A human ransomware crook used frontier AI models to breach an enterprise network in less than 10 hours, an intrusion Unit 42 says would normally take human operators around two weeks. The human attacker then told negotiators that they used frontier models and agentic attack frameworks with AI agents carrying out each step in the intrusion, including leaving an 80-page security audit for the victim company. “What made the attack stand out was AI-assisted operational efficiency, without the need for a novel zero-day or super elite tradecraft,” Unit 42 incident responders said in a Wednesday report. “The attacker left tactical execution to AI agents that monitored, evaluated, acted and re-planned in real time, increasing speed throughout the attack chain.” The security shop did not immediately answer The Register’s questions about the intrusion, including which models and frameworks the attacker used. Breaking down the attack In a first step, the human attacker employed AI agents to perform reconnaissance, then gained access by breaching a public API endpoint to tunnel into the enterprise network. Upon breaking in, the attacker deployed an automated recon agent to map internal microservices. Additional subagents scraped code repositories to steal hard-coded tokens and service passwords. Using these tokens, the AI intruders accessed the org's secret-management system and stole the master administrative credentials to gain root system access. “Specialist pivot agents” then validated access to the company’s cloud, identity, CI/CD, container, and SaaS environments. The attacker also hijacked CI/CD workflows to steal cloud access keys and turn the victim’s cloud AI services into post-compromise infrastructure. This allowed the attacker to consume the victim’s compute resources while hiding orchestration traffic among legitimate activity. After achieving the human operator’s goals, an agent left the victim an 80-page report on its security failings, detailing “dozens of exploited findings,” the incident responders wrote. Not surprisingly, Palo Alto Networks says the only way defenders can protect their environments against machine-speed attacks is to use AI agents themselves. “Deploy automated playbooks that simultaneously revoke credentials, terminate OAuth sessions, freeze CI/CD pipelines and isolate cloud accounts across all operational planes,” the authors advise. The incident response team also suggests companies treat AI as core infrastructure. This requires taking inventory of every model endpoint, API key, Model Context Protocol (MCP) gateway, and AI tool integration, and applying rate limits and least-privilege policies – or risk an unexpected and very large token bill. ®

Google on Wednesday announced Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber, which it described as its most capable cybersecurity model, and has made it available to a set of trusted defenders via a new initiative called the Fairwind Program. "The Fairwind Program gives high-priority defenders (like governments, healthcare providers, and telecommunications services) early access to advanced models that help them

submitted by /u/Xclow3n_
[link] [comments]

An active malware campaign is using bogus software-download websites to impersonate trusted vendors and distribute malicious installers. "The campaign has targeted users looking to download popular software and has resulted in compromises across multiple organizations and industries, primarily affecting China-based operations of multinational organizations and Chinese-speaking users," Microsoft

SonicWall says attackers are actively exploiting two chained zero-days to take over Secure Mobile Access (SMA) Series 1000 boxes. Aimed at midsize and large enterprises, SMA1000 gateways secure remote access and VPN connections. Compromising one can therefore provide attackers with a valuable route into corporate networks. So, get to applying those hotfixes, says SonicWall. There are no workarounds. The first zero-day, CVE-2026-83548, is a pre-authentication server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability with a maximum CVSS v3 score of 10.0. SonicWall attributed it to an unintended alternative access path. "A remote unauthenticated attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability to gain unauthorized access to sensitive functionality and perform unauthorized operations," the vendor said. The second, CVE-2026-83549, is a post-authentication OS command injection vulnerability in the SMA1000 Appliance Management Console (AMC), rated 7.8 on CVSS v3. Under certain conditions, an attacker authenticated as an administrator could execute arbitrary commands on the appliance. The flaws affect the SMA 6210, 7210, and 8200v appliances, for which SonicWall has released hotfixes. SonicWall advised customers to contact its technical support team for help identifying indicators of compromise. If an appliance appears to have been compromised, SonicWall recommends reimaging or redeploying it, changing all passwords, and resetting TOTP tokens. NHS England, which published its own advisory, warned about the growing risk of attacks against internet-facing gateways. "Firewalls and other edge devices are internet-facing by design and are highly attractive targets to attackers, and there is an increasing number of edge device vulnerabilities disclosed each year that are rapidly exploited by attackers," it stated. "The NHS England National CSOC assesses future exploitation of these vulnerabilities as almost certain." The disclosures continue a difficult run for SonicWall and its SMA1000 product line stretching back through 2025. In July, the vendor disclosed an eerily similar pair of vulnerabilities. That pair also comprised a pre-authentication SSRF vulnerability, this time in the SMA1000 Appliance WorkPlace interface, and a post-authentication OS command injection flaw in the AMC. The SSRF received a maximum CVSS v3 score of 10.0, while the command injection bug was rated in the sevens. CISA later added CVE-2026-15409 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog and marked it as known to have been used in ransomware campaigns. Throughout 2025, SonicWall patched a succession of SMA1000 vulnerabilities, including OS command injection and privilege escalation flaws, while investigating zero-days linked to ransomware attacks. ®

Labor Day weekend means sales. And if you spend any time on Facebook, Instagram or TikTok, some of the biggest discounts may find you before you even start shopping.

That convenience comes with a catch: Not every deal in your feed is really from the brand it appears to be.

Scammers can create polished social media ads that impersonate familiar retailers, advertise steep discounts and send shoppers to convincing lookalike websites. According to the Federal Trade Commission, nearly 30% of people who reported losing money to a scam in 2025 said that it started on social media. And the reported losses hit a whopping $2.1 billion last year.

So before a Labor Day “80% off” deal stops your scroll, give it a second look.

How Fake Social Media Shopping Ads Work

A fake shopping ad often starts with something completely ordinary: a product you actually want.

Maybe it’s sneakers from a familiar brand. Patio furniture you’ve been researching. A handbag, grill or appliance marked down for Labor Day.

The ad may use the real company’s logo, product photography and branding. Click it, and the website can look remarkably similar to the retailer’s actual site.

That’s the trick.

This is a form of brand impersonation: A scammer copies the appearance of a company people already know and trust. Instead of convincing you to trust an unfamiliar store, the scammer borrows the reputation of a familiar one.

Sometimes these ads lead to completely fake storefronts. Other times shoppers receive counterfeit products, something dramatically different from what they ordered or nothing at all.

The FTC recently warned consumers specifically about social media ads advertising brand-name products at unusually low prices. And the problem isn’t limited to one platform. A convincing ad can reach you wherever you scroll.

She Thought She Bought $800 Patio Chairs for $135

One shopper who shared her story with McAfee learned just how convincing these scams can be.

A few years ago, Jen was scrolling through Facebook when she spotted an ad for the exact Wayfair patio chairs she and her husband had been considering. Normally around $800, the chairs were advertised at 80% off — just $135 with free shipping.

She clicked.

The experience looked enough like Wayfair that she continued with the purchase, even though a few things started to feel strange. A new tab opened when she tried to buy the chairs. The checkout mentioned PayPal even though she was using her credit card. Then she learned the order would be shipping from China and could take six to 12 weeks.

When she checked her credit card, the charge wasn’t from Wayfair. It appeared in Chinese characters.

Weeks later, a package finally arrived.

It wasn’t a set of patio chairs. Inside the small package was a ceiling-fan chain with a cheap ring.

Her credit card company eventually reversed the charges. But the experience illustrates something important about fake shopping ads: You don’t necessarily land on an obviously fake website filled with misspellings and broken images. A scammer’s goal is to make the experience feel normal long enough for you to complete the purchase.

7 Signs a Social Media Ad or Shopping Site Could Be Fake

Before buying something you find through Facebook, Instagram, TikTok or another social platform, look for these warning signs:

1. The discount is dramatically better than everywhere else.
A legitimate sale can be generous. But if one ad offers a popular $800 product for $135 while reputable retailers are nowhere close, investigate before buying.

2. The website address doesn’t match the retailer.
A fake site can copy a logo much more easily than it can copy a company’s official domain. Look carefully for extra words, misspellings or unusual endings in the web address.

3. Clicking takes you somewhere unexpected.
Watch for redirects, new tabs or checkout pages on a different domain. A change doesn’t automatically mean fraud, but it’s a reason to verify where you are before entering payment information.

4. The checkout process feels off.
Pay attention when the payment method, merchant name or checkout experience doesn’t match what the site told you to expect.

5. There’s pressure to buy immediately.
Countdown timers and “only two left” warnings can push you to act before checking the seller. Urgency is useful to scammers because it shortens the time you spend thinking.

6. You can’t independently verify the sale.
Open a new browser window or the retailer’s official app and search for the product yourself. If the incredible sale exists only through the social ad, that’s a warning sign.

7. The merchant on your credit card doesn’t match the company you thought you paid.
Check the transaction after buying. An unfamiliar merchant name or unexpected international charge deserves immediate attention.

The Safest Way to Shop a Deal You See on Social Media

Here’s a simple safety checklist for Labor Day weekend:

✓ Leave the social app and find the retailer yourself. Don’t let the ad choose your destination.

✓ Compare the price elsewhere. A discount that’s wildly out of line with other retailers deserves extra scrutiny.

✓ Check the URL and merchant name. Make sure you’re dealing with the company you think you’re dealing with.

✓ Use a credit card when possible. And save screenshots, receipts and order confirmations in case you need to dispute the purchase.

What If You Already Bought Something From a Fake Ad?

Act quickly, but don’t panic.

Save screenshots of the ad, website, receipt and any emails or messages from the seller. Check your credit card or bank statement to see how the transaction appears.

If you believe the purchase was fraudulent, contact your card issuer or financial institution and explain what happened. Ask about disputing the transaction and whether your card information should be replaced.

If you created an account on the fake website and reused a password you use elsewhere, change that password anywhere you’ve used it. Unique passwords matter because a scammer who captures one password may try the same email-and-password combination on other accounts.

You can also report fraudulent ads to the social platform and report the scam to the FTC.

How McAfee Helps You Shop More Safely

Spotting every fake yourself is getting harder. Scammers can copy legitimate branding, product photos and storefront designs closely enough that a quick visual check isn’t always enough.

McAfee Scam Detector can help identify suspicious links, messages and websites and alert you when something may be a scam. Plus it has social media tools to help detect scams originating from your favorite platforms. That can provide another check when an attractive offer lands in a social message or sends you toward a questionable site.

Web Protection can also help warn you about risky websites as you browse, adding protection at the moment a convincing ad tries to move you away from the social platform and onto a malicious destination.

The goal isn’t to stop shopping the sales you see online. It’s to make sure the store getting your money is the store you intended to pay.

The post Is That TikTok Ad Legit? How to Spot Fake Ads on Social Media During Major Sales Events appeared first on McAfee Blog.

Dropbox has warned around 5,000 users that attackers compromised their accounts by abusing a legacy Lenovo login integration. In an email sent to affected customers, the cloud storage biz said attackers exploited an integration that allowed users to access Dropbox using Lenovo IDs. Dropbox blamed "an issue with Lenovo's email verification process," which allowed attackers to register Lenovo IDs using Dropbox users' email addresses and then access the corresponding storage accounts. It did not explain why the integration was allowed to grant access without requiring the user to enter a Dropbox password. The compromise lasted from August 4 to 21. Dropbox told Bloomberg that attackers accessed files belonging to fewer than a third of the affected users. Jameson Lopp, co-founder of Bitcoin security company Casa, said attackers attempted to access just one of his files, "IMPORTANT.rtf," which had been encrypted locally before it was uploaded to Dropbox. Sometimes, it pays to be a nerd. Dropbox confirmed the scale of the attack to Reuters and said none of the affected accounts had two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled. After discovering the breach, Dropbox said it "promptly expired all sessions logged in through Lenovo IDs" and "severed any link" between the affected accounts and Lenovo. In its email, the company advised affected users to change their Dropbox and personal email passwords and enable 2FA. Lenovo told Reuters that its customers were unaffected and that its investigation was continuing. The Register asked Dropbox and Lenovo for more information. ®

Manifold Security has disclosed eight security flaws across seven command-line AI coding agents in which a repository's own Git configuration names a command that the agent runs on the developer's machine, four of them still unpatched at publication. The command executes as the user, outside the agent's sandbox and without an approval prompt, and exploitation requires the repository to arrive

A Chinese-speaking cybercrime cluster known as Gambling Goblin has been observed installing malicious Apache modules on compromised web servers run by Brazilian government and educational institutions, and using them to divert visitors to attacker-controlled pages promoting online gambling and sports betting. Check Point Research said it has tracked the campaign since mid-2025. The modules

Virtualizor said hackers used a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) hijack to divert Softaculous traffic. The hackers then used the diverted update traffic to deliver a malicious Virtualizor package to some installations. A hosting-provider account separately said 5 of its 34 checked Virtualizor hypervisors sustained root-level compromise. The incident window ran from approximately August 28 at 20:57

Cybersecurity researchers have disclosed details of a new Android banking trojan called StreamRat that was promoted to Spanish-speaking users through a fake television-streaming campaign on Meta and can give operators near-complete control of infected devices. ThreatFabric said the campaign's advertisement focused on Spain and reached an estimated 570,950 Meta accounts in the European Union

The debate about whether AI delivers business value is over. The challenge now is implementing it at scale and securely across every function while meeting board-level pressure to move fast. Organizations must focus on adopting AI at business speed without losing control of cyber risk. Download the full eBook here.  The Business Reality  In Sygnia’s 2026 CISO Survey Report, which

SonicWall has released security updates to address two security flaws impacting its Secure Mobile Access (SMA) 1000 series VPN appliances that have been exploited in zero-day attacks. The vulnerabilities, discovered internally by SonicWall's William Perry and Adam Babis, are listed below - CVE-2026-83548 (CVSS score: 10.0) -  A pre-authentication SSRF vulnerability in the Appliance

The UK government has rejected proposals from members of the the House of Lords to bring AI vendors within the scope of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. Cybersecurity minister Baroness Lloyd of Effra argued that regulating AI vendors and frontier model developers through the bill would not prevent hostile actors from misusing their products. Addressing the Grand Committee on Tuesday, she said: "Bringing providers of AI services, those companies which are at the cutting edge of frontier AI development and their products, into the scope… would not address the harms that can be posed by some AI products and services, or specifically, it would not prevent their misuse by hostile actors." The minister said the UK was instead taking "firm action" to secure AI through other channels. These include supporting the AI Security Institute (AISI), which works with vendors to test the security of models before their release. Lloyd also pointed to the voluntary AI Cyber Security Code of Practice, which informed the first global AI cybersecurity standard, ETSI EN 304 223. "This demonstrates our global leadership and commitment to shaping international technical standards which go wider than some of the issues raised in this bill," she claimed. Members of the House of Lords - the upper house in UK parliament - offered numerous arguments for bringing AI within the bill's scope. They cited reports of rogue agentic behavior involving Anthropic and OpenAI, as well as Bill Gates' concerns that commercial incentives are pushing AI development forward without adequate safeguards. Lawmakers also questioned whether companies unable to prevent their agents from misbehaving should be trusted to follow voluntary ethical guidelines that they can rewrite at will. "Have we not learned from countless experiences before in online safety, privacy, and in AI itself that allowing tech companies to set and mark their own homework endangers the public and our national security?" asked Baroness Kidron, a Crossbench peer and campaigner for online safety and digital rights. Similarly, Lord Tarassenko, a Crossbench peer and veteran AI researcher, pointed to the recent open letter penned by OpenAI warning that there will soon come a time when AI-orchestrated cyberattacks will become too prevalent to handle. Although the letter was criticized for employing alarmist language while carrying the signatures of companies that profit from AI, peers argued that its warning strengthened the case for regulatory intervention. Kidron and Lloyd also clashed after the minister used a hypothetical healthcare organization to illustrate how the bill would require regulated bodies to secure systems containing AI. Kidron asked: "If I might ask the noble Lady, the Minister, if I've understood what she said, the NHS must protect itself, but the AI that is attacking it has no requirement under the Bill, no duties, no obligations under the Bill to check itself before it's used in these ways." Lloyd said the bill was designed to be technology-agnostic and to impose stricter cybersecurity requirements on key organizations, rather than regulate individual technology providers. She nevertheless said the government was willing to continue discussing AI after Kidron predicted that the issue would return during later stages of the bill's passage. The minister rejected several other amendments, including one that would require certain AI vendors to demonstrate that their products could not cross specified red lines, such as evading human oversight or assisting with the development of chemical weapons. She also dismissed a proposal that would give the Secretary of State last-resort powers to order the shutdown of a datacenter or widely deployed AI system during a security or operational emergency. Lloyd said the bill would instead allow the government to direct regulated entities, including datacenter operators but not AI vendors, to take or cease specified actions when their systems presented a qualifying risk. A power station could, for example, be instructed to stop using a particular AI model. "We believe this is a more proportionate and effective response, as datacenters operate in highly complex ecosystems and AI systems are often distributed across different datacenters and jurisdictions," said Baroness Lloyd. "It's much less desirable to direct multiple datacenters to shut down, and the impact this could have on services that rely on them, than to direct them to cease using an AI model." Despite rejecting the amendments, Lloyd said the government remained willing to discuss AI regulation because of the technology's economic significance. The Grand Committee is scheduled to resume discussions of the CSR Bill when it reconvenes on Thursday. The bill's background The CSR Bill was first proposed in the 2024 King's Speech and introduced in Parliament in November 2025. It attracted attention over the £100,000 daily fines initially proposed for in-scope organizations that failed to protect against specific threats. The legislation builds on the existing categories of operators of essential services and relevant digital service providers while extending the regime to organizations including managed service providers, datacenter operators, and designated critical suppliers. Managed service providers were previously due to be brought within scope through the abandoned 2022 update to the NIS regulations. The broad intention of the bill is to update the NIS 2018 regulations and future-proof the UK's critical infrastructure from cyber threats. However, this week's Grand Committee scrutiny is not the first time the bill has been criticized. In January, shadow deputy PM Sir Oliver Dowden called on the government to rethink its exclusion of local and central government from the CSR bill. The UK's Government Cyber Action Plan, launched hours before the former digital secretary's remarks, promised to hold government to the same standards proposed in the CSR Bill. Like the AI Cyber Security Code of Practice, the action plan lacks any legal obligations. ®

Two vulnerabilities in GeoNetwork can be chained to achieve unauthenticated remote code execution (RCE) on the open-source geospatial metadata catalog, which sits behind many government and agency geoportals. The project shipped fixes in versions 4.4.12 and 4.2.17 on July 8, 2026, and published the vulnerability details on August 31. GeoNetwork originated at the United Nations Food and

The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) has charged a Russian national, extradited from Cyprus on August 28, with using roughly 255 fake accounts on a freelance platform to send malware-laced Excel attachments to about 80,000 of its users in 2016 and 2017. Searzhudin Tamirlanovich Aktulaev, 40, was arrested in Cyprus in May 2025, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California

Forescout Research - Vedere Labs said it used Anthropic's Claude to port a working pre-authentication remote code execution (RCE) exploit from one WAGO programmable logic controller (PLC) to another, executing attacker-supplied ARM shellcode on live hardware. The exploit targets CVE-2021-31886, a stack-based buffer overflow in the Nucleus FTP server's handling of the USER command

Threat actors are exploiting a severe security vulnerability in Sangoma Switchvox, an enterprise VoIP platform, that could allow unauthenticated remote code execution. The vulnerability in question is CVE-2026-9586 (CVSS score: 9.3), a critical unauthenticated SQL injection vulnerability in Sangoma Switchvox SMB Edition 8.3 (104997) that can allow attackers to remotely execute arbitrary code as

The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) on Tuesday announced the takedown of a long-standing peer-to-peer (P2P) botnet known as Sality as part of a coordinated law enforcement operation. The effort was undertaken on August 31, 2026, by authorities from the U.S., Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania, in collaboration with private industry partners CrowdStrike and the Shadowserver Foundation. To that

International law enforcement agencies, working with CrowdStrike and Shadowserver Foundation, have disrupted Sality, a 23-year-old peer-to-peer botnet used to deliver malware to more than 15,000 machines worldwide. The botnet has operated since 2003 and distributed all types of malicious code to victims, spanning credential theft, spam distribution, proxy services, network exploitation, and distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. For the past eight years, Sality’s primary payload has been EggJagger, a tool that monitors clipboards for cryptocurrency wallet addresses, then silently replaces them with attacker-controlled addresses. When a victim copies a bitcoin or ethereum address to make a payment, the malware redirects funds into the criminals’ wallets. CrowdStrike estimates Sality's operator stole at least $150,000 in cryptocurrency using EggJagger alone. On Monday, CrowdStrike's Counter Adversary Operations team, working with international law enforcement agencies and industry partners, disrupted Sality by executing a peer-to-peer sinkhole operation. This operation isolated infected machines, which broke the criminal operator’s ability to communicate with devices on its network. Once isolated, the bots can no longer receive payload download instructions or direct payload transfers, effectively breaking the botnet. “In practice, the operation targeted the data structure at the heart of every bot's network awareness: its peer list,” CrowdStrike Counter Adversary Operations team said in a technical writeup about the takedown. Each Sality bot maintains a list of known super peers – publicly reachable infected machines that form the backbone of the P2P network. Every 40 minutes, the bots check to see if their peers are still online. Peers that fail to respond are purged from the network. The counterattack took advantage of this by removing legitimate super peers in each bot’s peer list, continually isolating more infected machines in the network, and inserting purpose-built sinkhole entries into peer lists. That approach gave police and cyber operatives visibility into the operation’s progress and helped them notify victims. In addition to the sinkhole operation, the US Justice Department, FBI, and Department of Defense Office of Inspector General’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service seized Sality-linked domains in the US. Meanwhile, international law enforcement in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania took action against additional Sality-linked domains hosted in Europe. Meanwhile, the Shadowserver Foundation is working with internet service providers and Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) to identify infections and aid in victim notification and remediation.®