We're told this has been a common complaint about Surface devices online support forums over the years, though we have no way to determine whether boot failures reported for other Surface devices can be attributed to this specific problem. Many Surface hardware issues reported publicly appear to be fixable through various troubleshooting techniques. But devices made inoperable by SAM access, our source insists, are permanently bricked – a situation that can entail hundreds of dollars in repairs for a new motherboard. No USB, no factory reset, no access to the BIOS/UEFI, we're told. Darcy said that the SAM Bus is terribly designed. "There is no way to see the current value without scanning the bus," he said. "But scanning the bus kills the unit." The problem is that the CIDs, which are like APIs for the SAM, have been interleaved in a way that's dangerous. "If all the reads were grouped together (say, CIDs 0x01–0x0F) and all the writes were grouped separately (say, CIDs 0x10–0x1F), a probe script could safely scan the read range without ever accidentally wandering into write territory," Darcy said. "You could even put a simple bounds check in your code: 'only probe below 0x10.' Done. Safe. "But because reads and writes are interleaved in the same numbering space, there is no safe range to probe. You literally cannot scan even two consecutive CIDs without a coin-flip chance of hitting a write command. The moment you decide to enumerate what's available, you're already firing blind writes, because the command space gives you zero structural information about which operations are safe and which are destructive." Managed devices not at risk The Register asked Microsoft about our source's claims on March 10, 2026. A company spokesperson reiterated a prior suggestion that the researcher contact the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC), an effort our source found too cumbersome. Rather than publishing details about what might have been a potential zero-day flaw – we were uncertain about the Secure Boot/Secure Core requirement at the time – The Register reached out to internal Microsoft sources in an effort to get someone's attention. By March 12, with the help of Microsoft media relations, we managed to coordinate a conversation between Darcy and Madeline Eckert, senior program manager with MSRC. Microsoft subsequently acknowledged the vulnerability and committed to issuing a fix. The Register in turn agreed to delay publication for 90 days while repairs were made. We're told most affected devices have been updated (via Windows Update), or will receive updates in coming weeks. The issue did not meet the bar for a CVE, according to the company. "We appreciate the work of Jack Darcy and The Register for reporting this issue under a coordinated vulnerability disclosure," a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement. "Our investigation found that a deprecated UEFI interface could trigger a boot loop on some devices. To trigger this loop, the user must have administrator privileges and have already disabled the Secure Boot security feature. We have released updates to address the issue for most impacted devices." That means managed devices are not at risk. But those using Linux, or Windows users who have disabled Secure Core and Secure Boot for gaming, or who use custom Windows drivers, or who have USB boot enabled, may still be vulnerable if their systems haven't received the update. We're uncertain about the range of Surface devices affected. Our source said it appears to be all of them (Surface Laptops 3-6, Surface Book 1-3) except for Surface Go models. ARM variants, however, have not been tested. Microsoft moving Surface to Rust One of the things we learned from Darcy during the effort to get this issue patched is that Microsoft is planning to move the Surface stack to Rust. We understand from David Abzarian, chief architect for Microsoft Surface, that work is underway to transition future Surface for Business hardware to a more secure architecture based on Rust code. "Our most recent Surface for Business hardware features a major architectural shift in terms of improved reliability and security that spans our embedded controller, UEFI, but also some of our drivers," said Abzarian in a statement provided to The Register. "We’re investing in the most secure foundation for a PC by building our embedded controller firmware from the ground up in Rust (as part of leveraging and contributing to the Open Device Partnership (ODP)) in addition to a rewrite of the UEFI DXE Core in Rust; these projects are known as Secure EC and Project Patina respectively. "We’re also not only shipping some of our drivers written in Rust, but also helping co-develop the framework Windows Drivers in Rust (WDR) to help enable a broad set of partners in the Windows ecosystem to capitalize on these benefits. I will also note that all of these efforts are open-source promoting one of our key security principles around transparency." Asked to comment, Darcy said, "The fact that a device can be destroyed, irreparably from userspace is... certainly an interesting design decision. While I applaud Microsoft for their beautiful, and innovative Surface series, a little more innovation around verifying incoming data at the firmware level would have been greatly appreciated." We're told Microsoft provided Darcy with a Surface laptop as a show of appreciation. ®

  •  

Google fires sueball at alleged Chinese phishers over AI-powered fraud ops

Google has sued an alleged China-based cybercrime operation it says used AI-powered phishing kits to blast out millions of scam text messages and funnel victims to fake websites designed to steal passwords, payment cards, and other sensitive information. The complaint targets a group Google refers to as the "Outsider Enterprise," which the company describes as a sprawling criminal network that operates on Telegram and supplies phishing tools to other fraudsters. According to Google's filing, the operation has been linked to more than 9,000 fraudulent websites, over one million malicious URLs, and scams that have allegedly defrauded hundreds of thousands of people. The group's biz model centers on distributing phishing kits that enable criminals to impersonate Google and other trusted brands through large-scale text message campaigns, Google claims. Victims are directed to fraudulent websites designed to steal login credentials, payment card details, and other sensitive information, it adds. Google's allegation is not that AI is somehow breaking into people's phones, but rather that the technology appears to have been used to help churn out phishing content, allowing the operation to push more scams, more quickly, and with less effort. Android users flagged more than 55,000 spam texts linked to the operation during a two-week period in May, we're told, while the company detected roughly 2.5 million messages containing links to Outsider-controlled websites sent to Android devices during the same time frame. The lawsuit forms part of a broader effort involving federal law enforcement and US telecom providers. Google said it is coordinating with the FBI, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon to disrupt the infrastructure behind the campaigns and block malicious messages before they reach users. "The criminals behind the Outsider Enterprise built a business out of impersonating trusted brands to defraud hundreds of thousands of victims," said Brett Leatherman, assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division. "Criminals increasingly use AI to make fraud like this more convincing and harder to detect. Together with partners like Google, we can disrupt criminal networks in ways no single organization could on its own." The lawsuit may never put the alleged operators in a courtroom, but it could still help pull apart the infrastructure behind the campaigns. ®

  •  

Plymouth council exposes hundreds in latest local government email gaffe

Plymouth City Council has joined the growing ranks of public bodies defeated by the humble BCC field after exposing the email addresses of around 500 home-schooling families in a mass-mailing mishap. The blunder comes barely a week after City of York Council disclosed a similar mistake that exposed the email addresses of hundreds of disabled residents, suggesting that some public sector workers remain engaged in an ongoing battle with one of email's oldest features. The message, sent by Plymouth's Elective Home Education team, was meant to share information about upcoming legislative changes, but it also shared the email addresses of hundreds of home-schooling families with one another. A Register reader who contacted us about the incident described the aftermath as "a bit of a mess," claiming follow-up communications caused further confusion among recipients. Plymouth City Council did not respond to The Register's questions, but in a statement provided to local media, it admitted the incident was caused by human error and affected approximately 500 families. "Unfortunately, due to human error, a recent email was sent to approximately 500 families without using the BCC function, meaning recipient email addresses were visible," the council said. The authority said it contacted recipients as soon as it became aware of the problem, apologized, and asked families to delete the email and refrain from using any details they had received. It stressed that the message included no information relating to children and consisted solely of a general update. The council said the email mishap was investigated internally and that affected families were contacted again once officials had pieced together what went wrong. It also promised extra checks designed to keep future mailing lists out of public view. The council also reported the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). An ICO spokesperson told The Register: "We can confirm that we received a report from Plymouth City Council regarding this incident. After carefully assessing the information in the report, we provided data protection advice and closed the case with no further action." While the exposure appears limited to email addresses rather than more sensitive personal information, the incident serves as another reminder that some of the most common data breaches do not involve sophisticated cybercriminals or ransomware gangs. Sometimes all it takes is sending an email to a few hundred people and clicking the wrong box. ®

  •  

Microsoft's worst 'Nightmare' unleashes BitLocker bypass 0-day

Nightmare Eclipse, the prolific zero-day vulnerability hunter with an axe to grind against Microsoft, released yet another exploit late Wednesday that the researcher claims will spawn a command prompt that provides total access to the BitLocker volume. This bug, called GreatXML, was “an accidental discovery,” according to the researcher, who said it only took four hours to find. They claim this exploit (published on GitHub and Git-based code-hosting platforms) can bypass BitLocker on any system that has ever run a Microsoft Defender Offline scan at any point in the past. GreatXML comes just a day after Nightmare released exploit code for RoguePlanet, which allows local privilege escalation and leads to SYSTEM-level control over an affected machine. This brings the researcher’s zero-day count to eight. The earlier six - RedSun, UnDefend, BlueHammer, YellowKey, GreenPlasma, and MiniPlasma - all have patches as of this week’s Patch Tuesday event. Redmond on Wednesday told The Register that it is aware of RoguePlanet, and “actively investigating the validity and potential applicability of these claims.” The Windows giant didn’t immediately respond to our inquiries about GreatXML, including when it planned to issue a patch. Microsoft has said none of the vulnerabilities were reported via its official channels prior to being made public. The company also banned Nightmare’s earlier GitHub account, and seemingly threatened legal action before dialing back its rhetoric after steep backlash from the security community. Nightmare Eclipse, who some researchers suggest is an ex-Microsoft employee, harbors a very personal grudge against the Windows giant and its communications with bug hunters. They have promised to keep the zero-days coming, but waffle on the timing. Last month, the researcher pledged a big July 14 drop: “I will make sure your bones are shattered that day,” and then added, “nothing will be released this June (or maybe I will release smtg, depending on circumstances).” On Tuesday, they changed course. “I will be unable to mass disclose zerodays in July 14th, RoguePlanet took way more time than expected and truly drained me. I might take a break but I can't say for sure what I will be doing for next month, maybe it's nothing, maybe it's smtg.” A day later, Nightmare released the “accidental” GreatXML BitLocker bypass. According to the researcher, the BitLocker bypass first requires copying “unattend.xml” and the “Recovery” directory to the root of the recovery partition. The next step is rebooting into WinRE by Shift-clicking Restart. “If everything was done correctly, a shell with unrestricted access to the bitlocker volume will spawn,” Nightmare wrote. Also, if the scan hasn’t even been initiated on the Windows system, first you’d need to either log in and initiate it, or “figure out a way to boot into WinRE in offline scan state.” Security sleuth Will Dormann followed Nightmare’s steps to reproduce GreatXML, and said the writeup seems “flawed.” In his testing, Dormann said the command prompt appeared the next time a Defender Offline scan ran. “And in order to trigger a Microsoft Defender Offline scan, you both need to be logged in to Windows, and also have admin credentials,” he wrote on social media. “And if you've already got that level of access, you can just turn off bitlocker.” “The writeup for GreatXML suggests that the prerequisite is that Windows Defender Offline has been executed at some point in the past,” Dormann added. “And that after planting two files in WinRE, all you need to do is [Shift]-reboot into WinRE, and Windows will automatically go into Microsoft Defender Offline scan mode. But this is not the case in any of the 3 lineages of Win11 that I have handy.” ®

  •  

VRChat says somebody faked a breach notice with the Maine AG's office

UPDATED Following notes from several readers, we followed up directly with VRChat on Thursday at 1945 GMT and they told us that the Maine Attorney General's office apparently posted a fake breach report. According to an email from VRChat's head of community, Charles Tupper, "VRChat did not submit this Notice of Data Incident, and the employee/email cited does not exist. We have no reason to believe that our data or systems have been compromised. We are in the process of contacting the Maine Attorney General's office to have this removed." In an effort to get to the bottom of this, The Register dialed the phone number on the report as well, but it connected to a line that is not in service. We also tried emailing the address on the report and got no reply. We could find no record of a Scott Caruso affiliated with VRChat. We apologize for the error, but generally speaking, government data breach reports are considered reliable. The fakers apparently even created a false notice that VRChat ostensibly sent to customers! If anybody knows who filed this apparently fake report and why, get in touch through our contact page, or through our secure tipline. The original story is below: Online chat platform VRChat says a recent cyberattack compromised the data belonging to nearly 2.5 million users. It confirmed the “data security incident” in a report filed with Maine’s attorney general, but has not disclosed it via public channels. The company’s report confirmed that its cloud environment was accessed between May 10-12, with the unauthorized intruder making off with information concerning 2,436,782 users. This included VRChat usernames, email addresses, whether a user was a VRChat+ subscriber, login histories (including device, hardware identifiers, and IP addresses), and Steam or Meta user IDs. It does not believe passwords, credit cards or other payment information, or government IDs used for age verification were affected. “VRChat sincerely regrets that this security incident occurred,” the company stated in its disclosure. “We understand that trust between our platform and its community is earned through consistent action, and we take full responsibility for the concern this event has caused. “The security and privacy of our players' information remain our highest priority, and we are committed to doing everything within our power to protect it.” VRChat said that after it was made aware of the intrusion, it contained the threat and implemented additional security controls, as well as engaging outside security experts. And in an unusual move for US breaches, the San Francisco-based company did not offer identity theft or credit monitoring services. Offering these kinds of services is not a legal requirement, but doing so is highly common, especially regarding attacks that affect so many individuals. VRChat does not publish the total number of registered users that it has on its books, but its documentation states that “the platform has grown to millions of users,” who have collectively published tens of millions of unique pieces of content for it since its first release in 2014. The part game, part chat platform is an online, open-world chatroom where people walk around interacting with one another via their 3D avatars. It has been compared to Second Life in that users explore other users' worlds, play mini-games, and partake in casual chit-chat, with support for both virtual reality headsets and conventional PCs. You can also think of it as something similar to Meta’s vision for the metaverse, just without all the coworking and KPI meetings, and with way more users. ®

  •  

What We Learned from a Multi-Service Vulnerability Disclosure

A series of vulnerabilities reported through the RIPE NCC bug bounty programme revealed weaknesses across multiple services and highlighted the risks posed by vulnerability chains. We look at how the issues were addressed, and what the disclosure taught us about handling complex security reports that span teams and systems.
  •  

Infrastrutture Critiche e Geopolitica: è l’Era dell’Antifragilità

Il nuovo assetto geopolitico mondiale ha messo a nudo una serie di problematiche che sono state trascurate troppo a lungo. In pratica, quello che per anni abbiamo visto accadere nel software, ovvero l’entusiasmo per le nuove feature che andava a coprire la necessità di rendere sicuro il loro utilizzo, si è applicato anche in mille […]

L'articolo Infrastrutture Critiche e Geopolitica: è l’Era dell’Antifragilità proviene da Securityinfo.it.

  •  

Il gruppo criminale cinese TA4922 adesso punta anche all’Europa

Un gruppo cybercriminale di lingua cinese fino a poco tempo fa concentrato prevalentemente sul mercato asiatico sta ampliando rapidamente il proprio raggio d’azione verso Europa e Africa. Secondo le analisi pubblicate da Proofpoint, il gruppo chiamato TA4922 ha aumentato sensibilmente il volume delle proprie operazioni nel corso del 2026, prendendo di mira organizzazioni nel Regno […]

L'articolo Il gruppo criminale cinese TA4922 adesso punta anche all’Europa proviene da Securityinfo.it.

  •  

Il 78% delle aziende ha già subito o sospetta incidenti legati all’IA

A leggere il nuovo “2026 Cloud Security Report” realizzato da Check Point insieme a Cybersecurity Insiders, sembra proprio che l’adozione dell’intelligenza artificiale nelle aziende stia crescendo più rapidamente della capacità delle organizzazioni di proteggerla. Il report, basato sulle risposte di 1.042 professionisti IT e cybersecurity provenienti da organizzazioni di tutto il mondo, mostra un quadro […]

L'articolo Il 78% delle aziende ha già subito o sospetta incidenti legati all’IA proviene da Securityinfo.it.

  •  

SEO poisoning e chatbot AI dirottati per un malware miner

Le campagne di SEO poisoning non sono certo una novità nel panorama cybercriminale. Da decenni gli attaccanti manipolano i motori di ricerca per spingere siti malevoli tra i primi risultati, inducendo gli utenti a scaricare malware credendo di visitare pagine legittime. Ma una nuova campagna analizzata da Microsoft Security Blog mostra un’evoluzione particolarmente interessante del […]

L'articolo SEO poisoning e chatbot AI dirottati per un malware miner proviene da Securityinfo.it.

  •  

HackerOne taglia drasticamente le ricompense dei bug bounty

L’epoca d’oro dei bug bounty potrebbe stare entrando in una nuova fase molto più complessa. HackerOne, una delle piattaforme più importanti al mondo per la segnalazione responsabile di vulnerabilità, ha drasticamente ridotto le ricompense economiche del proprio programma Internet Bug Bounty (IBB), provocando forti reazioni nella comunità dei ricercatori di sicurezza. Secondo quanto riportato da […]

L'articolo HackerOne taglia drasticamente le ricompense dei bug bounty proviene da Securityinfo.it.

  •  

MSHTA, lo “zombie” di IE che alimenta attacchi su Windows

Nonostante Internet Explorer sia ormai ufficialmente morto da tempo, uno dei suoi componenti storici continua a rappresentare un serio problema di sicurezza per gli ambienti Windows moderni. Si tratta di MSHTA.exe, il Microsoft HTML Application Host, una utility legacy ancora inclusa di default nel sistema operativo e oggi sempre più sfruttata dai cybercriminali per distribuire […]

L'articolo MSHTA, lo “zombie” di IE che alimenta attacchi su Windows proviene da Securityinfo.it.

  •  

Attacco ai router Huawei dietro blackout telecom del Lussemburgo

Un attacco informatico basato su una vulnerabilità sconosciuta nei router enterprise di Huawei avrebbe causato nel 2025 uno dei più gravi incidenti infrastrutturali europei degli ultimi anni, provocando il collasso temporaneo dell’intera rete telecom del Lussemburgo. Secondo quanto riportato da Recorded Future News, l’incidente avrebbe coinvolto un comportamento non documentato del sistema operativo di rete […]

L'articolo Attacco ai router Huawei dietro blackout telecom del Lussemburgo proviene da Securityinfo.it.

  •  

Falso repository OpenAI su Hugging Face distribuisce malware

La corsa all’AI sta creando nuove superfici di attacco e i cybercriminali stanno iniziando a sfruttarle con tecniche sempre più sofisticate. L’ultimo caso arriva dal mondo dei modelli open source e delle piattaforme collaborative dedicate all’intelligenza artificiale: un repository malevolo pubblicato su Hugging Face è riuscito a spacciarsi per un progetto ufficiale di OpenAI, raggiungendo […]

L'articolo Falso repository OpenAI su Hugging Face distribuisce malware proviene da Securityinfo.it.

  •  

Ecco il GitHub per fare di Claude un operatore OSINT avanzato

L’intelligenza artificiale sta, ovviamente e progressivamente, cambiando anche il modo in cui vengono condotte attività di reconnaissance, threat intelligence e analisi offensiva. Accanto ai tradizionali strumenti OSINT, stanno emergendo nuovi progetti che vanno oltre la pura automazione e puntano sulla capacità di guidare i Large Language Model attraverso metodologie operative strutturate. Uno degli esempi più […]

L'articolo Ecco il GitHub per fare di Claude un operatore OSINT avanzato proviene da Securityinfo.it.

  •  

Le troppe falle nella cybersicurezza dei trasporti italiani

Immagine in evidenza rielaborata con IA

Quanto è difficile parlare di cybersicurezza con le aziende. E ciò vale anche per quelle dei trasporti: un settore in apparenza lontano dagli attacchi dei cracker, ma che mostra invece parecchie vulnerabilità oltre a un ampio potenziale di rischio. Provare ad affrontare il tema della sicurezza informatica con alcune delle più grandi realtà del paese produce come minimo un irrigidimento; nel peggiore dei casi, il silenzio. Mail senza risposta, telefoni che squillano a vuoto, repliche vaghe: quasi nessuno si presta a rispondere alle domande del cronista, e molti si eclissano dopo un primo contatto di prammatica.

La cybersicurezza delle autostrade italiane

Prendiamo Autostrade per l’Italia (ASPI), la stessa società che qualche anno fa (non molti: era il 2018) finì sotto la lente di ingrandimento per il caso del ponte Morandi, crollato a Genova a metà agosto. Un disastro che aveva sollevato interrogativi profondi sui sistemi di controllo e sulla cultura della sicurezza del gruppo. Ci si aspetterebbe che queste procedure, fisiche e cyber, siano diventate il fiore all’occhiello del gruppo. E che – stando così le cose – non sia un problema comunicarlo all’esterno. Sbagliato. Svariati tentativi di contatto via email sono caduti nel vuoto. Non va meglio al telefono, con l’apparecchio dell’ufficio stampa che squilla senza che nessuno risponda. Quando si attiva la segreteria, lo fa solo per rimandare al medesimo indirizzo di posta elettronica, che rimane muto. 

La società Movyon si definisce il “centro di eccellenza per la ricerca e innovazione del gruppo ASPI” e offre “soluzioni tecnologiche end-to-end per gestori di infrastrutture stradali e autostradali, pubbliche amministrazioni e service provider, supportandoli nella creazione di una mobilità più intelligente, accessibile, sostenibile e sicura a favore della comunità”. Il logo si trova, per esempio, sulle sbarre che si alzano e si abbassano ai caselli.

Sembra la porta giusta a cui bussare per parlare di cybersicurezza con ASPI. Del resto, la stessa Movyon sviluppa applicazioni tecnologicamente avanzate come quelle per il monitoraggio delle merci pericolose in viaggio sulla rete, il cosiddetto V2X (vehicle to everything): un sistema che, si legge nella presentazione, “monitora in tempo reale i veicoli che trasportano materiali pericolosi e avvisa i conducenti di eventuali situazioni di pericolo, come la presenza di altri veicoli con merci pericolose nelle vicinanze o situazioni anomale lungo la strada”. Il sistema non si limita al minimo indispensabile, ma, viene spiegato, arricchisce i messaggi con informazioni aggiuntive rispetto agli standard di settore. Lecito chiedersi: cosa succederebbe se venisse attaccato? 

Estendendo il discorso, ci sono altre domande da porsi. Cosa accadrebbe se qualcuno tentasse di azzerare tutti i pedaggi, rubare i dati delle carte di credito degli automobilisti, o cambiare i messaggi nei cartelli a led che puntellano la rete, magari consigliando di effettuare deviazioni non necessarie al solo scopo di creare il caos? È già accaduto in passato? Quali misure sono state prese? Chi è il responsabile della sicurezza? Domande la cui risposta possiamo soltanto immaginare, perché neanche Movyon ha risposto alla nostra richiesta di contatto.

Le Ferrovie dello Stato

Anche il trasporto ferroviario non è esente da rischi cyber. Che possono riguardare gli apparati di gestione elettronica della rete e dei convogli, ma anche il sistema dei pagamenti. Nel mese di novembre 2025 un attore malevolo ha rubato e diffuso online 2,3 terabyte di dati di Almaviva (un provider di servizi web) e Ferrovie dello Stato, che a esso si appoggiava. 

L’attacco è stato confermato dalla stessa Almaviva in una nota, dopo essere trapelato alla stampa. Secondo la rivendicazione dei cracker, il leak conterrebbe repository aziendali condivisi e documentazione tecnica riservata, inclusi contratti. Ma ci sarebbero anche dati personali dei passeggeri e dei dipendenti di quasi tutte le società del gruppo FS, da Mercitalia a Rete Ferroviaria Italiana, da Trenitalia a Italferr (da poco ribattezzata FS Engineering). 

“L’episodio che ci riguarda è riconducibile a un accesso non autorizzato che ha interessato un vecchio data center in dismissione della società Almaviva”, rispondono le Ferrovie dello Stato a una richiesta di informazioni da parte di Guerre di Rete. “L’attenzione è concentrata sull’accertamento tecnico dei fatti, sulla tutela delle informazioni e sulla piena collaborazione con Almaviva, società obiettivo dell’attacco, e le autorità competenti”. Le FS non forniscono ulteriori dettagli “per rispetto delle indagini”, ma aggiungono che sono in corso “attività di verifica tecnica e monitoraggio di tutti i nostri sistemi”. Almaviva, viene spiegato dalle Ferrovie, ha “informato anche gli organismi competenti per la protezione dei dati personali, mentre il Gruppo FS collabora per ciò che riguarda tutti i profili di propria competenza”.

Che provvedimenti sono stati presi? “Appena emersa la vicenda, il Gruppo FS, grazie alla sinergia tra FS Security e FS Technology e in coordinamento con Almaviva e con le autorità, ha attivato tutte le misure di sicurezza e mitigazione necessarie”, risponde la società. “Sono stati predisposti backup alternativi, rafforzate le attività di monitoraggio e continuità operativa e condivise le azioni da intraprendere con le strutture di Security del gruppo e con gli organismi di vigilanza competenti. Parallelamente, prosegue il monitoraggio del web e dei canali specializzati per intercettare tempestivamente eventuali pubblicazioni di materiali riconducibili all’attacco. Anche Almaviva ha dichiarato di aver isolato l’attacco, attivato il proprio team specializzato e garantito la continuità dei servizi critici”.

FS definisce “fondamentale” il presidio dell’intera filiera tecnologica – considerando che tutti i grandi gruppi si avvalgono di fornitori che possono essere “bucati” – e ammette che non è sufficiente monitorare i sistemi interni. “I fornitori e i partner tecnologici sono tenuti a rispettare requisiti stringenti sul piano della sicurezza informatica, della protezione dei dati, della continuità operativa e della gestione degli incidenti. Tali presidi sono definiti nell’ambito dei rapporti contrattuali, dei processi di qualifica e delle verifiche periodiche, con livelli di attenzione coerenti con la criticità dei servizi affidati”. L’errore è sempre possibile, ed è in queste lunghe catene di fornitura che provano a infilarsi i cattivi della rete. 

Il trasporto aereo

Già, il problema delle filiere. Sempre più complesse, e, per questo, sempre più vulnerabili.  Pensare a un attacco al sistema ferroviario può spaventare, ma immaginare che sia il sistema di controllo di un aeroplano a essere bucato scatena il terrore. Guerre di Rete ha provato a contattare Ita Airways, compagnia di bandiera (o forse non più: dipende dai punti di vista) italiana. Alla nostra richiesta di intervista, gli uffici hanno opposto un no-comment. Non è stato possibile, dunque, parlare con il CISO (chief internet security officer, cioè il capo della sicurezza informatica) né domandare che tipo di procedure di sicurezza, almeno a livello basilare, siano prese a tutela dei viaggiatori. 

Ma perché questa paura di parlare, quando si tratta di cybersecurity? A rispondere è l’ENAC, l’Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile, che fa capo al governo ed è l’autorità che fissa le regole del settore in Italia basandosi su normative europee (come la NIS2) e nazionali. “La sicurezza, in generale, sta alle spalle dei processi operativi: per questo è prassi comune che non se ne parli, e che le misure prese non vengano condivise”, riflette l’ingegnere Sebastiano Veccia, a capo della sicurezza dell’ENAC. Nella sua interpretazione, “non è ritrosia, ma una forma di cultura di sicurezza: si fa, ma non si dice”. 

Resta il fatto che il pubblico ha domande sul rischio di volare, soprattutto in tempi di guerre asimmetriche che coinvolgono obiettivi non militari. Chiediamo se è possibile far cadere un aereo per mezzo di un attacco informatico. “Mi sento di escluderlo”, risponde Veccia. “Certo, un caso molto diverso come quello dell’11 settembre insegna che tutto è possibile, ma si tratta di una probabilità estremamente bassa”. È possibile invece inserirsi nei sistemi  di comunicazione con i piloti? “I sistemi di comunicazione tra l’aeromobile e la torre di controllo sono avanti anni luce”, risponde il dirigente. 

E se invece qualcuno riuscisse a infiltrarsi nelle ditte che producono gli aeroplani, e quindi anche il software che li governa, per inserire codice malevolo? In fondo gli incidenti del Boeing 737 Max paiono legati a sensori difettosi e software. “È il problema ben noto dei cosiddetti insider nell’industria. In Italia e in Europa, per le figure che entrano a contatto con aree e attività sensibili, viene richiesto alle forze di polizia un controllo dei precedenti penali del soggetto. Per ruoli di particolare criticità si richiede, in aggiunta, un background check rafforzato, che non si limita ai precedenti penali, ma guarda anche agli ambienti e alle compagnie che la persona frequenta”. Indagini di intelligence che servono a capire se il soggetto è radicalizzato, o vicino ad aree politiche pericolose. “La prevenzione si fa a monte, e lo stesso approccio degli aeroporti vale anche per i costruttori aeronautici e chi fa manutenzione degli aeromobili. Anche per chi è incaricato di caricare i dati sui pc di bordo c’è una procedura blindata”.

Veccia è consapevole che la sicurezza è un gioco tra guardie e ladri: l’inseguimento è costante. Si prova a isolare i dispositivi critici dal mondo esterno. “Le chiavette di manutenzione vengono controllate, sterilizzate e infine distrutte. Non solo: in aviazione le stesse attività di controllo si espletano in loco e non, come spesso accade oggi, da remoto. La programmazione degli interventi di sicurezza è importante, così come lo è preparare una matrice dei rischi: perché  il 90% delle emergenze è dovuto a cattiva pianificazione. Faccio comunque notare che energia nucleare e aeronautica sono sempre stati i due settori più controllati”. 

La visione di Veccia è confermata da una nostra fonte interna al settore. Che, al tavolo di un ristorante, racconta come “negli ultimi trent’anni non ci sono mai stati due incidenti aeronautici per lo stesso motivo, e questo perché ogni volta che ne accade uno lo si analizza nei dettagli e si corre ai ripari. Questo, in altri settori dove le procedure sono molto più lasse, viene preso per eccesso di pignoleria”. Un esempio è quello dei trasporti marittimi, con i porti che rappresentano la via di ingresso privilegiata per le merci che finiscono sugli scaffali, per il petrolio, ma anche per molto altro.

La sicurezza informatica dei porti

Sarebbe sbagliato sottovalutare l’importanza della cybersicurezza nei porti: quantità enormi di merci viaggiano via mare. Ma ci sono anche droga, armi, materiale illegale. E persone. Si comincia dai controlli all’ingresso per camion e autoveicoli. Entrare liberamente nell’area portuale significa avere una sorta di lasciapassare, utilissimo se si sa dove mettere le mani. Sistemi di controllo esistono, certo. Ma, come racconta la nostra fonte, le maglie sono larghe: “Quando si fanno le gare di appalto, per esempio per le telecamere da installare, solitamente si sceglie il prodotto che ha il prezzo più basso, che di norma è cinese. Queste telecamere possono avere delle backdoor, delle porte software nascoste che sono in grado di esfiltrare i dati e che cambiano a ogni aggiornamento. In sostanza, non controllando la tecnologia che usiamo potremmo offrire a un paese straniero la possibilità di fare intelligence sulle nostre informazioni”. Pechino è la principale indagata. 

Ma c’è di più. L’andirivieni di un porto è basato su un sistema di riconoscimento delle targhe automobilistiche: camion di autotrasportatori noti trovano porte aperte e sbarre alzate ai varchi. I controlli sono a campione. Facile capire come, con un attacco mirato, sia facile far entrare anche chi non sarebbe autorizzato. Basta inserire una targa in più nel gestionale e il gioco è fatto. Le procedure manuali sarebbero più efficaci, ma sono troppo lente per i volumi di traffico dei grandi hub. Senza considerare che gli spazi sulle banchine sono affittati e gestiti tramite un software gestionale estremamente complesso, che sa esattamente chi e dove farà cosa con mesi di anticipo: anche in questo caso, un cybercriminale che riuscisse a entrare nel sistema potrebbe creare il caos operativo, paralizzando le attività. Guerre di Rete ha contattato il porto di Gioia Tauro, principale scalo merci italiano: nessuna risposta, neanche dopo svariati tentativi telefonici e via mail. Ha risposto, invece, l’autorità portuale di Genova. 

“In merito alla richiesta pervenutaci, siamo nella necessità di non poter aderire all’iniziativa proposta”, afferma la replica pervenuta tramite posta elettronica. “La cybersecurity costituisce un ambito di particolare sensibilità per le infrastrutture critiche nazionali, categoria alla quale i sistemi portuali appartengono a pieno titolo. La normativa vigente in materia, unitamente alle linee guida emanate dall’Agenzia per la Cybersicurezza Nazionale (ACN), raccomanda la massima prudenza nella comunicazione pubblica relativa a sistemi, procedure e strategie di protezione informatica. La policy dell’Ente prevede pertanto di non rilasciare interviste su tali tematiche al di fuori dei canali istituzionali preposti”. Insomma, nulla da dichiarare. 

Tutto bene?

Il breve viaggio intrapreso offre un quadro allarmante. E le contromisure non possono essere solo tecniche. Veccia, dirigente dell’ENAC, sottolinea quanto la cultura aziendale giochi un ruolo centrale: “La formazione del personale è importante. C’è ancora chi lascia le proprie password attaccate al PC con dei post-it. Per questo va ribadito: anche se fare corsi può sembrare noioso ai dipendenti, quest’attività si rivela utile quando ci si trova di fronte a un caso sospetto, e si torna con la mente alle lezioni in aula per sapere come reagire”. 

Ci sono anche altre questioni, più difficili da affrontare. Come spiega la nostra fonte, “molte delle soluzioni di cybersecurity nel nostro paese vengono vendute dallo stesso gruppo di persone, poche decine di soggetti che si conoscono tra loro e che possono essere avvicinati senza grossi problemi da chi è dotato di argomenti convincenti, e di una certa disponibilità economica”. Accade di continuo, spiega. Ma questo è un tema per un altro giorno.

L'articolo Le troppe falle nella cybersicurezza dei trasporti italiani proviene da Guerre di Rete.

  •  

Addressing Cybersecurity Challenges in Open Source Software: What you need to know

by Ashwin Ramaswami

June 2022 saw the publication of Addressing Cybersecurity Challenges in Open Source Software, a joint research initiative launched by the Open Source Security Foundation in collaboration with Linux Foundation Research and Snyk. The research dives into security concerns in the open source ecosystem. If you haven’t read it, this article will give you the report’s who, what, and why, summarizing its key takeaways so that it can be relevant to you or your organization.

Who is the report for?

This report is for everyone whose work touches open source software. Whether you’re a user of open source, an OSS developer, or part of an OSS-related institution or foundation, you can benefit from a better understanding of the state of security in the ecosystem.

Open source consumers and users: It’s very likely that you rely on open source software as dependencies if you develop software. And if you do, one important consideration is the security of the software supply chain. Security incidents such as log4shell have shown how open source supply chain security touches nearly every industry. Even industries and organizations that have traditionally not focused on open source software now realize the importance of ensuring their OSS dependencies are secure. Understanding the state of OSS security can help you to manage your dependencies intelligently, choose them wisely, and keep them up to date.

Open source developers and maintainers: People and organizations that develop or maintain open source software need to ensure they use best practices and policies for security. For example, it can be valuable for large organizations to have open source security policies. Moreover, many OSS developers also use other open source software as dependencies, making understanding the OSS security landscape even more valuable. Developers have a unique role to play in leading the creation of high-quality code and the respective governance frameworks and best practices around it.

Institutions: Institutions such as open source foundations, funders, and policymaking groups can benefit from this report by understanding and implementing the key findings of the research and their respective roles in improving the current state of the OSS ecosystem. Funding and support can only go to the right areas if priorities are informed by the problems the community is facing now, which the research assists in identifying.

What are the major takeaways?

The data from this report was collected by conducting a worldwide survey of:

  • Individuals who contribute to, use, or administer OSS;
  • Maintainers, core contributors, and occasional contributors to OSS;
  • Developers of proprietary software who use OSS; and
  • Individuals with a strong focus on software supply chain security

The survey also included data collected from several major package ecosystems by using Snyk Open Source, a static code analysis (SCA) tool free to use for individuals and open source maintainers.

Here are the major takeaways and recommendations from the report:

  • Too many organizations are not prepared to address OSS security needs: At least 34% of organizations did not have an OSS security policy in place, suggesting these organizations may not be prepared to address OSS security needs.
  • Small organizations must prioritize developing an OSS security policy: Small organizations are significantly less likely to have an OSS security policy. Such organizations should prioritize developing this policy and having a CISO and OSPO (Open Source Program Office).
  • Using additional security tools is a leading way to improve OSS security: Security tooling is available for open source security across the software development lifecycle. Moreover, organizations with an OSS security policy have a higher frequency of security tool use than those without an OSS security policy.
  • Collaborate with vendors to create more intelligent security tools: Organizations consider that one of the most important ways to improve OSS security across the supply chain is adding greater intelligence to existing software security tools, making it easier to integrate OSS security into existing workflows and build systems.
  • Implementing best practices for secure software development is the other leading way to improve OSS security: Understanding best practices for secure software development, through courses such as the OpenSSF’s Secure Software Development Fundamentals Courses, has been identified repeatedly as a leading way to improve OSS supply chain security.
  • Use automation to reduce your attack surface: Infrastructure as Code (IaC) tools and scanners allow automating CI/CD activities to eliminate threat vectors around manual deployments.
  • Consumers of open source software should give back to the communities that support them: The use of open source software has often been a one-way street where users see significant benefits with minimal cost or investment. For larger open source projects to meet user expectations, organizations must give back and close the loop by financially supporting OSS projects they use.

Why is this important now?

Open source software is a boon: its collaborative and open nature has allowed society to benefit from various innovative, reliable, and free software tools. However, these benefits only last when users contribute back to open source software and when users and developers exercise due diligence around security. While the most successful open source projects have gotten such support, other projects have not – even as open source use has continued to be more ubiquitous.

Thus, it is more important than ever to be aware of the problems and issues everyone faces in the OSS ecosystem. Some organizations and open source maintainers have strong policies and procedures for handling these issues. But, as this report shows, other organizations are just facing these issues now.

Finally, we’ve seen the risks of not maintaining proper security practices around OSS dependencies. Failure to update open source dependencies has led to costs as high as $425 million. Given these risks, a little investment in strong security practices and awareness around open source – as outlined in the report’s recommendations – can go a long way.

We suggest you read the report – then see how you or your organization can take the next step to keep yourself secure!

The post Addressing Cybersecurity Challenges in Open Source Software: What you need to know appeared first on Linux Foundation.

  •  
❌