The newly formed cybercrime alliance, “Scattered LAPSUS$ Hunters,” has launched a new website detailing its claims of a massive data breach affecting Salesforce and its extensive customer base. This development is the latest move by the group, a notorious collaboration between members of the established threat actor crews ShinyHunters, Scattered Spider, and LAPSUS$. On their new site, the group is extorting Salesforce directly, threatening to leak nearly one billion records with a ransom deadline of October 10, 2025.
This situation stems from a widespread and coordinated campaign that targeted Salesforce customers throughout mid-2025. According to security researchers, the attacks did not exploit a vulnerability in Salesforce’s core platform. Instead, the threat actors, particularly those from the Scattered Spider group, employed sophisticated social engineering tactics.
The primary method involved voice phishing (vishing), where attackers impersonated corporate IT or help desk staff in phone calls to employees of target companies. These employees were then manipulated into authorizing malicious third-party applications within their company’s Salesforce environment. This action granted the attackers persistent access tokens (OAuth), allowing them to bypass multi-factor authentication and exfiltrate vast amounts of data. The alliance has now consolidated the data from these numerous breaches for this large-scale extortion attempt against Salesforce itself.
The website lists dozens of high-profile Salesforce customers allegedly compromised in the campaign. The list of alleged victims posted by the group includes:
Toyota Motor Corporations (🇯🇵): A multinational automotive manufacturer.
FedEx (🇺🇸): A global courier delivery services company.
Disney/Hulu (🇺🇸): A multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate.
Republic Services (🇺🇸): An American waste disposal company.
UPS (🇺🇸): A multinational shipping, receiving, and supply chain management company.
Aeroméxico (🇲🇽): The flag carrier airline of Mexico.
Home Depot (🇺🇸): The largest home improvement retailer in the United States.
Marriott (🇺🇸): A multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging.
Vietnam Airlines (🇻🇳): The flag carrier of Vietnam.
Walgreens (🇺🇸): An American company that operates the second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United States.
Stellantis (🇳🇱): A multinational automotive manufacturing corporation.
McDonald’s (🇺🇸): A multinational fast food chain.
KFC (🇺🇸): A fast food restaurant chain that specializes in fried chicken.
ASICS (🇯🇵): A Japanese multinational corporation which produces sportswear.
GAP, INC. (🇺🇸): A worldwide clothing and accessories retailer.
HMH (hmhco.com) (🇺🇸): A publisher of textbooks, instructional technology materials, and assessments.
Fujifilm (🇯🇵): A multinational photography and imaging company.
Instructure.com – Canvas (🇺🇸): An educational technology company.
Albertsons (Jewel Osco, etc) (🇺🇸): An American grocery company.
Engie Resources (Plymouth) (🇺🇸): A retail electricity provider.
Kering (🇫🇷): A global luxury group that manages brands like Gucci, Balenciaga, and Brioni.
HBO Max (🇺🇸): A subscription video on-demand service.
Instacart (🇺🇸): A grocery delivery and pick-up service.
Petco (🇺🇸): An American pet retailer.
Puma (🇩🇪): A German multinational corporation that designs and manufactures athletic footwear and apparel.
Cartier (🇫🇷): A French luxury goods conglomerate.
Adidas (🇩🇪): A multinational corporation that designs and manufactures shoes, clothing, and accessories.
TripleA (aaa.com) (🇺🇸): A federation of motor clubs throughout North America.
Qantas Airways (🇦🇺): The flag carrier of Australia.
CarMax (🇺🇸): A used vehicle retailer.
Saks Fifth (🇺🇸): An American luxury department store chain.
1-800Accountant (🇺🇸): A nationwide accounting firm.
Air France & KLM (🇫🇷/🇳🇱): A major European airline partnership.
Google Adsense (🇺🇸): A program run by Google through which website publishers serve advertisements.
Cisco (🇺🇸): A multinational digital communications technology conglomerate.
Pandora.net (🇩🇰): A Danish jewelry manufacturer and retailer.
TransUnion (🇺🇸): An American consumer credit reporting agency.
Chanel (🇫🇷): A French luxury fashion house.
IKEA (🇸🇪): A Swedish-founded multinational group that designs and sells ready-to-assemble furniture.
According to the actor, the breach involves nearly 1 billion records from Salesforce and its clients. The allegedly compromised data includes:
Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
Strategic business records that could impact market position
Data from over 100 other demand instances hosted on Salesforce infrastructure
• The Register
Mon 29 Sep 2025 // 08:01 UTC
by Danny Bradbury
Feature: Guess how much of our direct transatlantic data capacity runs through two cables in Bude?
The first transatlantic cable, laid in 1858, delivered a little over 700 messages before promptly dying a few weeks later. 167 years on, the undersea cables connecting the UK to the outside world process £220 billion in daily financial transactions. Now, the UK Parliament's Joint Committee on National Security Strategy (JCNSS) has told the government that it has to do a better job of protecting them.
The Committee's report, released on September 19, calls the government "too timid" in its approach to protecting the cables that snake from the UK to various destinations around the world. It warns that "security vulnerabilities abound" in the UK's undersea cable infrastructure, when even a simple anchor-drag can cause major damage.
There are 64 cables connecting the UK to the outside world, according to the report, carrying most of the country's internet traffic. Satellites can't shoulder the data volumes involved, are too expensive, and only account for around 5 percent of traffic globally.
These cables are invaluable to the UK economy, but they're also difficult to protect. They are heavily shielded in the shallow sea close to those points. That's because accidental damage from fishing operations and other vessels is common. On average, around 200 cables suffer faults each year. But as they get further out, the shielding is less robust. Instead, the companies that lay the cables rely on the depth of the sea to do its job (you'll be pleased to hear that sharks don't generally munch on them).
The report praises a strong cable infrastructure, and admits that in some areas at least we have the redundancy in the cable infrastructure to handle disruptions. For example, it notes that 75 percent of UK transatlantic traffic routes through two cables that come ashore in Bude, Cornwall. That seems like quite the vulnerability, but it acknowledges that we have plenty of infrastructure to route around if anything happened to them. There is "no imminent threat to the UK's national connectivity," it soothes.
But it simultaneously cautions against adopting what it describes as "business-as-usual" views in the industry. The government "focuses too much on having 'lots of cables' and pays insufficient attention to the system's actual ability to absorb unexpected shocks," it frets. It warns that "the impacts on connectivity would be much more serious," if onward connections to Europe suffered as part of a coordinated attack.
"While our national connectivity does not face immediate danger, we must prepare for the possibility that our cables can be threatened in the event of a security crisis," it says.
Reds on the sea bed
Who is the most likely to mount such an attack, if anyone? Russia seems front and center, according to experts. It has reportedly been studying the topic for years. Keir Giles, director at The Centre for International Cyber Conflict and senior consulting fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, argues that Russia has a long history of information warfare that stepped up after it annexed Crimea in 2014.
"The thinking part of the Russian military suddenly decided 'actually, this information isolation is the way to go, because it appears to win wars for us without having to fight them'," Giles says, adding that this approach is often combined with choke holds on land-based information sources. Cutting off the population in the target area from any source of information other than what the Russian troops feed them achieves results at low cost.
In a 2021 paper he co-wrote for the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, he pointed to the Glavnoye upravleniye glubokovodnykh issledovaniy (Main Directorate for Deep-Water Research, or GUGI), a secretive Russian agency responsible for analyzing undersea cables for intelligence or disruption. According to the JCNSS report, this organization operates the Losharik, a titanium-hulled submarine capable of targeting cables at extreme depth.
Shenanigans under the sea
You don't need a fancy submarine to snag a cable, as long as you're prepared to do it in plain sight closer to the coast. The JNCSS report points to several incidents around the UK and the Baltics. November last year saw two incidents. In the first, Chinese-flagged cargo vessel Yi Peng 3 dragged its anchor for 300km and cut two cables between Sweden and Lithuania. That same month, the UK and Irish navies shadowed Yantar, a Russian research ship loitering around UK cable infrastructure in the Irish sea.
The following month saw Cook Islands-flagged ship Eagle S damage one power cable and three data cables linking Finland and Estonia. This May, unaffiliated vessel Jaguar approached an underseas cable off Estonia and was escorted out of the country's waters.
The real problem with brute-force physical damage from vessels is that it's difficult to prove that it's intentional. On one hand, it's perfect for an aggressor's plausible deniability, and could also be a way to test the boundaries of what NATO is willing to tolerate. On the other, it could really be nothing.
"Attribution of sabotage to critical undersea infrastructure is difficult to prove, a situation significantly complicated by the prevalence of under-regulated and illegal shipping activities, sometimes referred to as the shadow fleet," a spokesperson for NATO told us.
"I'd push back on an assertion of a coordinated campaign," says Alan Mauldin, research director at analyst company TeleGeography, which examines undersea cable infrastructure warns. He questions assumptions that the Baltic cable damage was anything other than a SNAFU.
The Washington Post also reported comment from officials on both sides of the Atlantic that the Baltic anchor-dragging was probably accidental. Giles scoffs at that. "Somebody had been working very hard to persuade countries across Europe that this sudden spate of cables being broken in the Baltic Sea, one after another, was all an accident, and they were trying to say that it's possible for ships to drag their anchors without noticing," he says.
One would hope that international governance frameworks could help. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [PDF] has a provision against messing with undersea cables, but many states haven't enacted the agreement. In any case, plausible deniability makes things more difficult.
"The main challenge in making meaningful governance reforms to secure submarine cables is figuring out what these could be. Making fishing or anchoring accidents illegal would be disproportionate," says Anniki Mikelsaar, doctoral researcher at Oxford University's Oxford Internet Institute. "As there might be some regulatory friction, regional frameworks could be a meaningful avenue to increase submarine cable security."
The difficulty in pinning down intent hasn't stopped NATO from stepping in. In January it launched Baltic Sentry, an initiative to protect undersea infrastructure in the region. That effort includes frigates, patrol aircraft, and naval drones to keep an eye on what happens both above and below the waves.
Preparing for the worst
Regardless of whether vessels are doing this deliberately or by accident, we have to be prepared for it, especially as cable installation shows no sign of slowing. Increasing bandwidth needs will boost global cable kilometers by 48 percent between now and 2040, says TeleGeography, adding that annual repairs will increase 36 percent between now and 2040.
"Many cable maintenance ships are reaching the end of their design life cycle, so more investment into upgrading the fleets is needed. This is important to make repairs faster," says Mikelsaar.
There are 62 vessels capable of cable maintenance today, and TeleGeography predicts that'll be enough for the next 15 years. However, it takes time to build these vessels and train the operators, meaning that we'll need to start delivering new vessels soon.
The problem for the UK is that it doesn't own any of that repair capacity, says the JNSS. It can take a long time to travel to a cable and repair it, and ships can only work on one at a time. The Committee reported that the UK doesn't own any sovereign repair capacity, and advises that it gets some, prescribing a repair ship by 2030.
"This could be leased to industry on favorable terms during peacetime and made available for Government use in a crisis," it says, adding that the Navy should establish a set of reservists that will be trained and ready to operate the vessel.
Sir Chris Bryant MP, the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, told the Committee it that it was being apocalyptic and "over-egging the pudding" by examining the possibility of a co-ordinated attack. "We disagree," the Committee said in the report, arguing that the security situation in the next decade is uncertain.
"Focusing on fishing accidents and low-level sabotage is no longer good enough," the report adds. "The UK faces a strategic vulnerability in the event of hostilities. Publicly signaling tougher defensive preparations is vital, and may reduce the likelihood of adversaries mounting a sabotage effort in the first place."
To that end, it has made a battery of recommendations. These include building the risk of a coordinated campaign against undersea infrastructure into its risk scenarios, and protecting the stations - often in remote coastal locations - where the cables come onto land.
The report also recommends that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) ensures all lead departments have detailed sector-by-sector technical impact studies addressing widespread cable outages.
"Government works around the clock to ensure our subsea cable infrastructure is resilient and can withstand hostile and non-hostile threats," DSIT told El Reg, adding that when breaks happen, the UK has some of the fastest cable repair times in the world, and there's usually no noticeable disruption."
"Working with NATO and Joint Expeditionary Force allies, we're also ensuring hostile actors cannot operate undetected near UK or NATO waters," it added. "We're deploying new technologies, coordinating patrols, and leading initiatives like Nordic Warden alongside NATO's Baltic Sentry mission to track and counter undersea threats."
Nevertheless, some seem worried. Vili Lehdonvirta, head of the Digital Economic Security Lab (DIESL) and professor of Technology Policy at Aalto University, has noticed increased interest from governments and private sector organizations alike in how much their daily operations depend on oversea connectivity. He says that this likely plays into increased calls for digital sovereignty.
"The rapid increase in data localization laws around the world is partly explained by this desire for increased resilience," he says. "But situating data and workloads physically close as opposed to where it is economically efficient to run them (eg. because of cheaper electricity) comes with an economic cost."
So the good news is that we know exactly how vulnerable our undersea cables are. The bad news is that so does everyone else with a dodgy cargo ship and a good poker face. Sleep tight.
today.ucsd.edu UC San Diego
September 17, 2025
Story by:
Ioana Patringenaru - ipatrin@ucsd.edu
Study involving 19,500 UC San Diego Health employees evaluated the effectiveness of two different types of cybersecurity training
Cybersecurity training programs as implemented today by most large companies do little to reduce the risk that employees will fall for phishing scams–the practice of sending malicious emails posing as legitimate to get victims to share personal information, such as their social security numbers.
That’s the conclusion of a study evaluating the effectiveness of two different types of cybersecurity training during an eight-month, randomized controlled experiment. The experiment involved 10 different phishing email campaigns developed by the research team and sent to more than 19,500 employees at UC San Diego Health.
The team presented their research at the Blackhat conference Aug. 2 to 7 in Las Vegas. The team originally shared their work at the 46th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy in May in San Francisco.
Researchers found that there was no significant relationship between whether users had recently completed an annual, mandated cybersecurity training and the likelihood of falling for phishing emails. The team also examined the efficacy of embedded phishing training – the practice of sharing anti-phishing information after a user engages with a phishing email sent by their organization as a test. For this type of training, researchers found that the difference in failure rates between employees who had completed the training and those who did not was extremely low.
“Taken together, our results suggest that anti-phishing training programs, in their current and commonly deployed forms, are unlikely to offer significant practical value in reducing phishing risks,” the researchers write.
Why is it important to combat phishing?
Whether phishing training is effective is an important question. In spite of 20 years of research and development into malicious email filtering techniques, a 2023 IBM study identifies phishing as the single largest source of successful cybersecurity breaches–16% overall, researchers write.
This threat is particularly challenging in the healthcare sector, where targeted data breaches have reached record highs. In 2023 alone, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported over 725 large data breach events, covering over 133 million health records, and 460 associated ransomware incidents.
As a result, it has become standard in many sectors to mandate both formal security training annually and to engage in unscheduled phishing exercises, in which employees are sent simulated phishing emails and then provided “embedded” training if they mistakenly click on the email’s links.
Researchers were trying to understand which of these types of training are most effective. It turns out, as currently administered, that none of them are.
Why are cybersecurity trainings not effective?
One reason the trainings are not effective is that the majority of people do not engage with the embedded training materials, said Grant Ho, study co-author and a faculty member at the University of Chicago, who did some of this work as a postdoctoral researcher at UC San Diego. Overall, 75% of users engaged with the embedded training materials for a minute or less. One-third immediately closed the embedded training page without engaging with the material at all.
“This does lend some suggestion that these trainings, in their current form, are not effective,” said Ariana Mirian, another paper co-author, who did the work as a Ph.D. student in the research group of UC San Diego computer science professors Stefan Savage and Geoff Voelker.
study of 19,500 employees over eight months
To date, this is the largest study of the effectiveness of anti-phishing training, covering 19,500 employees at UC San Diego Health. In addition, it’s one of only two studies that used a randomized control trial method to determine whether employees would receive training, and what kind of phishing emails–or lures–they would receive.
After sending 10 different types of phishing emails over the course of eight months, the researchers found that embedded phishing training only reduced the likelihood of clicking on a phishing link by 2%. This is particularly striking given the expense in time and effort that these trainings require, the researchers note.
Researchers also found that more employees fell for the phishing emails as time went on. In the first month of the study, only 10% of employees clicked on a phishing link. By the eighth month, more than half had clicked on at least one phishing link.
In addition, researchers found that some phishing emails were considerably more effective than others. For example, only 1.82% of recipients clicked on a phishing link to update their Outlook password. But 30.8% clicked on a link that purported to be an update to UC San Diego Health’s vacation policy.
Given the results of the study, researchers recommend that organizations refocus their efforts to combat phishing on technical countermeasures. Specifically, two measures would have better return on investment: two-factor authentication for hardware and applications, as well as password managers that only work on correct domains, the researchers write.
This work was supported in part by funding from the University of California Office of the President “Be Smart About Safety” program–an effort focused on identifying best practices for reducing the frequency and severity of systemwide insurance losses. It was also supported in part by U.S. National Science Foundation grant CNS-2152644, the UCSD CSE Postdoctoral Fellows program, the Irwin Mark and Joan Klein Jacobs Chair in Information and Computer Science, the CSE Professorship in Internet Privacy and/or Internet Data Security, a generous gift from Google, and operational support from the UCSD Center for Networked Systems.
Korea JoongAng Daily
Wednesday
October 1, 2025
BY JEONG JAE-HONG [yoon.soyeon@joongang.co.kr],D
A fire at the National Information Resources Service (NIRS)'s Daejeon headquarters destroyed the government’s G-Drive cloud storage system, erasing work files saved individually by some 750,000 civil servants, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety said Wednesday.
The fire broke out in the server room on the fifth floor of the center, damaging 96 information systems designated as critical to central government operations, including the G-Drive platform. The G-Drive has been in use since 2018, requiring government officials to store all work documents in the cloud instead of on personal computers. It provided around 30 gigabytes of storage per person.
However, due to the system’s large-capacity, low-performance storage structure, no external backups were maintained — meaning all data has been permanently lost.
The scale of damage varies by agency. The Ministry of Personnel Management, which had mandated that all documents be stored exclusively on G-Drive, was hit hardest. The Office for Government Policy Coordination, which used the platform less extensively, suffered comparatively less damage.
The Personnel Ministry stated that all departments are expected to experience work disruptions. It is currently working to recover alternative data using any files saved locally on personal computers within the past month, along with emails, official documents and printed records.
The Interior Ministry noted that official documents created through formal reporting or approval processes were also stored in the government’s Onnara system and may be recoverable once that system is restored.
“Final reports and official records submitted to the government are also stored in OnNara, so this is not a total loss,” said a director of public services at the Interior Ministry.
The Interior Ministry explained that while most systems at the Daejeon data center are backed up daily to separate equipment within the same center and to a physically remote backup facility, the G-Drive’s structure did not allow for external backups. This vulnerability ultimately left it unprotected.
Criticism continues to build regarding the government's data management protocols.
blick.ch
Fabian Eberhard
Publié: 28.09.2025 à 09:57 heures
Cyberattaques, désinformation, tensions russo-européennes: la Suisse se prépare. Les 6 et 7 novembre, l’exercice national EI 25 testera la réaction du pays face aux menaces hybrides. Au programme: simulations de cyberattaques, d'attaques terroristes et d'épidémies.
Cyberattaques, survols de drones, campagnes de désinformation – Vladimir Poutine est-il en train de tester les limites de l'OTAN?
Pour l'heure, rien n'indique que Moscou prévoit une quelconque incursion militaire au sein de nos frontières. Ce qui est certain en revanche, c'est que dans quelques semaines, un exercice de sécurité nationale sera lancé en Suisse, qui simulera un scénario similaire.
Scénario tenu secret
L'exercice intégré 2025 (EI 25) qui aura lieu les 6 et 7 novembre, doit permettre de tester l'organisation stratégique de crise de la Confédération, des cantons et d'autres acteurs, comme les exploitants d'infrastructures critiques – hôpitaux, aéroports, fournisseurs d'énergie.
Le scénario reste secret jusqu'au bout. La Confédération confirme uniquement qu'une «menace hybride contre la Suisse» doit être exercée. «Aucune référence n'est faite à un pays réel ou à des événements réels», explique cependant Urs Bruderer, porte-parole de la Chancellerie fédérale. Mais les initiés partent du principe que le dispositif d'exercice ressemble à une escalade du conflit entre la Russie et l'Europe – avec des conséquences massives.
De célèbres noms y participent
Le scénario a été élaboré par un comité consultatif composé de différents experts, comme Markus Mäder, secrétaire d'Etat à la politique de sécurité de la Confédération, Peter Maurer, ancien président du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge (CICR), et Doris Leuthard, ex-conseillère fédérale du Centre.
Pour cette dernière, il s'agit d'un retour éphémère à la Confédération, après avoir quitté le gouvernement fin 2018. «Les membres du conseil consultatif doivent réunir leurs connaissances et leur expérience au niveau politico-stratégique dans différents domaines thématiques pertinents pour l'exercice», explique Urs Bruderer.
A ce sujet, Doris Leuthard a dirigé le Département fédéral de l'environnement, des transports, de l'énergie et de la communication (Detec) durant son mandat et possède donc une certaine expertise en matière d'infrastructures critiques.
Exercice à vocation internationale
Pour l'EI 25, deux grands exercices ont été réunis: celui de sécurité intégré et celui de conduite stratégique, qui ont par le passé simulé des cyberattaques, des attaques terroristes et des épidémies. Sur la base des expériences tirées de la pandémie Covid-19, le Conseil fédéral a décidé de remplacer les deux exercices par un exercice combiné permettant à la Confédération et aux cantons de tester leur collaboration en situation de crise.
Selon la Confédération, l'entraînement «impliquera un grand nombre d'acteurs au niveau suisse». Urs Bruderer précise également que «la dimension internationale est un aspect important de l'exercice». Les acteurs internationaux ne se déplaceront toutefois pas eux-mêmes, mais seront simulés par des participants suisses.
Ars Technica, Dan Goodin – 30 sept. 2025 22:25
The chipmakers say physical attacks aren’t in the threat model. Many users didn’t get the memo.
In the age of cloud computing, protections baked into chips from Intel, AMD, and others are essential for ensuring confidential data and sensitive operations can’t be viewed or manipulated by attackers who manage to compromise servers running inside a data center. In many cases, these protections—which work by storing certain data and processes inside encrypted enclaves known as TEEs (Trusted Execution Enclaves)—are essential for safeguarding secrets stored in the cloud by the likes of Signal Messenger and WhatsApp. All major cloud providers recommend that customers use it. Intel calls its protection SGX, and AMD has named it SEV-SNP.
Over the years, researchers have repeatedly broken the security and privacy promises that Intel and AMD have made about their respective protections. On Tuesday, researchers independently published two papers laying out separate attacks that further demonstrate the limitations of SGX and SEV-SNP. One attack, dubbed Battering RAM, defeats both protections and allows attackers to not only view encrypted data but also to actively manipulate it to introduce software backdoors or to corrupt data. A separate attack known as Wiretap is able to passively decrypt sensitive data protected by SGX and remain invisible at all times.
Attacking deterministic encryption
Both attacks use a small piece of hardware, known as an interposer, that sits between CPU silicon and the memory module. Its position allows the interposer to observe data as it passes from one to the other. They exploit both Intel’s and AMD’s use of deterministic encryption, which produces the same ciphertext each time the same plaintext is encrypted with a given key. In SGX and SEV-SNP, that means the same plaintext written to the same memory address always produces the same ciphertext.
Deterministic encryption is well-suited for certain uses, such as full disk encryption, where the data being protected never changes once the thing being protected (in this case, the drive) falls into an attacker’s hands. The same encryption is suboptimal for protecting data flowing between a CPU and a memory chip because adversaries can observe the ciphertext each time the plaintext changes, opening the system to replay attacks and other well-known exploit techniques. Probabilistic encryption, by contrast, resists such attacks because the same plaintext can encrypt to a wide range of ciphertexts that are randomly chosen during the encryption process.
“Fundamentally, [the use of deterministic encryption] is a design trade-off,” Jesse De Meulemeester, lead author of the Battering RAM paper, wrote in an online interview. “Intel and AMD opted for deterministic encryption without integrity or freshness to keep encryption scalable (i.e., protect the entire memory range) and reduce overhead. That choice enables low-cost physical attacks like ours. The only way to fix this likely requires hardware changes, e.g., by providing freshness and integrity in the memory encryption.”
Daniel Genkin, one of the researchers behind Wiretap, agreed. “It’s a design choice made by Intel when SGX moved from client machines to server,” he said. “It offers better performance at the expense of security.” Genkin was referring to Intel’s move about five years ago to discontinue SGX for client processors—where encryption was limited to no more than 256 MB of RAM—to server processors that could encrypt terabytes of RAM. The transition required Intel to revamp the encryption to make it scale for such vast amounts of data.
“The papers are two sides of the same coin,” he added.
While both of Tuesday’s attacks exploit weaknesses related to deterministic encryption, their approaches and findings are distinct, and each comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. Both research teams said they learned of the other’s work only after privately submitting their findings to the chipmakers. The teams then synchronized the publish date for Tuesday. It’s not the first time such a coincidence has occurred. In 2018, multiple research teams independently developed attacks with names including Spectre and Meltdown. Both plucked secrets out of Intel and AMD processors by exploiting their use of performance enhancement known as speculative execution.
AMD declined to comment on the record, and Intel didn’t respond to questions sent by email. In the past, both chipmakers have said that their respective TEEs are designed to protect against compromises of a piece of software or the operating system itself, including in the kernel. The guarantees, the companies have said, don’t extend to physical attacks such as Battering RAM and Wiretap, which rely on physical interposers that sit between the processor and the memory chips. Despite this limitation, many cloud-based services continue to trust assurances from the TEEs even when they have been compromised through physical attacks (more about that later).
Intel on Tuesday published this advisory. AMD posted one here.
Battering RAM
Battering RAM uses a custom-built analog switch to act as an interposer that reads encrypted data as it passes between protected memory regions in DDR4 memory chips and an Intel or AMD processor. By design, both SGX and SEV-SNP make this ciphertext inaccessible to an adversary. To bypass that protection, the interposer creates memory aliases in which two different memory addresses point to the same location in the memory module.
The Battering-RAM interposer, containing two analog switches (bottom center), is controlled by a microcontroller (left). The switches can dynamically either pass through the command signals to the connected DIMM or connect the respective lines to ground.
The Battering-RAM interposer, containing two analog switches (bottom center), is controlled by a microcontroller (left). The switches can dynamically either pass through the command signals to the connected DIMM or connect the respective lines to ground. Credit: De Meulemeester et al.
“This lets the attacker capture a victim's ciphertext and later replay it from an alias,” De Meulemeester explained. “Because Intel's and AMD's memory encryption is deterministic, the replayed ciphertext always decrypts into valid plaintext when the victim reads it.” The PhD researcher at KU Leuven in Belgium continued:
When the CPU writes data to memory, the memory controller encrypts it deterministically, using the plaintext and the address as inputs. The same plaintext written to the same address always produces the same ciphertext. Through the alias, the attacker can't read the victim's secrets directly, but they can capture the victim's ciphertext. Later, by replaying this ciphertext at the same physical location, the victim will decrypt it to a valid, but stale, plaintext.
This replay capability is the primitive on which both our SGX and SEV attacks are built.
In both cases, the adversary installs the interposer, either through a supply-chain attack or physical compromise, and then runs either a virtual machine or application at a chosen memory location. At the same time, the adversary also uses the aliasing to capture the ciphertext. Later, the adversary replays the captured ciphertext, which, because it's running in the region the attacker has access to, is then replayed as plaintext.
Because SGX uses a single memory-encryption key for the entire protected range of RAM, Battering RAM can gain the ability to write or read plaintext into these regions. This allows the adversary to extract the processor’s provisioning key and, in the process, break the attestation SGX is supposed to provide to certify its integrity and authenticity to remote parties that connect to it.
AMD processors protected by SEV use a single encryption key to produce all ciphertext on a given virtual machine. This prevents the ciphertext replaying technique used to defeat SGX. Instead, Battering RAM captures and replays the cryptographic elements that are supposed to prove the virtual machine hasn’t been tampered with. By replaying an old attestation report, Battering RAM can load a backdoored Virtual machine that still carries the SEV-SNP certification that the VM hasn’t been tampered with.
The key benefit of Battering RAM is that it requires equipment that costs less than $50 to pull off. It also allows active decryption, meaning encrypted data can be both read and tampered with. In addition, it works against both SGX and SEV-SNP, as long as they work with DDR4 memory modules.
Wiretap
Wiretap, meanwhile, is limited to breaking only SGX working with DDR4, although the researchers say it would likely work against the AMD protections with a modest amount of additional work. Wiretap, however, allows only for passive decryption, which means protected data can be read, but data can’t be written to protected regions of memory. The cost of the interposer and the equipment for analyzing the captured data also costs considerably more than Battering RAM, at about $500 to $1,000.
Like Battering RAM, Wiretap exploits deterministic encryption, except the latter attack maps ciphertext to a list of known plaintext words that the ciphertext is derived from. Eventually, the attack can recover enough ciphertext to reconstruct the attestation key.
Genkin explained:
Let’s say you have an encrypted list of words that will be later used to form sentences. You know the list in advance, and you get an encrypted list in the same order (hence you know the mapping between each word and its corresponding encryption). Then, when you encounter an encrypted sentence, you just take the encryption of each word and match it against your list. By going word by word, you can decrypt the entire sentence. In fact, as long as most of the words are in your list, you can probably decrypt the entire conversation eventually. In our case, we build a dictionary between common values occurring within the ECDSA algorithm and their corresponding encryption, and then use this dictionary to recover these values as they appear, allowing us to extract the key.
The Wiretap researchers went on to show the types of attacks that are possible when an adversary successfully compromises SGX security. As Intel explains, a key benefit of SGX is remote attestation, a process that first verifies the authenticity and integrity of VMs or other software running inside the enclave and hasn’t been tampered with. Once the software passes inspection, the enclave sends the remote party a digitally signed certificate providing the identity of the tested software and a clean bill of health certifying the software is safe.
The enclave then opens an encrypted connection with the remote party to ensure credentials and private data can’t be read or modified during transit. Remote attestation works with the industry standard Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm, making it easy for all parties to use and trust.
Blockchain services didn’t get the memo
Many cloud-based services rely on TEEs as a foundation for privacy and security within their networks. One such service is Phala, a blockchain provider that allows the drafting and execution of smart contracts. According to the company, computer “state”—meaning system variables, configurations, and other dynamic data an application depends on—are stored and updated only in the enclaves available through SGX, SEV-SNP, and a third trusted enclave available in Arm chips known as TrustZone. This design allows these smart contract elements to update in real time through clusters of “worker nodes”—meaning the computers that host and process smart contracts—with no possibility of any node tampering with or viewing the information during execution.
“The attestation quote signed by Intel serves as the proof of a successful execution,” Phala explained. “It proves that specific code has been run inside an SGX enclave and produces certain output, which implies the confidentiality and the correctness of the execution. The proof can be published and validated by anyone with generic hardware.” Enclaves provided by AMD and Arm work in a similar manner.
The Wiretap researchers created a “testnet,” a local machine for running worker modes. With possession of the SGX attestation key, the researchers were able to obtain a cluster key that prevents individual nodes from reading or modifying contract state. With that, Wiretap was able to fully bypass the protection. In a paper, the researchers wrote:
We first enter our attacker enclave into a cluster and note it is given access to the cluster key. Although the cluster key is not directly distributed to our worker upon joining a cluster, we initiate a transfer of the key from any other node in the cluster. This transfer is completed without on-chain interaction, given our worker is part of the cluster. This cluster key can then be used to decrypt all contract interactions within the cluster. Finally, when our testnet accepted our node’s enclave as a gatekeeper, we directly receive a copy of the master key, which is used to derive all cluster keys and therefore all contract keys, allowing us to decrypt the entire testnet.
The researchers performed similar bypasses against a variety of other blockchain services, including Secret, Crust, and IntegriTEE. After the researchers privately shared the results with these companies, they took steps to mitigate the attacks.
Both Battering RAM and Wiretap work only against DDR4 forms of memory chips because the newer DDR5 runs at much higher bus speeds with a multi-cycle transmission protocol. For that reason, neither attack works against a similar Intel protection known as TDX because it works only with DDR5.
As noted earlier, Intel and AMD both exclude physical attacks like Battering RAM and Wiretap from the threat model their TEEs are designed to withstand. The Wiretap researchers showed that despite these warnings, Phala and many other cloud-based services still rely on the enclaves to preserve the security and privacy of their networks. The research also makes clear that the TEE defenses completely break down in the event of an attack targeting the hardware supply chain.
For now, the only feasible solution is for chipmakers to replace deterministic encryption with a stronger form of protection. Given the challenges of making such encryption schemes scale to vast amounts of RAM, it’s not clear when that may happen.
Dan Goodin is Senior Security Editor at Ars Technica, where he oversees coverage of malware, computer espionage, botnets, hardware hacking, encryption, and passwords. In his spare time, he enjoys gardening, cooking, and following the independent music scene. Dan is based in San Francisco. Follow him at here on Mastodon and here on Bluesky. Contact him on Signal at DanArs.82.
dronexl.co Haye Kestelooo october 2, 2025
Drone sightings Thursday evening forced Germany’s Munich airport to suspend operations, cancelling 17 flights and disrupting travel for nearly 3,000
Drone sightings Thursday evening forced Germany’s Munich airport to suspend operations, cancelling 17 flights and disrupting travel for nearly 3,000 passengers. The incident marks the latest in a concerning series of mysterious drone closures at major European airports—but whether these sightings represent genuine security threats or mass misidentification remains an urgent question.
The pattern echoes both recent suspected hybrid attacks in Scandinavia and last year’s New Jersey drone panic that turned out to be largely misidentified aircraft and celestial objects.
Munich Operations Suspended for Hours
German air traffic control restricted flight operations at Munich airport from 10:18 p.m. local time Thursday after multiple drone sightings, later suspending them entirely. The airport remained closed until 2:59 a.m. Friday (4:59 a.m. local time).
Another 15 arriving flights were diverted to Stuttgart, Nuremberg, Vienna, and Frankfurt. Flight tracking service Flightradar24 confirmed the airport would remain closed until early Friday morning.
The first arriving flight was expected at 5:25 a.m., with the first departure scheduled for 5:50 a.m., according to the airport’s website.
European Airports on Edge After Suspected Russian Incidents
The Munich closure comes just days after a wave of drone incidents shut down multiple airports across Denmark and Norway in late September. Copenhagen Airport closed for nearly four hours on September 22 after two to three large drones were spotted in controlled airspace. Oslo’s Gardermoen Airport also briefly closed that same night.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called those incidents “the most serious attack on Danish critical infrastructure to date” and suggested Russia could be behind the disruption. Danish authorities characterized the activity as a likely hybrid operation intended to unsettle the public and disrupt critical infrastructure.
Several more Danish airports—including Aalborg, Billund, and military bases—experienced similar incidents in the following days. Denmark is now considering whether to invoke NATO’s Article 4, which enables member states to request consultations over security concerns.
Russian President Vladimir Putin joked Thursday that he would not fly drones over Denmark anymore, though Moscow has denied responsibility for the incidents. Denmark has stopped short of saying definitively who is responsible, but Western officials point to a pattern of Russian drone violations of NATO airspace in Poland, Romania, and Estonia.
The Misidentification Problem: Lessons from New Jersey
While European officials investigate potential hybrid warfare, the incidents raise uncomfortable parallels to the New Jersey drone panic of late 2024—a mass sighting event that turned out to be largely misidentification of routine aircraft and celestial objects.
Between November and December 2024, thousands of “drone” reports flooded in from New Jersey and neighboring states. The phenomenon sparked widespread fear, congressional hearings, and even forced then-President-elect Donald Trump to cancel a trip to his Bedminster golf club.
Federal investigations later revealed the reality: most sightings were manned aircraft operating lawfully. A joint FBI and DHS statement in December noted: “Historically, we have experienced cases of mistaken identity, where reported drones are, in fact, manned aircraft or facilities.”
TSA documents released months later showed that one of the earliest incidents—which forced a medical helicopter carrying a crash victim to divert—involved three commercial aircraft approaching nearby Solberg Airport. “The alignment of the aircraft gave the appearance to observers on the ground of them hovering in formation while they were actually moving directly at the observers,” the analysis found.
Dr. Will Austin, president of Warren County Community College and a national drone expert, reviewed numerous videos during the panic. He found that “many of the reports received involve misidentification of manned aircraft.” Even Jupiter, which was particularly bright in New Jersey’s night sky that season, was mistaken for a hovering drone.
The panic had real consequences: laser-pointing incidents at aircraft spiked to 59 in December 2024—more than the 49 incidents recorded for all of 2023, according to the FAA.
Munich Already on Edge
Munich was already placed on edge this week when its popular Oktoberfest was temporarily closed due to a bomb threat, and explosives were discovered in a residential building in the city’s north.
Whether Thursday’s drone sightings represent genuine security threats similar to the suspected Russian operations in Scandinavia, or misidentified routine aircraft like in New Jersey, remains under investigation. German authorities have not released details about what was observed or where the objects may have originated.
DroneXL’s Take
We’re watching two very different scenarios collide in dangerous ways. The Denmark and Norway incidents appear to involve sophisticated actors—large drones, coordinated timing, professional operation over multiple airports and military installations. Danish intelligence has credible reasons to suspect state-sponsored hybrid warfare, particularly given documented Russian drone violations of NATO airspace in Poland and Romania.
But the New Jersey panic showed how quickly mass hysteria can spiral when people start looking up. Once the narrative took hold, every airplane on approach, every bright planet, every hobbyist quadcopter became a “mystery drone.” Federal investigators reviewed over 5,000 reports and found essentially nothing anomalous—yet 78% of Americans still believed the government was hiding something.
Munich sits uncomfortably between these realities. Is it part of the escalating pattern of suspected Russian hybrid attacks on European infrastructure? Or is it another case of observers misidentifying routine air traffic in an atmosphere of heightened anxiety?
The distinction matters enormously. Real threats require sophisticated counter-drone systems and potentially invoke NATO collective defense mechanisms. False alarms waste resources, create dangerous situations (like those laser-pointing incidents), and damage the credibility of legitimate security concerns.
Airport authorities worldwide need better drone detection technology that can definitively distinguish between aircraft types. Equally important: they need to be transparent about what they’re actually seeing, rather than leaving information vacuums that fill with speculation and fear.
Following drone sightings late on Thursday and Friday evening and further drone sightings early on Saturday morning, the start of flight operations on 4 October 2025 was delayed. Flight operations were gradually ramped up and stabilised over the course of the afternoon.
Following drone sightings late on Thursday and Friday evening and further drone sightings early on Saturday morning, the start of flight operations on 4 October 2025 has been delayed. Flight operations were gradually ramped up and stabilised over the course of the afternoon. Passengers were asked to check the status of their flight on their airline's website before travelling to the airport. Of the more than 1,000 take-offs and landings planned for Saturday, airlines cancelled around 170 flights during the day for operational reasons.
As on previous nights, Munich Airport worked with the airlines to immediately provide for passengers in the terminals. These activities will continue on Saturday evening and into Sunday night. Numerous camp beds will again be set up, and blankets, air mattresses, drinks and snacks will be distributed. In addition, some shops, restaurants and a pharmacy in the public area will extend their opening hours and remain open throughout the night. In addition to numerous employees of the airport, airlines and service providers, numerous volunteers are also on duty.
When a drone is suspected of being sighted, the safety of travellers is the top priority. Reporting chains between air traffic control, the airport and police authorities have been established for years. It is important to emphasise that the detection and defence against drones are sovereign tasks and are the responsibility of the federal and state police.
Munich Airport (www.munich-airport.com)
October 3, 2025 (Update)
On Thursday evening (October 2), several drones were sighted in the vicinity of and on the grounds of Munich Airport. The first reports were received at around 8:30 p.m. Initially, areas around the airport, including Freising and Erding, were affected.
The state police immediately launched extensive search operations with a large number of officers in the vicinity of the airport. At the same time, the federal police immediately carried out surveillance and search operations on the airport grounds. However, it has not yet been possible to identify the perpetrator.
At around 9:05 p.m., drones were reported near the airport fence. At around 10:10 p.m., the first sighting was made on the airport grounds. As a result, flight operations were gradually suspended at 10:18 p.m. for safety reasons. The preventive closure affected both runways from 10:35 p.m. onwards. The sightings ended around midnight. According to the airport operator, there were 17 flight cancellations and 15 diversions by that time. Helicopters from the federal police and the Bavarian state police were also deployed to monitor the airspace and conduct searches.
Munich Airport, in cooperation with the airlines, immediately took care of the passengers in the terminals. Camp beds were set up, and blankets, drinks, and snacks were provided. In addition, 15 arriving flights were diverted to Stuttgart, Nuremberg, Vienna, and Frankfurt. Flight operations resumed as normal today (Friday, October 3).
Responsibilities and cooperation
Within the scope of their respective tasks, the German Air Traffic Control (DFS), the state aviation security authorities, the state police forces, and the federal police are responsible for the detection and defense against drones at commercial airports.
The measures are carried out in close coordination between all parties involved and the airport operator on the basis of jointly developed emergency plans. The local state police force is responsible for preventive policing in the vicinity of the airport, while the federal police is responsible for policing on the airport grounds. Criminal prosecution is the responsibility of the state police.
Note: Please understand that for tactical reasons, the security authorities are unable to provide any further information on the systems and measures used. Further investigations will be conducted by the Bavarian police, as they have jurisdiction in this matter.
techcrunch.com - Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Zack Whittaker
6:17 AM PDT · October 3, 2025
The hacking group claims to have stolen about a billion records from companies, including FedEx, Qantas, and TransUnion, who store their customer and company data in Salesforce.
A notorious predominantly English-speaking hacking group has launched a website to extort its victims, threatening to release about a billion records stolen from companies who store their customers’ data in cloud databases hosted by Salesforce.
The loosely organized group, which has been known as Lapsus$, Scattered Spider, and ShinyHunters, has published a dedicated data leak site on the dark web, called Scattered LAPSUS$ Hunters.
The website, first spotted by threat intelligence researchers on Friday and seen by TechCrunch, aims to pressure victims into paying the hackers to avoid having their stolen data published online.
“Contact us to regain control on data governance and prevent public disclosure of your data,” reads the site. “Do not be the next headline. All communications demand strict verification and will be handled with discretion.”
Over the last few weeks, the ShinyHunters gang allegedly hacked dozens of high-profile companies by breaking into their cloud-based databases hosted by Salesforce.
Insurance giant Allianz Life, Google, fashion conglomerate Kering, the airline Qantas, carmaking giant Stellantis, credit bureau TransUnion, and the employee management platform Workday, among several others, have confirmed their data was stolen in these mass hacks.
The hackers’ leak site lists several alleged victims, including FedEx, Hulu (owned by Disney), and Toyota Motors, none of which responded to a request for comment on Friday.
It’s not clear if the companies known to have been hacked but not listed on the hacking group’s leak site have paid a ransom to the hackers to prevent their data from being published. When reached by TechCrunch, a representative from ShinyHunters said, “there are numerous other companies that have not been listed,” but declined to say why.
At the top of the site, the hackers mention Salesforce and demand that the company negotiate a ransom, threatening that otherwise “all your customers [sic] data will be leaked.” The tone of the message suggests that Salesforce has not yet engaged with the hackers.
Salesforce spokesperson Nicole Aranda provided a link to the company’s statement, which notes that the company is “aware of recent extortion attempts by threat actors.”
“Our findings indicate these attempts relate to past or unsubstantiated incidents, and we remain engaged with affected customers to provide support,” the statement reads. “At this time, there is no indication that the Salesforce platform has been compromised, nor is this activity related to any known vulnerability in our technology.”
Aranda declined to comment further.
For weeks, security researchers have speculated that the group, which has historically eschewed a public presence online, was planning to publish a data leak website to extort its victims.
Historically, such websites have been associated with foreign, often Russian-speaking, ransomware gangs. In the last few years, these organized cybercrime groups have evolved from stealing, encrypting their victim’s data, and then privately asking for a ransom, to simply threatening to publish the stolen data online unless they get paid.
