Malware Devil

Friday, April 23, 2021

Artificial Intelligence ban slammed for failing to address “vast abuse potential”

A written proposal to ban several uses of artificial intelligence (AI) and to place new oversight on other “high-risk” AI applications–published by the European Commission this week–met fierce opposition from several digital rights advocates in Europe.

Portrayed as a missed opportunity by privacy experts, the EU Commission’s proposal bans four broad applications of AI, but it includes several loopholes that could lead to abuse, and it fails to include a mechanism to add other AI applications to the ban list. It deems certain types of AI applications as “high-risk”–meaning their developers will need to abide by certain restrictions–but some of those same applications were specifically called out by many digital rights groups earlier this year as “incompatible with a democratic society.” It creates new government authorities, but the responsibilities of those authorities may overlap with separate authorities devoted to overall data protection.

Most upsetting to digital rights expert, it appears, is that the 107-page document (not including the necessary annexes) offers only glancing restrictions on biometric surveillance, like facial recognition software.

“The EU’s proposal falls far short of what is needed to mitigate the vast abuse potential of technologies like facial recognition systems,” said Rasha Abdul Rahim, Director of Amnesty Tech for Amnesty International. “Under the proposed ban, police will still be able to use non-live facial recognition software with CCTV cameras to track our every move, scraping images from social media accounts without people’s consent.”

AI bans

Released on April 21, the AI ban proposal is the product of years of work, dating back to 2018, when the European Commission and the European Union’s Member States agreed to draft AI policies and regulations. According to the European Commission, the plan is meant to not just place restrictions on certain AI uses, but to also allow for innovation and competition in AI development.

“The global leadership of Europe in adopting the latest technologies, seizing the benefits and promoting the development of human-centric, sustainable, secure, inclusive and trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) depends on the ability of the European Union (EU) to accelerate, act and align AI policy priorities and investments,” the European Commission wrote in its Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence.

The proposal includes a few core segments.

The proposal would ban, with some exceptions, four broad uses of AI. Two of those banned uses include the use of AI to distort a person’s behavior in a way that could cause harm to that person or another person; one of those two areas focuses on the use of AI to exploit a person or group’s “age, physical or mental disability.”

The proposal’s third ban targets the use of AI to create so-called social credit scores that could result in unjust treatment, a concern that lies somewhere between the haphazard systems implemented in some regions of China and the dystopic anthology series Black Mirror.

According to the proposal, the use of AI to evaluate or classify the “trustworthiness” of a person would not be allowed if those evaluations led to detrimental or unfavorable treatment in “social contexts which are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected,” or treatment that is “unjustified or disproportionate to their social behavior or its gravity.”

The proposal’s final AI ban would be against “‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement,” which means police could not use tools like facial recognition in real-time at public events, with some exceptions.

Those exceptions include the “targeted search” for “specific” potential victims of crime, including missing children, and the prevention of “specific, substantial, and imminent threat to the life or physical safety of natural persons, or of a terrorist attack.” Law enforcement could also use real-time facial recognition tools to detect, locate, identify, or prosecute a “perpetrator or suspect” of a crime of a certain severity.

According to Matthew Mahmoudi, a researcher and adviser for Amnesty Tech, these exceptions are too broad, as they could still allow for many abuses against certain communities. For instance, the exception that would allow for real-time facial recognition to be used “on people suspected of illegally entering or living in a EU member state… will undoubtedly be weaponised against migrants and refugees,” Mahmoudi said.

Aside from the proposal’s exceptions, it is the bans themselves that appear quite limited when compared to what is happening in the real world today.

As an example, the proposal does not ban post-fact facial recognition by law enforcement, in which officers could collect video imagery after a public event and run facial recognition software on that video from the comfort of their stations. Though the EU Commission’s proposal of course applies to Europe, this type of practice is already rampant within the United States, where police departments have lapped up the offerings of Clearview AI, the facial recognition company with an origin story that includes coordination with far-right extremists.

The problem is severe. As uncovered in a Buzzfeed investigation this year:

“According to reporting and data reviewed by BuzzFeed News, more than 7,000 individuals from nearly 2,000 public agencies nationwide have used Clearview AI to search through millions of Americans’ faces, looking for people, including Black Lives Matter protesters, Capitol insurrectionists, petty criminals, and their own friends and family members.”

Buzzfeed found similar police activity in Australia last year, and on the very same day that the EU Commission released its proposal, Malwarebytes Labs covered a story about the FBI using facial recognition to identify a rioter at the US Capitol on January 6.

This type of activity is thriving across the world. Digital rights experts believe now is the best chance the world has to stamp it out.

But what isn’t banned by the proposal isn’t necessarily unrestricted. In fact, the proposal simply creates new restrictions based on other types of activities it deems “high-risk.”

High-risk AI and oversight

The next segment of the proposal places restrictions on “high-risk” AI applications. These uses of AI would not be banned outright but would instead be subject to certain oversight and compliance, much of which would be performed by the AI’s developers.

According to the proposal, “high-risk” AI would fall into the following eight, broad categories:

Biometric identification and categorization of natural personsManagement and operation of critical infrastructureEducation and vocational trainingEmployment, workers management, and access to self-employmentAccess to and enjoyment of essential private services and public services and benefitsLaw enforcementMigration, asylum, and border control managementAdministration of justice and democratic processes

The proposal clarifies which types of AI applications would be considered high-risk in each of the given categories. For instance, not every single type of AI used in education and vocational training would be considered high-risk, but those that do qualify would be systems “intended to be used for the purpose of determining access or assigning natural persons to educational and vocational training institutions.” Similarly, AI systems used for employment recruiting–particularly those used to advertise open positions, screen applications, and evaluate candidates–would be classified as high-risk under the broader category of AI for employment, workers management, and access to self-employment.

Here, again, the proposal angered privacy experts.

In January of this year, 61 civil rights groups sent an open letter to the European Commission, asking that certain applications of AI be considered “red lines” that should not be crossed. The groups, which included Access Now, Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Privacy International, wrote to “call attention to specific (but non-exhaustive) examples of uses that are incompatible with a democratic society and must be prohibited or legally restricted in the AI legislation.”

Of the five areas called out as too dangerous to permit, at least three are considered as “high-risk” by the European Commission’s proposal, including the use of AI for migration management, for criminal justice, and for pre-predictive policing.

The problem, according to the group Access Now, is that the proposal’s current restrictions for high-risk AI would do little to actually protect people who are subject to those high-risk systems.

Per the proposal, developers of these high-risk AI systems would need to comply with several self-imposed rules. They would need to establish and implement a “risk management system” that identifies foreseeable risks. They would need to draft up and keep up to date their “technical documentation.” They would need to design their systems to implement automatic record-keeping, ensure transparency, and allow for human oversight.

According to the European Digital Rights (EDRi) association, these rules put too much burden on the developers of the tools themselves.

“The majority of requirements in the proposal naively rely on AI developers to implement technical solutions to complex social issues, which are likely self-assessed by the companies themselves,” the group wrote. “In this way, the proposal enables a profitable market of unjust AI to be used for surveillance and discrimination, and pins the blame on the technology developers, instead of the institutions or companies putting the systems to use.”

Finally, the proposal would place some oversight and regulation duties into the hands of the government, including the creation of an “EU database” that contains information about high-risk AI systems, the creation of a European Artificial intelligence Board, and the designation of a “national supervisory authority” for each EU Member State.

This, too, has brought pushback, as the regulatory bodies could overlap in responsibility with the European Data Protection Board and the Data Protection Authorities already designated by each EU Member State, per the changes implemented by the General Data Protection Regulation.

What next?

Though AI technology races ahead, the EU Commission’s proposal will likely take years to implement, as it still needs to be approved by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to become law.

Throughout that process, there are sure to be many changes, updates, and refinements. Hopefully, they’re for the better.

The post Artificial Intelligence ban slammed for failing to address “vast abuse potential” appeared first on Malware Devil.



https://malwaredevil.com/2021/04/23/artificial-intelligence-ban-slammed-for-failing-to-address-vast-abuse-potential-3/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=artificial-intelligence-ban-slammed-for-failing-to-address-vast-abuse-potential-3

Artificial Intelligence ban slammed for failing to address “vast abuse potential”

A written proposal to ban several uses of artificial intelligence (AI) and to place new oversight on other “high-risk” AI applications–published by the European Commission this week–met fierce opposition from several digital rights advocates in Europe.

Portrayed as a missed opportunity by privacy experts, the EU Commission’s proposal bans four broad applications of AI, but it includes several loopholes that could lead to abuse, and it fails to include a mechanism to add other AI applications to the ban list. It deems certain types of AI applications as “high-risk”–meaning their developers will need to abide by certain restrictions–but some of those same applications were specifically called out by many digital rights groups earlier this year as “incompatible with a democratic society.” It creates new government authorities, but the responsibilities of those authorities may overlap with separate authorities devoted to overall data protection.

Most upsetting to digital rights expert, it appears, is that the 107-page document (not including the necessary annexes) offers only glancing restrictions on biometric surveillance, like facial recognition software.

“The EU’s proposal falls far short of what is needed to mitigate the vast abuse potential of technologies like facial recognition systems,” said Rasha Abdul Rahim, Director of Amnesty Tech for Amnesty International. “Under the proposed ban, police will still be able to use non-live facial recognition software with CCTV cameras to track our every move, scraping images from social media accounts without people’s consent.”

AI bans

Released on April 21, the AI ban proposal is the product of years of work, dating back to 2018, when the European Commission and the European Union’s Member States agreed to draft AI policies and regulations. According to the European Commission, the plan is meant to not just place restrictions on certain AI uses, but to also allow for innovation and competition in AI development.

“The global leadership of Europe in adopting the latest technologies, seizing the benefits and promoting the development of human-centric, sustainable, secure, inclusive and trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) depends on the ability of the European Union (EU) to accelerate, act and align AI policy priorities and investments,” the European Commission wrote in its Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence.

The proposal includes a few core segments.

The proposal would ban, with some exceptions, four broad uses of AI. Two of those banned uses include the use of AI to distort a person’s behavior in a way that could cause harm to that person or another person; one of those two areas focuses on the use of AI to exploit a person or group’s “age, physical or mental disability.”

The proposal’s third ban targets the use of AI to create so-called social credit scores that could result in unjust treatment, a concern that lies somewhere between the haphazard systems implemented in some regions of China and the dystopic anthology series Black Mirror.

According to the proposal, the use of AI to evaluate or classify the “trustworthiness” of a person would not be allowed if those evaluations led to detrimental or unfavorable treatment in “social contexts which are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected,” or treatment that is “unjustified or disproportionate to their social behavior or its gravity.”

The proposal’s final AI ban would be against “‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement,” which means police could not use tools like facial recognition in real-time at public events, with some exceptions.

Those exceptions include the “targeted search” for “specific” potential victims of crime, including missing children, and the prevention of “specific, substantial, and imminent threat to the life or physical safety of natural persons, or of a terrorist attack.” Law enforcement could also use real-time facial recognition tools to detect, locate, identify, or prosecute a “perpetrator or suspect” of a crime of a certain severity.

According to Matthew Mahmoudi, a researcher and adviser for Amnesty Tech, these exceptions are too broad, as they could still allow for many abuses against certain communities. For instance, the exception that would allow for real-time facial recognition to be used “on people suspected of illegally entering or living in a EU member state… will undoubtedly be weaponised against migrants and refugees,” Mahmoudi said.

Aside from the proposal’s exceptions, it is the bans themselves that appear quite limited when compared to what is happening in the real world today.

As an example, the proposal does not ban post-fact facial recognition by law enforcement, in which officers could collect video imagery after a public event and run facial recognition software on that video from the comfort of their stations. Though the EU Commission’s proposal of course applies to Europe, this type of practice is already rampant within the United States, where police departments have lapped up the offerings of Clearview AI, the facial recognition company with an origin story that includes coordination with far-right extremists.

The problem is severe. As uncovered in a Buzzfeed investigation this year:

“According to reporting and data reviewed by BuzzFeed News, more than 7,000 individuals from nearly 2,000 public agencies nationwide have used Clearview AI to search through millions of Americans’ faces, looking for people, including Black Lives Matter protesters, Capitol insurrectionists, petty criminals, and their own friends and family members.”

Buzzfeed found similar police activity in Australia last year, and on the very same day that the EU Commission released its proposal, Malwarebytes Labs covered a story about the FBI using facial recognition to identify a rioter at the US Capitol on January 6.

This type of activity is thriving across the world. Digital rights experts believe now is the best chance the world has to stamp it out.

But what isn’t banned by the proposal isn’t necessarily unrestricted. In fact, the proposal simply creates new restrictions based on other types of activities it deems “high-risk.”

High-risk AI and oversight

The next segment of the proposal places restrictions on “high-risk” AI applications. These uses of AI would not be banned outright but would instead be subject to certain oversight and compliance, much of which would be performed by the AI’s developers.

According to the proposal, “high-risk” AI would fall into the following eight, broad categories:

Biometric identification and categorization of natural personsManagement and operation of critical infrastructureEducation and vocational trainingEmployment, workers management, and access to self-employmentAccess to and enjoyment of essential private services and public services and benefitsLaw enforcementMigration, asylum, and border control managementAdministration of justice and democratic processes

The proposal clarifies which types of AI applications would be considered high-risk in each of the given categories. For instance, not every single type of AI used in education and vocational training would be considered high-risk, but those that do qualify would be systems “intended to be used for the purpose of determining access or assigning natural persons to educational and vocational training institutions.” Similarly, AI systems used for employment recruiting–particularly those used to advertise open positions, screen applications, and evaluate candidates–would be classified as high-risk under the broader category of AI for employment, workers management, and access to self-employment.

Here, again, the proposal angered privacy experts.

In January of this year, 61 civil rights groups sent an open letter to the European Commission, asking that certain applications of AI be considered “red lines” that should not be crossed. The groups, which included Access Now, Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Privacy International, wrote to “call attention to specific (but non-exhaustive) examples of uses that are incompatible with a democratic society and must be prohibited or legally restricted in the AI legislation.”

Of the five areas called out as too dangerous to permit, at least three are considered as “high-risk” by the European Commission’s proposal, including the use of AI for migration management, for criminal justice, and for pre-predictive policing.

The problem, according to the group Access Now, is that the proposal’s current restrictions for high-risk AI would do little to actually protect people who are subject to those high-risk systems.

Per the proposal, developers of these high-risk AI systems would need to comply with several self-imposed rules. They would need to establish and implement a “risk management system” that identifies foreseeable risks. They would need to draft up and keep up to date their “technical documentation.” They would need to design their systems to implement automatic record-keeping, ensure transparency, and allow for human oversight.

According to the European Digital Rights (EDRi) association, these rules put too much burden on the developers of the tools themselves.

“The majority of requirements in the proposal naively rely on AI developers to implement technical solutions to complex social issues, which are likely self-assessed by the companies themselves,” the group wrote. “In this way, the proposal enables a profitable market of unjust AI to be used for surveillance and discrimination, and pins the blame on the technology developers, instead of the institutions or companies putting the systems to use.”

Finally, the proposal would place some oversight and regulation duties into the hands of the government, including the creation of an “EU database” that contains information about high-risk AI systems, the creation of a European Artificial intelligence Board, and the designation of a “national supervisory authority” for each EU Member State.

This, too, has brought pushback, as the regulatory bodies could overlap in responsibility with the European Data Protection Board and the Data Protection Authorities already designated by each EU Member State, per the changes implemented by the General Data Protection Regulation.

What next?

Though AI technology races ahead, the EU Commission’s proposal will likely take years to implement, as it still needs to be approved by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to become law.

Throughout that process, there are sure to be many changes, updates, and refinements. Hopefully, they’re for the better.

The post Artificial Intelligence ban slammed for failing to address “vast abuse potential” appeared first on Malware Devil.



https://malwaredevil.com/2021/04/23/artificial-intelligence-ban-slammed-for-failing-to-address-vast-abuse-potential-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=artificial-intelligence-ban-slammed-for-failing-to-address-vast-abuse-potential-2

Artificial Intelligence ban slammed for failing to address “vast abuse potential”

A written proposal to ban several uses of artificial intelligence (AI) and to place new oversight on other “high-risk” AI applications–published by the European Commission this week–met fierce opposition from several digital rights advocates in Europe.

Portrayed as a missed opportunity by privacy experts, the EU Commission’s proposal bans four broad applications of AI, but it includes several loopholes that could lead to abuse, and it fails to include a mechanism to add other AI applications to the ban list. It deems certain types of AI applications as “high-risk”–meaning their developers will need to abide by certain restrictions–but some of those same applications were specifically called out by many digital rights groups earlier this year as “incompatible with a democratic society.” It creates new government authorities, but the responsibilities of those authorities may overlap with separate authorities devoted to overall data protection.

Most upsetting to digital rights expert, it appears, is that the 107-page document (not including the necessary annexes) offers only glancing restrictions on biometric surveillance, like facial recognition software.

“The EU’s proposal falls far short of what is needed to mitigate the vast abuse potential of technologies like facial recognition systems,” said Rasha Abdul Rahim, Director of Amnesty Tech for Amnesty International. “Under the proposed ban, police will still be able to use non-live facial recognition software with CCTV cameras to track our every move, scraping images from social media accounts without people’s consent.”

AI bans

Released on April 21, the AI ban proposal is the product of years of work, dating back to 2018, when the European Commission and the European Union’s Member States agreed to draft AI policies and regulations. According to the European Commission, the plan is meant to not just place restrictions on certain AI uses, but to also allow for innovation and competition in AI development.

“The global leadership of Europe in adopting the latest technologies, seizing the benefits and promoting the development of human-centric, sustainable, secure, inclusive and trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) depends on the ability of the European Union (EU) to accelerate, act and align AI policy priorities and investments,” the European Commission wrote in its Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence.

The proposal includes a few core segments.

The proposal would ban, with some exceptions, four broad uses of AI. Two of those banned uses include the use of AI to distort a person’s behavior in a way that could cause harm to that person or another person; one of those two areas focuses on the use of AI to exploit a person or group’s “age, physical or mental disability.”

The proposal’s third ban targets the use of AI to create so-called social credit scores that could result in unjust treatment, a concern that lies somewhere between the haphazard systems implemented in some regions of China and the dystopic anthology series Black Mirror.

According to the proposal, the use of AI to evaluate or classify the “trustworthiness” of a person would not be allowed if those evaluations led to detrimental or unfavorable treatment in “social contexts which are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected,” or treatment that is “unjustified or disproportionate to their social behavior or its gravity.”

The proposal’s final AI ban would be against “‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement,” which means police could not use tools like facial recognition in real-time at public events, with some exceptions.

Those exceptions include the “targeted search” for “specific” potential victims of crime, including missing children, and the prevention of “specific, substantial, and imminent threat to the life or physical safety of natural persons, or of a terrorist attack.” Law enforcement could also use real-time facial recognition tools to detect, locate, identify, or prosecute a “perpetrator or suspect” of a crime of a certain severity.

According to Matthew Mahmoudi, a researcher and adviser for Amnesty Tech, these exceptions are too broad, as they could still allow for many abuses against certain communities. For instance, the exception that would allow for real-time facial recognition to be used “on people suspected of illegally entering or living in a EU member state… will undoubtedly be weaponised against migrants and refugees,” Mahmoudi said.

Aside from the proposal’s exceptions, it is the bans themselves that appear quite limited when compared to what is happening in the real world today.

As an example, the proposal does not ban post-fact facial recognition by law enforcement, in which officers could collect video imagery after a public event and run facial recognition software on that video from the comfort of their stations. Though the EU Commission’s proposal of course applies to Europe, this type of practice is already rampant within the United States, where police departments have lapped up the offerings of Clearview AI, the facial recognition company with an origin story that includes coordination with far-right extremists.

The problem is severe. As uncovered in a Buzzfeed investigation this year:

“According to reporting and data reviewed by BuzzFeed News, more than 7,000 individuals from nearly 2,000 public agencies nationwide have used Clearview AI to search through millions of Americans’ faces, looking for people, including Black Lives Matter protesters, Capitol insurrectionists, petty criminals, and their own friends and family members.”

Buzzfeed found similar police activity in Australia last year, and on the very same day that the EU Commission released its proposal, Malwarebytes Labs covered a story about the FBI using facial recognition to identify a rioter at the US Capitol on January 6.

This type of activity is thriving across the world. Digital rights experts believe now is the best chance the world has to stamp it out.

But what isn’t banned by the proposal isn’t necessarily unrestricted. In fact, the proposal simply creates new restrictions based on other types of activities it deems “high-risk.”

High-risk AI and oversight

The next segment of the proposal places restrictions on “high-risk” AI applications. These uses of AI would not be banned outright but would instead be subject to certain oversight and compliance, much of which would be performed by the AI’s developers.

According to the proposal, “high-risk” AI would fall into the following eight, broad categories:

Biometric identification and categorization of natural personsManagement and operation of critical infrastructureEducation and vocational trainingEmployment, workers management, and access to self-employmentAccess to and enjoyment of essential private services and public services and benefitsLaw enforcementMigration, asylum, and border control managementAdministration of justice and democratic processes

The proposal clarifies which types of AI applications would be considered high-risk in each of the given categories. For instance, not every single type of AI used in education and vocational training would be considered high-risk, but those that do qualify would be systems “intended to be used for the purpose of determining access or assigning natural persons to educational and vocational training institutions.” Similarly, AI systems used for employment recruiting–particularly those used to advertise open positions, screen applications, and evaluate candidates–would be classified as high-risk under the broader category of AI for employment, workers management, and access to self-employment.

Here, again, the proposal angered privacy experts.

In January of this year, 61 civil rights groups sent an open letter to the European Commission, asking that certain applications of AI be considered “red lines” that should not be crossed. The groups, which included Access Now, Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Privacy International, wrote to “call attention to specific (but non-exhaustive) examples of uses that are incompatible with a democratic society and must be prohibited or legally restricted in the AI legislation.”

Of the five areas called out as too dangerous to permit, at least three are considered as “high-risk” by the European Commission’s proposal, including the use of AI for migration management, for criminal justice, and for pre-predictive policing.

The problem, according to the group Access Now, is that the proposal’s current restrictions for high-risk AI would do little to actually protect people who are subject to those high-risk systems.

Per the proposal, developers of these high-risk AI systems would need to comply with several self-imposed rules. They would need to establish and implement a “risk management system” that identifies foreseeable risks. They would need to draft up and keep up to date their “technical documentation.” They would need to design their systems to implement automatic record-keeping, ensure transparency, and allow for human oversight.

According to the European Digital Rights (EDRi) association, these rules put too much burden on the developers of the tools themselves.

“The majority of requirements in the proposal naively rely on AI developers to implement technical solutions to complex social issues, which are likely self-assessed by the companies themselves,” the group wrote. “In this way, the proposal enables a profitable market of unjust AI to be used for surveillance and discrimination, and pins the blame on the technology developers, instead of the institutions or companies putting the systems to use.”

Finally, the proposal would place some oversight and regulation duties into the hands of the government, including the creation of an “EU database” that contains information about high-risk AI systems, the creation of a European Artificial intelligence Board, and the designation of a “national supervisory authority” for each EU Member State.

This, too, has brought pushback, as the regulatory bodies could overlap in responsibility with the European Data Protection Board and the Data Protection Authorities already designated by each EU Member State, per the changes implemented by the General Data Protection Regulation.

What next?

Though AI technology races ahead, the EU Commission’s proposal will likely take years to implement, as it still needs to be approved by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to become law.

Throughout that process, there are sure to be many changes, updates, and refinements. Hopefully, they’re for the better.

The post Artificial Intelligence ban slammed for failing to address “vast abuse potential” appeared first on Malware Devil.



https://malwaredevil.com/2021/04/23/artificial-intelligence-ban-slammed-for-failing-to-address-vast-abuse-potential/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=artificial-intelligence-ban-slammed-for-failing-to-address-vast-abuse-potential

How to choose the best VPN for you

If you’ve been shopping for a VPN service in 2021, you’ve probably noticed how many providers are available. Using a personal VPN has grown in popularity in recent years, and for good reason. You may no longer be asking, “Should I use one,” but rather, “Which one should I choose?”

The answer might be different for different people. There are many features and providers to consider. Here, we guide you through some of the decision factors so you can select the best VPN for your needs.

Is a free VPN the best choice?

One of the first questions VPN shoppers might ask is whether to use a free VPN service or pay for one. If you’re familiar with what a VPN is, you probably know that there are costs associated with being a provider. A VPN is like a middleman for your Internet traffic, and just like you probably pay an Internet Service Provider for your home Internet, a VPN provider somehow has to cover the costs of their service.

You might compare free vs paid VPNs to free vs paid Internet access. For home Internet access, an Internet Service Provider maintains the infrastructure to deliver Internet to homes, and charges customers for it. If you go to a cafe and use their free WiFi, the cafe pays for the WiFi and might build that cost into how much they charge you for a cup of coffee. So, how would a free VPN provider build their costs into a free service?

A common way free VPN services cover their costs is through advertising. That might be showing you ads when you use the service, or by taking your Internet activity data (as well as their other customers’ data) and selling that to advertisers as marketing data. Given that one of the main reasons to use a VPN is to increase your online privacy, it seems that using a free VPN that covers its costs by using your Internet activity for advertising might not accomplish that goal.

If you decide you want to use a paid VPN service for your online privacy but you’re not ready to commit to a long-term subscription right away, many providers offer a free trial before you have to make that commitment.

Choosing a VPN for gaming, streaming, or torrenting

One of the key decision factors in choosing a VPN is what you plan to use it for. In your research, you’ll likely explore reviews to help narrow down your selection, and one of the best ways to make your choice is to take advantage of free trials, so you can take the VPN for a test drive, so to speak.

The best VPN for you might not be the best one for someone else. Online privacy is the main concern for most VPN users, but if you intend to use one while gaming, watching streaming services based in other countries, or for torrenting, you will have other considerations too and might choose a different provider in each case.

Best VPN for gaming

Many avid gamers have not wanted to use a VPN while gaming due to increased lag caused by encrypting traffic and routing it through a VPN server. However, many VPNs have gotten faster and more efficient, and “gaming VPN” is less of an oxymoron than it used to be. In addition to the online privacy benefits, gamers may also be keen to hide their IP addresses due to threats like doxing and swatting.

Alternatively, some users don’t want to use a VPN for gaming, but do want to use a VPN for everything else other than gaming. In that case, they will want to pay attention to how easily and transparently they can do this. Do they have to do one thing at a time and remember to turn the VPN on and off as they need it, or can they keep their VPN on all the time while allowing games to bypass it?

If you’re a gamer searching for the best VPN specifically for gaming, take advantage of free trials, and test out your selections while gaming to see how they impact speed and performance.

Best VPN for streaming

Most VPN services enable you to select a server in the country of your choice, and this can enable you to watch some streaming services as if you were located in that country. However, some streaming services have cracked down on this practice, and so not every VPN will enable you to watch the content you want. Testing out a VPN with the streaming services you want to watch is a good way to determine what works now, but keep in mind that your access may change as streaming services adapt. Before using a VPN to access a streaming service, be sure to check that doing so does not violate their terms and conditions.

Best VPN for torrenting

Torrenting is a form of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. Torrent downloads are quick because they are drawn from multiple nearby peers instead of from a single faraway location. To get access to the network users must become peers and allow a small portion of their computer’s resources to be used for hosting torrent data. While sharing files with other users isn’t illegal in and of itself, torrenting is often associated with pirating copyrighted material. However, there is perfectly legal content that people torrent, such as classic movies, TED Talks, and content in indie or niche genres that might not be readily available on large streaming services.

Often for torrenting, connection speed is most important factor in choosing a VPN so you can start watching content quickly. Unlike gaming, where download performance is most important, torrent users will also care about upload performance. This is another example in which taking advantage of free trials to test out VPN speeds while torrenting can help you to pick the best VPN for this purpose.

VPN features

Once you’ve thought about how you plan to use a VPN, the final step to select the best one for your needs is to compare features. This includes:

Ease of use: Is the interface easy to navigate and use?Connection speed: You can test this if you do a free trial of the services you’re considering, and look at VPN speed comparison tests.Server locations: In how many different countries are servers available?Data limits: Does the service provide unlimited data, or is there a cap?Simultaneous usage: How many devices can use your plan simultaneously?Operating systems: Can you use the same VPN service on Windows, Mac, Android, and iOS?VPN protocol: Do they use WireGuard, OpenVPN, or another protocol?Encryption: Does the VPN use 256-bit AES encryption, the current best-in-class standard? Logging: Do they keep activity logs or have a no-log policy? What data gets logged?Kill switch: Do they offer a kill switch, to close your browsers or apps if the VPN disconnects unexpectedly?Split tunneling: Do you want to be able to do some online activities inside the encrypted VPN, and others (such as high-bandwidth activities) just on your regular Internet connection?Support: Is support available 24/7? Is it available via chat, email, phone?

What’s the best VPN for your needs? Different people will have different answers. Considering the available features and reasons you want to use a VPN service will help you to answer that question.

The post How to choose the best VPN for you appeared first on Malware Devil.



https://malwaredevil.com/2021/04/23/how-to-choose-the-best-vpn-for-you-3/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-to-choose-the-best-vpn-for-you-3

How to choose the best VPN for you

If you’ve been shopping for a VPN service in 2021, you’ve probably noticed how many providers are available. Using a personal VPN has grown in popularity in recent years, and for good reason. You may no longer be asking, “Should I use one,” but rather, “Which one should I choose?”

The answer might be different for different people. There are many features and providers to consider. Here, we guide you through some of the decision factors so you can select the best VPN for your needs.

Is a free VPN the best choice?

One of the first questions VPN shoppers might ask is whether to use a free VPN service or pay for one. If you’re familiar with what a VPN is, you probably know that there are costs associated with being a provider. A VPN is like a middleman for your Internet traffic, and just like you probably pay an Internet Service Provider for your home Internet, a VPN provider somehow has to cover the costs of their service.

You might compare free vs paid VPNs to free vs paid Internet access. For home Internet access, an Internet Service Provider maintains the infrastructure to deliver Internet to homes, and charges customers for it. If you go to a cafe and use their free WiFi, the cafe pays for the WiFi and might build that cost into how much they charge you for a cup of coffee. So, how would a free VPN provider build their costs into a free service?

A common way free VPN services cover their costs is through advertising. That might be showing you ads when you use the service, or by taking your Internet activity data (as well as their other customers’ data) and selling that to advertisers as marketing data. Given that one of the main reasons to use a VPN is to increase your online privacy, it seems that using a free VPN that covers its costs by using your Internet activity for advertising might not accomplish that goal.

If you decide you want to use a paid VPN service for your online privacy but you’re not ready to commit to a long-term subscription right away, many providers offer a free trial before you have to make that commitment.

Choosing a VPN for gaming, streaming, or torrenting

One of the key decision factors in choosing a VPN is what you plan to use it for. In your research, you’ll likely explore reviews to help narrow down your selection, and one of the best ways to make your choice is to take advantage of free trials, so you can take the VPN for a test drive, so to speak.

The best VPN for you might not be the best one for someone else. Online privacy is the main concern for most VPN users, but if you intend to use one while gaming, watching streaming services based in other countries, or for torrenting, you will have other considerations too and might choose a different provider in each case.

Best VPN for gaming

Many avid gamers have not wanted to use a VPN while gaming due to increased lag caused by encrypting traffic and routing it through a VPN server. However, many VPNs have gotten faster and more efficient, and “gaming VPN” is less of an oxymoron than it used to be. In addition to the online privacy benefits, gamers may also be keen to hide their IP addresses due to threats like doxing and swatting.

Alternatively, some users don’t want to use a VPN for gaming, but do want to use a VPN for everything else other than gaming. In that case, they will want to pay attention to how easily and transparently they can do this. Do they have to do one thing at a time and remember to turn the VPN on and off as they need it, or can they keep their VPN on all the time while allowing games to bypass it?

If you’re a gamer searching for the best VPN specifically for gaming, take advantage of free trials, and test out your selections while gaming to see how they impact speed and performance.

Best VPN for streaming

Most VPN services enable you to select a server in the country of your choice, and this can enable you to watch some streaming services as if you were located in that country. However, some streaming services have cracked down on this practice, and so not every VPN will enable you to watch the content you want. Testing out a VPN with the streaming services you want to watch is a good way to determine what works now, but keep in mind that your access may change as streaming services adapt. Before using a VPN to access a streaming service, be sure to check that doing so does not violate their terms and conditions.

Best VPN for torrenting

Torrenting is a form of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. Torrent downloads are quick because they are drawn from multiple nearby peers instead of from a single faraway location. To get access to the network users must become peers and allow a small portion of their computer’s resources to be used for hosting torrent data. While sharing files with other users isn’t illegal in and of itself, torrenting is often associated with pirating copyrighted material. However, there is perfectly legal content that people torrent, such as classic movies, TED Talks, and content in indie or niche genres that might not be readily available on large streaming services.

Often for torrenting, connection speed is most important factor in choosing a VPN so you can start watching content quickly. Unlike gaming, where download performance is most important, torrent users will also care about upload performance. This is another example in which taking advantage of free trials to test out VPN speeds while torrenting can help you to pick the best VPN for this purpose.

VPN features

Once you’ve thought about how you plan to use a VPN, the final step to select the best one for your needs is to compare features. This includes:

Ease of use: Is the interface easy to navigate and use?Connection speed: You can test this if you do a free trial of the services you’re considering, and look at VPN speed comparison tests.Server locations: In how many different countries are servers available?Data limits: Does the service provide unlimited data, or is there a cap?Simultaneous usage: How many devices can use your plan simultaneously?Operating systems: Can you use the same VPN service on Windows, Mac, Android, and iOS?VPN protocol: Do they use WireGuard, OpenVPN, or another protocol?Encryption: Does the VPN use 256-bit AES encryption, the current best-in-class standard? Logging: Do they keep activity logs or have a no-log policy? What data gets logged?Kill switch: Do they offer a kill switch, to close your browsers or apps if the VPN disconnects unexpectedly?Split tunneling: Do you want to be able to do some online activities inside the encrypted VPN, and others (such as high-bandwidth activities) just on your regular Internet connection?Support: Is support available 24/7? Is it available via chat, email, phone?

What’s the best VPN for your needs? Different people will have different answers. Considering the available features and reasons you want to use a VPN service will help you to answer that question.

The post How to choose the best VPN for you appeared first on Malware Devil.



https://malwaredevil.com/2021/04/23/how-to-choose-the-best-vpn-for-you-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-to-choose-the-best-vpn-for-you-2

How to choose the best VPN for you

If you’ve been shopping for a VPN service in 2021, you’ve probably noticed how many providers are available. Using a personal VPN has grown in popularity in recent years, and for good reason. You may no longer be asking, “Should I use one,” but rather, “Which one should I choose?”

The answer might be different for different people. There are many features and providers to consider. Here, we guide you through some of the decision factors so you can select the best VPN for your needs.

Is a free VPN the best choice?

One of the first questions VPN shoppers might ask is whether to use a free VPN service or pay for one. If you’re familiar with what a VPN is, you probably know that there are costs associated with being a provider. A VPN is like a middleman for your Internet traffic, and just like you probably pay an Internet Service Provider for your home Internet, a VPN provider somehow has to cover the costs of their service.

You might compare free vs paid VPNs to free vs paid Internet access. For home Internet access, an Internet Service Provider maintains the infrastructure to deliver Internet to homes, and charges customers for it. If you go to a cafe and use their free WiFi, the cafe pays for the WiFi and might build that cost into how much they charge you for a cup of coffee. So, how would a free VPN provider build their costs into a free service?

A common way free VPN services cover their costs is through advertising. That might be showing you ads when you use the service, or by taking your Internet activity data (as well as their other customers’ data) and selling that to advertisers as marketing data. Given that one of the main reasons to use a VPN is to increase your online privacy, it seems that using a free VPN that covers its costs by using your Internet activity for advertising might not accomplish that goal.

If you decide you want to use a paid VPN service for your online privacy but you’re not ready to commit to a long-term subscription right away, many providers offer a free trial before you have to make that commitment.

Choosing a VPN for gaming, streaming, or torrenting

One of the key decision factors in choosing a VPN is what you plan to use it for. In your research, you’ll likely explore reviews to help narrow down your selection, and one of the best ways to make your choice is to take advantage of free trials, so you can take the VPN for a test drive, so to speak.

The best VPN for you might not be the best one for someone else. Online privacy is the main concern for most VPN users, but if you intend to use one while gaming, watching streaming services based in other countries, or for torrenting, you will have other considerations too and might choose a different provider in each case.

Best VPN for gaming

Many avid gamers have not wanted to use a VPN while gaming due to increased lag caused by encrypting traffic and routing it through a VPN server. However, many VPNs have gotten faster and more efficient, and “gaming VPN” is less of an oxymoron than it used to be. In addition to the online privacy benefits, gamers may also be keen to hide their IP addresses due to threats like doxing and swatting.

Alternatively, some users don’t want to use a VPN for gaming, but do want to use a VPN for everything else other than gaming. In that case, they will want to pay attention to how easily and transparently they can do this. Do they have to do one thing at a time and remember to turn the VPN on and off as they need it, or can they keep their VPN on all the time while allowing games to bypass it?

If you’re a gamer searching for the best VPN specifically for gaming, take advantage of free trials, and test out your selections while gaming to see how they impact speed and performance.

Best VPN for streaming

Most VPN services enable you to select a server in the country of your choice, and this can enable you to watch some streaming services as if you were located in that country. However, some streaming services have cracked down on this practice, and so not every VPN will enable you to watch the content you want. Testing out a VPN with the streaming services you want to watch is a good way to determine what works now, but keep in mind that your access may change as streaming services adapt. Before using a VPN to access a streaming service, be sure to check that doing so does not violate their terms and conditions.

Best VPN for torrenting

Torrenting is a form of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. Torrent downloads are quick because they are drawn from multiple nearby peers instead of from a single faraway location. To get access to the network users must become peers and allow a small portion of their computer’s resources to be used for hosting torrent data. While sharing files with other users isn’t illegal in and of itself, torrenting is often associated with pirating copyrighted material. However, there is perfectly legal content that people torrent, such as classic movies, TED Talks, and content in indie or niche genres that might not be readily available on large streaming services.

Often for torrenting, connection speed is most important factor in choosing a VPN so you can start watching content quickly. Unlike gaming, where download performance is most important, torrent users will also care about upload performance. This is another example in which taking advantage of free trials to test out VPN speeds while torrenting can help you to pick the best VPN for this purpose.

VPN features

Once you’ve thought about how you plan to use a VPN, the final step to select the best one for your needs is to compare features. This includes:

Ease of use: Is the interface easy to navigate and use?Connection speed: You can test this if you do a free trial of the services you’re considering, and look at VPN speed comparison tests.Server locations: In how many different countries are servers available?Data limits: Does the service provide unlimited data, or is there a cap?Simultaneous usage: How many devices can use your plan simultaneously?Operating systems: Can you use the same VPN service on Windows, Mac, Android, and iOS?VPN protocol: Do they use WireGuard, OpenVPN, or another protocol?Encryption: Does the VPN use 256-bit AES encryption, the current best-in-class standard? Logging: Do they keep activity logs or have a no-log policy? What data gets logged?Kill switch: Do they offer a kill switch, to close your browsers or apps if the VPN disconnects unexpectedly?Split tunneling: Do you want to be able to do some online activities inside the encrypted VPN, and others (such as high-bandwidth activities) just on your regular Internet connection?Support: Is support available 24/7? Is it available via chat, email, phone?

What’s the best VPN for your needs? Different people will have different answers. Considering the available features and reasons you want to use a VPN service will help you to answer that question.

The post How to choose the best VPN for you appeared first on Malware Devil.



https://malwaredevil.com/2021/04/23/how-to-choose-the-best-vpn-for-you/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-to-choose-the-best-vpn-for-you

After a Painful Outage, Epic Games Advocate Automated Certificate Renewals

On April 6, 2021, American video game and software developer, Epic Games, experienced a massive outage that resulted in the failure of multiple internal systems, logins, live services, and their game launcher. Root cause analysis exposed the culprit as an expired wildcard TLS certificate used for an internal DNS zone. The expiry, although internal, triggered […]

The post After a Painful Outage, Epic Games Advocate Automated Certificate Renewals appeared first on AppViewX.

The post After a Painful Outage, Epic Games Advocate Automated Certificate Renewals appeared first on Security Boulevard.

Read More

The post After a Painful Outage, Epic Games Advocate Automated Certificate Renewals appeared first on Malware Devil.



https://malwaredevil.com/2021/04/23/after-a-painful-outage-epic-games-advocate-automated-certificate-renewals/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=after-a-painful-outage-epic-games-advocate-automated-certificate-renewals

Linux Smart Enumeration – tool for pentesting and CTFs

First, a couple of useful oneliners 😉

wget “https://github.com/diego-treitos/linux-smart-enumeration/raw/master/lse.sh” -O lse.sh;chmod 700 lse.sh

curl “https://github.com/diego-treitos/linux-smart-enumeration/raw/master/lse.sh” -Lo lse.sh;chmod 700 lse.sh

Note that since version 2.10 you can serve the script to other hosts with the -S flag!

linux-smart-enumeration

Linux enumeration tools for pentesting and CTFs

This project was inspired by https://github.com/rebootuser/LinEnum and uses many of its tests.

Unlike LinEnum, lse tries to gradualy expose the information depending on its importance from a privesc point of view.

What is it?

This shell script will show relevant information about the security of the local Linux system, helping to escalate privileges.

From version 2.0 it is mostly POSIX compliant and tested with shellcheck and posh.

It can also monitor processes to discover recurrent program executions. It monitors while it is executing all the other tests so you save some time. By default it monitors during 1 minute but you can choose the watch time with the -p parameter.

It has 3 levels of verbosity so you can control how much information you see.

In the default level you should see the highly important security flaws in the system. The level 1 (./lse.sh -l1) shows interesting information that should help you to privesc. The level 2 (./lse.sh -l2) will just dump all the information it gathers about the system.

By default it will ask you some questions: mainly the current user password (if you know it 😉 so it can do some additional tests.

How to use it?

The idea is to get the information gradually.

First you should execute it just like ./lse.sh. If you see some green yes!, you probably have already some good stuff to work with.

If not, you should try the level 1 verbosity with ./lse.sh -l1 and you will see some more information that can be interesting.

If that does not help, level 2 will just dump everything you can gather about the service using ./lse.sh -l2. In this case you might find useful to use ./lse.sh -l2 | less -r.

You can also select what tests to execute by passing the -s parameter. With it you can select specific tests or sections to be executed. For example ./lse.sh -l2 -s usr010,net,pro will execute the test usr010 and all the tests in the sections net and pro.

Use: ./lse.sh [options]

OPTIONS
-c Disable color
-i Non interactive mode
-h This help
-l LEVEL Output verbosity level
0: Show highly important results. (default)
1: Show interesting results.
2: Show all gathered information.
-s SELECTION Comma separated list of sections or tests to run. Available
sections:
usr: User related tests.
sud: Sudo related tests.
fst: File system related tests.
sys: System related tests.
sec: Security measures related tests.
ret: Recurren tasks (cron, timers) related tests.
net: Network related tests.
srv: Services related tests.
pro: Processes related tests.
sof: Software related tests.
ctn: Container (docker, lxc) related tests.
Specific tests can be used with their IDs (i.e.: usr020,sud)
-e PATHS Comma separated list of paths to exclude. This allows you
to do faster scans at the cost of completeness
-p SECONDS Time that the process monitor will spend watching for
processes. A value of 0 will disable any watch (default: 60)
-S Serve the lse.sh script in this host so it can be retrieved
from a remote host.

Is it pretty?

Usage demo

Also available in webm video

Level 0 (default) output sample

Level 1 verbosity output sample

Level 2 verbosity output sample

Examples

Direct execution oneliners

bash <(wget -q -O – https://raw.githubusercontent.com/diego-treitos/linux-smart-enumeration/master/lse.sh) -l2 -i

bash <(curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/diego-treitos/linux-smart-enumeration/master/lse.sh) -l1 -i

Buy me a beer

Feel free to buy me a beer if this script was useful ðŸ˜‰

: 1DNBZRAzP6WVnTeBPoYvnDtjxnS1S8Gnxk

Original repository: https://github.com/diego-treitos/linux-smart-enumeration

 

The post Linux Smart Enumeration – tool for pentesting and CTFs appeared first on Hakin9 – IT Security Magazine.

Read More

The post Linux Smart Enumeration – tool for pentesting and CTFs appeared first on Malware Devil.



https://malwaredevil.com/2021/04/23/linux-smart-enumeration-tool-for-pentesting-and-ctfs/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=linux-smart-enumeration-tool-for-pentesting-and-ctfs

Ransomware by the numbers: Reassessing the threat’s global impact

Kaspersky has been following the ransomware landscape for years. In the past, we’ve published yearly reports on the subject: PC ransomware in 2014-2016, Ransomware in 2016-2017, and Ransomware and malicious crypto miners in 2016-2018. In fact, in 2019, we chose ransomware as the story of the year, upon noticing the well-known threat was shifting its attention to municipalities. In the 2010s, with campaigns like WannaCry and NotPetya, ransomware became mainstream news. However, starting in 2018, we began noticing something else: the statistics for the overall number of ransomware detections were on a steep decline. What was happening? Was ransomware, in fact, a dying species of malware?

For anyone following the news in the infosecurity community, this seemed unlikely. In 2019 and 2020, stories of ransomware attacks made front-page headlines, from Maze attacking LG to the infamous APT group Lazarus adding ransomware to its arsenal. In the United States alone in 2020, ransomware hit more than 2,300 government entities, healthcare facilities and schools, according to the security company Emsisoft.

So, what’s the story?

Ransomware hasn’t disappeared; the threat has just undergone a fundamental shift. Widespread ransomware campaigns have been replaced with highly targeted, destructive attacks, often aimed at large organizations. In addition, attackers appear to be more focused on exfiltrating data as well as encrypting it, i.e., siphoning off confidential information and threatening to make it public if the victims refuse to pay. All of this is done with the aim of launching fewer attacks, each with a far larger payout, rather than collecting smaller amounts from a massive number of victims.

In this report, we’ll take a look at the numbers behind the ransomware threat from 2019 to 2020, what they mean — and what they foretell about ransomware’s future.

Key findings

In 2020, the number of unique users that encountered ransomware on their devices was 1,091,454, a decline from 1,537,465 in 2019.
In 2019, the share of users targeted with ransomware among the overall number of users that encountered malware was 3.31%; this declined slightly in 2020 to 2.67%.
The share of ransomware detections among the overall number of malware detections was 1.49% in 2019 and 1.08% in 2020.
In both 2019 and 2020, WannaCry was the most frequently encountered crypto-ransomware family on Windows systems.
In 2019, the number of unique users that encountered ransomware on their mobile devices was 72,258. This number declined to 33,502 in 2020.
However, the share of unique users that encountered ransomware on their mobile devices among the overall number of users that encountered malware held steady between 2019 and 2020 at 0.56%.
From 2019 to 2020, the number of unique users affected by targeted ransomware families increased by 767%.
By far, the industry that contained the greatest share of targeted ransomware attacks was engineering and manufacturing, at 25.63%.

Methodology

This report has been prepared using depersonalized data processed by Kaspersky Security Network (KSN).

There are two main metrics used. The first, unique users, refers to the number of distinct users of Kaspersky products with the KSN feature enabled who encountered ransomware at least once in a given period. The second is detections, which is the number of ransomware attacks blocked by Kaspersky products over a given period.

The report also includes research into the threat landscape by Kaspersky experts.

Kaspersky products detect various types of ransomware. These include crypto-ransomware (malware that encrypts your files), screen lockers, browser lockers, and boot lockers. Unless otherwise stated, statistics refer to any type of ransomware.

Ransomware across all platforms

As Kaspersky has previously noted, the total number of ransomware detections has been steadily declining since 2017. This is a trend that has continued through 2019 and 2020.

In 2019, the total number of unique users that encountered ransomware across all platforms was 1,537,465. In 2020, that number fell to 1,091,454 — a decrease of 29%.

Side-by-side comparison of the number of unique KSN users that encountered ransomware on their devices, 2019 – 2020 (download)

In fact, for each month in 2020, the number of unique users that encountered ransomware across all devices was lower than the number observed during the same month in the previous year. In both years, the number of users that encountered ransomware was relatively stable — hovering between 100,000 and 170,000 in 2020 and between 150,000 and 190,000 in 2019 — with the exception of July 2019, when there was a noticeable spike. This was driven by an increase in two ransomware families. The first, Bluff, is a browser locker, meaning victims are confronted with a fake tab — one they are unable to exit out of — that threatens dire consequences if a certain amount of money is not paid. The other was Rakhni, a crypto-ransomware that first appeared in 2013 and was distributed primarily through spam with malicious attachments.

The share of unique users that encountered ransomware out of the total number that encountered any type of malware across their devices also declined, from 3.31% in 2019 to 2.67% in 2020. However, the share of ransomware detections out of the total number of malware detections held relatively steady, declining only slightly from 2019 to 2020, from 1.49% to 1.08%.

The most active crypto-ransomware families

Three years after it first made headlines everywhere, WannaCry is still the most active crypto-ransomware family. To date, WannaCry is the largest ransomware infection in history, with damage totaling at least $4 billion across 150 countries. In 2019, 21.85% of users that encountered crypto-ransomware encountered WannaCry.

Top five crypto-ransomware families, 2019 (download)

Among other active families were GandCrab, a ransomware family that was active in 2019 and followed the RaaS model, STOP/DJVU, and PolyRansom/VirLock. Shade, a widespread cryptor that first appeared in 2014, was still one of the most active ransomware families in 2019, but its activity has been on the decline for years. In fact, in 2020, Kaspersky released a decryptor for all strains of Shade — and it was no longer one of the five most active ransomware families detected by Kaspersky products.

Top five crypto-ransomware families, 2020 (download)

In 2020, WannaCry was still the most frequently encountered family, with 16% of users (80,207) that encountered crypto-ransomware encountering this malware. In addition, a new strain entered the top five most active families: Crysis/Dharma. Crysis is able to use multiple attack vectors, although recently it has primarily exploited unsecured RDP access. First discovered in 2016, the malware has continued to evolve and is now following ransomware-as-a-service model.

In general, 2019 and 2020 continued a trend first noticed in early 2018: the consolidation of ransomware groups. Only a few notable families continue to maintain a significant presence across the threat landscape, with the rest of attacks conducted by ransomware Trojans that do not belong to any specific family. Of course, new families do continue to appear, with STOP and GandCrab serving as excellent examples.

Geography of ransomware attacks

When analyzing the geography of attacked users, we take into consideration the distribution of Kaspersky’s customers. That’s why, when examining the geography of attacks, we use the percentage of users attacked with ransomware as a proportion of users attacked with any kind of malware in those regions where there are more than 10,000 unique users of Kaspersky products.

All percentages reflect the percent of unique users that encountered ransomware at least once on any device out of the total number of unique users that encountered any type of malware over the stated period.

Middle East

In 2019, the countries with the greatest share of users that encountered ransomware on any device in the Middle East were as follows:

Country
%*

Pakistan
19.03%

Palestine
6.74%

Yemen
6.55%

Egypt
6.41%

Iraq
6.28%

*Share of users attacked with ransomware out of all users encountering malware in the country

Pakistan had, by far, the greatest share of users encountering ransomware: 19.03%. The other countries in the top five all had a share of roughly 6% of users that encountered ransomware.

In 2020, the five countries with the greatest share of users encountering ransomware remained the same with a few small adjustments.

Country
%*

Pakistan
14.88%

Yemen
7.49%

Egypt
6.45%

Palestine
5.48%

Iraq
5.37%

*Share of users attacked with ransomware out of all users encountering malware in the country

Pakistan still had the greatest share of users, but the overall percentage declined to 14.88%. The percent of users encountering ransomware in Yemen actually increased to 7.49%, while the percentage of users in Palestine and Iraq lowered, and the share of affected Egyptians remained pretty much the same.

North and South America

In 2019, the countries in North and South America with the greatest percentage of users that encountered ransomware were the following:

Country
%*

United States
5.49%

Paraguay
4.87%

Venezuela
3.34%

Canada
3.25%

Guatemala
2.81%

*Share of users attacked with ransomware out of all users encountering malware in the country

The United States had the greatest share at 5.49% percent, followed by Paraguay at 4.87%. Rounding out the countries with the greatest share of users encountering ransomware were Venezuela, Canada, and Guatemala.

In 2020, the countries with the greatest share in North and South America were mostly the same — although with a smaller percentage of users encountering ransomware.

Country
%*

United States
2.97%

Venezuela
2.49%

Canada
2.46%

Paraguay
2.44%

Uruguay
2.37%

*Share of users attacked with ransomware out of all users encountering malware in the country

year, Venezuela had the second greatest share of users encountering ransomware, with Paraguay falling to fourth. In addition, Guatemala was replaced by Uruguay.

Africa

In 2019, the countries in Africa with the greatest percentage of users encountering ransomware were the following:

Country
%*

Mozambique
12.02%

Ethiopia
8.57%

Ghana
5.75%

Angola
3.32%

Libya
3.28%

*Share of users attacked with ransomware out of all users encountering malware in the country

Mozambique had the greatest share of users by far at 12.02%, followed by Ethiopia at 8.57%. The remaining countries with the greatest percentage of users that encountered ransomware were Ghana, Angola, and Libya.

In 2020, the landscape shifted a bit:

Country
%*

Cameroon
6.83%

Mali
5.85%

Mozambique
5.62%

Ethiopia
5.39%

Ghana
3.85%

*Share of users attacked with ransomware out of all users encountering malware in the country

The country with the greatest share of users encountering ransomware was Cameroon, followed by Mali. Mozambique, Ethiopia, and Ghana remained in the top five, but the share of users facing ransomware declined for all three.

Asia

In Asia in 2019, the five countries with the greatest percentage of users encountering ransomware were the following:

Country
%*

Afghanistan
26.44%

Bangladesh
23.14%

Turkmenistan
11.28%

Uzbekistan
10.53%

Tajikistan
8.08%

*Share of users attacked with ransomware out of all users encountering malware in the country

Afghanistan had the greatest share of users at 26.44%, followed by Bangladesh at 23.14%. The next three countries with the greatest share of users were concentrated in Central Asia: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.

In 2020, the landscape slightly changed:

Country
%*

Afghanistan
17.67%

Bangladesh
11.31%

Turkmenistan
9.52%

Tajikistan
5.26%

Kyrgyzstan
4.05%

*Share of users attacked with ransomware out of all users encountering malware in the country

Uzbekistan left the rating of countries with the greatest share of users encountering ransomware, giving way to Kyrgyzstan (4.05%), and the percentages of all the rest were significantly lower than in 2019. Afghanistan’s share of users declined to 17.67% and Bangladesh’s to 11.31%.

Europe

In Europe, the countries with the greatest percentage of users encountering ransomware were the following:

Country
%*

Azerbaijan
5.03%

Turkey
3.03%

Cyprus
2.82%

France
2.74%

Armenia
2.54%

Bulgaria
2.54%

*Share of users attacked with ransomware out of all users encountering malware in the country

Azerbaijan had the greatest share at 5.03%, followed by Turkey and Cyprus. Rounding out the six countries with the greatest percentage of users encountering ransomware were France, Armenia, and Bulgaria, the last two having the same share of affected users.

In 2020, the landscape looked a bit different:

Country
%*

France
5.18%

Montenegro
4.36%

Monaco
4.22%

Azerbaijan
4.21%

Macedonia
4.06%

*Share of users attacked with ransomware out of all users encountering malware in the country

France had the greatest share of users encountering ransomware, followed by Montenegro and Monaco, which replaced Turkey and Cyprus. Azerbaijan had the fourth greatest share at 4.21%, and Macedonia took Armenia’s place as the country with the fifth greatest share.

Mobile ransomware

As is the case with ransomware across all devices, mobile ransomware continues to decline. In 2019, the total number of unique Kaspersky users that encountered ransomware was 72,258. In 2020, it was 33,502 — a decrease of 54%.

However, the share of mobile users that encountered ransomware out of the total number that encountered any type of malware remained steady at 0.56%. This coincided with a decline in the overall number of mobile ransomware detections — from 333,878 in 2019 to 290,372 in 2020.

Number of mobile ransomware detections from 2019 to 2020 (download)

Interestingly enough, while the number of mobile ransomware detections declined relatively steadily after July 2019 with just a few small spikes in July 2019 and February 2020, it again started to rise significantly in the second half of 2020, reaching 35,000 detections in September of last year. This was due to, oddly enough, the ransomware Encoder, which is actually designed for Windows workstations and is not dangerous for mobile devices. However, in September 2020, Encoder spread via Telegram, which has both a mobile and desktop application. The attackers were most likely targeting Windows users, and mobile users accidentally ended up with Encoder on their phones when the mobile version of Telegram synced downloads with the desktop client.

Most active mobile ransomware families

 

Distribution of the most active mobile ransomware families, 2019 (download)

In 2019, nearly 45% of users that encountered mobile ransomware encountered Svpeng, the family that started as SMS Trojans, then switched to stealing banking credentials and credit card data, and finally evolved into ransomware. Slightly less than 19% of users encountered Rkor and Small. Rkor is a classic locker for ransom. Distributed via porn, it uses accessibility services to gain the necessary control over a device and then locks it until a fee is paid. Small is very similar: it locks the screen and demands a fee to continue watching porn.

The fourth most common family is Congur, which is distributed via a modified application, such as WhatsApp. Another well-known active family is Fusob, which claims to be from some kind of authority and says that the intended victim is obligated to pay a fine.

 

Distribution of the most active mobile ransomware families, 2020 (download)

In 2020, Small was the most frequently encountered mobile ransomware family at 26% followed by Rkor and Congur. Svpeng was the fourth most common family, with 14% of users encountering it.

Geography of attacked users

In 2019, the countries with the greatest percentage of users that encountered ransomware on their mobile devices were the following:

Country
%* 

United States
33.19%

Kazakhstan
13.24%

Canada
2.71%

Germany
2.27%

Italy
2.19%

United Kingdom
1.53%

Iran
1.41%

Poland
1.22%

Mexico
1.09%

Spain
1.00%

*Share of users attacked with ransomware out of all users encountering malware

The countries with the greatest number of users encountering mobile ransomware were relatively dispersed globally, with the United States having the highest percentage. Kazakhstan followed at 13.24%. The rest of the top ten had significantly smaller percentages of users encountering mobile ransomware, with Canada — the country with the third largest share — having only 2.71%.

In 2020, the countries with the greatest percentage of users that encountered mobile ransomware were the following:

Country
%*

Kazakhstan
23.80%

United States
10.32%

Germany
2.54%

Egypt
1.46%

Mexico
1.43%

Italy
1.41%

United Kingdom
1.14%

Iran
1.07%

Malaysia
1.02%

Indonesia
1.01%

*Share of users attacked with ransomware out of all users encountering malware

In 2020, Kazakhstan had the greatest percentage of users encountering mobile ransomware at 23.80%, followed by the United States at 10.32%. Poland, Spain, and Canada were replaced by Malaysia, Indonesia, and Egypt. In general, the percentage of affected users declined — this is to be expected given that the overall number of users affected by mobile ransomware declined by more than 50%.

The rise of targeted ransomware

While the raw total of ransomware detections has been on the decline, those numbers only tell part of the story. When ransomware first made front-page headlines, it was because of campaigns like WannaCry, Petya, and CryptoLocker: massive campaigns interested in hitting as many users as possible and extorting relatively small amounts per user. In WannaCry, for example, the attackers only requested $300 and later raised this amount to $600.

However, these types of campaigns are becoming less profitable, for potentially several reasons.      Given the increasing amount of attention paid to ransomware, security software may have become better at blocking ransomware threats and people are repeatedly encouraged not to pay. In addition, in a lot of countries, people simply can’t afford that high of a ransom. As a result, attackers have shifted their focus to those who can pay — companies. In 2019, nearly one-third of victims targeted by ransomware were corporate users.

Of course, infecting companies requires a far more sophisticated, targeted approach, and there are specific ransomware families designed to do just that.

Targeted ransomware (also known as “big game hunting”) consists of families of ransomware used to extort money from a particular victim. These victims tend to be high profile, such as large corporations, government and municipal agencies, and healthcare organizations, and the ransom demanded is far larger than that demanded from separate users. Often, their attacks involve one or more of the following stages:

Network compromise
Reconnaissance & persistence
Lateral movement
Data exfiltration
Data encryption
Extortion

Initial infection often occurs via exploitation of server-side software (VPNs, Citrix, WebLogic, Tomcat, Exchange, etc), RDP brute-force attacks/credential stuffing, supply-chain attacks, or botnets.

Kaspersky classifies a particular ransomware group as “targeted” based on the victims chosen, and if sophisticated methods are used to conduct the attack, such as breaching the network or lateral movement. So far, Kaspersky has identified 28 of these targeted families, which includes the infamous Hades ransomware that targets companies worth at least $1 billion.

From 2019 to 2020, the number of unique users affected by targeted ransomware — ransomware that is designed to affect specific users — increased from 985 to 8,538, a 767% jump.

The number of unique Kaspersky users affected by targeted ransomware, 2019 – 2020 (download)

A major spike occurred in July 2020, which was driven by the REvil ransomware family, which successfully exploited the foreign exchange company Travelex for $2.3 million. Grubman Shire Meiselas & Sacks, a New York-based law firm with a host of celebrity clients, also fell victim to REvil in May. Other highly targeted ransomware families also appeared in 2019 and 2020, the most notable of which was Maze. First appearing in 2019, Maze used various mechanisms for initial compromise. In certain cases, they used spear-phishing campaigns to install Cobalt Strike RAT, while other attacks involved exploiting a vulnerable internet-facing service (e.g., Citrix ADC/NetScaler or Pulse Secure VPN) or weak RDP credentials to breach the network. Maze primarily targeted businesses and large organizations. Some of their most notable attacks were against LG and the city of Pensacola, Florida.

Alongside this rise in targeted ransomware there has been an increased focus not just on data encryption but on data exfiltration: searching for highly confidential information and threatening to make it public if the ransom isn’t met as a means of coercing organizations to pay. Maze was one of the first ransomware groups to actually publish this stolen data if the ransom wasn’t paid. In addition, this information can later be sold online at auctions, which is what happened with databases from various agricultural companies that had fallen victim to REvil in the summer of 2020.

Eventually, Maze teamed up with another well-known, highly targeted ransomware family, RagnarLocker, which first appeared in 2020. Like Maze, RagnarLocker targets primarily large organizations and publishes the confidential information of those who refuse to pay on the “Wall of Shame.” This family is so targeted that each individual malware sample is specifically tailored to the organization it is attacking.

WastedLocker also appeared in 2020 and made global headlines when it knocked most popular services by Garmin, the well-known fitness and GPS technology company, offline for three days as it held the company’s data for a $10 million ransom. The malware used in the attack was specifically designed for Garmin.

Targeted ransomware is not confined to one specific industry. It has affected everything from healthcare organizations to sports and fitness companies.

Distribution of targeted ransomware attacks by industry, 2019–2020 (download)

Engineering and manufacturing was the most represented industry by far, with 25.63% of targeted ransomware attacks from 2019 to 2020 affecting this industry. This is not surprising given the highly sensitive nature of their data and the often high value of such companies. It is also incredibly disruptive to businesses in this sector if their systems go offline. 7.60% of targeted ransomware attacks affected professional and consumer services companies, and 7.09% targeted financial firms. Other popular targets are construction & real estate, commerce & retail, and IT & telecommunications.

Conclusion

The world is entering a new era of ransomware, and it’s likely that any kind of large-scale campaign — the kind that targets average, everyday users — will be few and far between. Of course, that’s not to say ransomware is only a threat if you’re a large company. Just in December of last year, there was a group looking to capitalize on the launch of Cyberpunk 2077 by distributing a fake, mobile version of the game that encrypts users’ files once downloaded.

That said, there has been an unmistakable shift in the landscape — one aimed at extorting confidential information and recovering large sums of money by targeting just one or maybe a dozen organizations. That means ransomware attackers will continue to deploy more advanced techniques for infiltrating networks and encrypting data. APT groups like Lazarus have already begun adding ransomware to their toolset. It wouldn’t be surprising if additional advanced threat actors followed suit.

The biggest takeaway from this is that companies — large and small — need to think about more than just backing up their data. They need to take a comprehensive approach to their security — one that includes regular patching, software updates, and cybersecurity awareness training. Some of these attacks against companies involve gaining an initial foothold in the system, laterally moving throughout the network until full control has been achieved, and then conducting reconnaissance for months before striking at a moment that causes optimal damage. In the attack against Travelex with the REvil ransomware, the cybercriminals had infiltrated the company’s network six months before they actually encrypted the data and demanded the ransom.

Ransomware attackers are sharpening their toolsets, and companies need to respond in kind. Fortunately, doing so is completely within their power.

Here are just a few suggestions from Kaspersky experts on the ways you can safeguard your organization against ransomware:

Always keep software updated on all the devices you use to prevent ransomware from exploiting vulnerabilities.
Focus your defense strategy on detecting lateral movements and data exfiltration to the internet. Pay special attention to the outgoing traffic to detect cybercriminals’ connections. Back up data regularly. Make sure you can quickly access it in an emergency when needed.
Use solutions like Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Responseand Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response, which help identify and stop an attack at an early stage, before attackers reach their final goals.
To protect the corporate environment, educate your employees. Dedicated training courses can help, such as the ones provided in the Kaspersky Automated Security Awareness Platform. A free lesson on how to protect your business from ransomware attacks is available here.
Use a reliable endpoint security solution, such as Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, which is powered by exploit prevention, behavior detection, and a remediation engine that is able to roll back malicious actions. KESB also has self-defense mechanisms that can prevent its removal by cybercriminals.

The post Ransomware by the numbers: Reassessing the threat’s global impact appeared first on Malware Devil.



https://malwaredevil.com/2021/04/23/ransomware-by-the-numbers-reassessing-the-threats-global-impact/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ransomware-by-the-numbers-reassessing-the-threats-global-impact

Barbary Pirates and Russian Cybercrime

In 1801, the United States had a small Navy. Thomas Jefferson deployed almost half that Navy—three frigates and a schooner—to the Barbary C...