Sandworm (aka Seashell Blizzard) has an initial access wing called "BadPilot" that uses standard intrusion tactics to spread Russia's tendrils around the world.

Source: Kenishirotie via Alamy Stock Photo

Arguably, no advanced persistent threat (APT) enjoys as much notoriety as Sandworm, otherwise known as Military Unit 74455 within Russia's military intelligence (GRU). Its highlight reel includes NotPetya, an attack against the 2018 Winter Olympics, and two effective assaults on Ukraine's power grid. More recent activities include a campaign against Denmark's energy sector and an unsuccessful attempt to down Ukraine's grid for a third time, followed by a successful attempt.

In a sign of the times, Sandworm has subtly been shifting toward quieter, more widespread intrusions. Microsoft, which tracks the group as "Seashell Blizzard," has identified a subgroup within 74455 focused solely on gaining initial access to high-value organizations across major industries and geographic regions. It calls this subgroup "BadPilot."

**Sandworm's IAB, BadPilot**

Since at least late 2021, BadPilot has been performing opportunistic attacks against Internet-facing infrastructure, taking advantage of known vulnerabilities in popular email and collaboration platforms. Notable examples include Zimbra's CVE-2022-41352, the Microsoft Exchange bug CVE-2021-34473, and CVE-2023-23397 in Microsoft Outlook. All three of these vulnerabilities received "critical" 9.8 out of 10 scores in the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).

BadPilot uses these critical vulnerabilities to gain useful initial access to traditionally high-value organizations: telecommunications companies, oil and gas companies, shipping companies, arms manufacturers, and entities of foreign governments. Targets have ranged from Ukraine and broader Europe to Central and South Asia and the Middle East.

Since early 2024, BadPilot has expanded to access targets in the US and UK as well. For this, it has made particular use of bugs in remote monitoring and management software: CVE-2023-48788, for example, a remote injection opportunity in the Fortinet Forticlient Enterprise Management Server (EMS), and the rare 10 out of 10 CVSS-rated CVE-2024-1709, allowing for authentication bypass in ScreenConnect by ConnectWise.

After gaining its foothold on a targeted system, BadPilot follows all the usual steps of any average hacking operation. It promptly establishes persistence using its custom "LocalOlive" Web shell, as well as copies of legitimate remote management and monitoring (RMM) tools, or "ShadowLink," which configures compromised systems as Tor hidden services. It collects credentials, performs lateral movement, exfiltrates data as necessary, and sometimes performs further post-compromise activities.

"There is not a lack of sophistication here, but a focus on agility and obtaining goals," says Sherrod DeGrippo, director of threat intelligence strategy at Microsoft. "These TTPs work because this threat actor is persistent and continues pursuing its objectives."

**The Impact in Ukraine**

Ultimately, BadPilot's job is to lubricate more significant attacks by its parent group, and, by extension, empower its controlling government. While a lot of its activity seems opportunistic, Microsoft wrote, "its compromises cumulatively offer Seashell Blizzard options when responding to Russia's evolving strategic objectives."

It may or may not be a coincidence, for example, that the group came into being just months before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. As that war began, and Russia peppered its neighbor with more cyberattacks than ever before, BadPilot was right in the mix, helping gain access to organizations perceived to be providing political or military support to its adversary. Additionally, Microsoft says, the group has enabled at least three destructive attacks in Ukraine since 2023.

Sandworm has targeted critical infrastructure across Ukraine since the war started, including telecommunications infrastructure, manufacturing plants, transportation and logistics, energy, water, military and government organizations, and other infrastructure meant to support the civilian population. It has also targeted military communities for the purpose of intelligence gathering.

"These threat actors are persistent, creative, organized, and well-resourced," DeGrippo emphasizes. For this reason, "Critical sectors need to ensure that they sustain above-average security practices, patch their software, monitor Internet-facing assets, and enhance their overall security posture."

**About the Author**

Nate Nelson is a writer based in New York City. He formerly worked as a reporter at Threatpost, and wrote "Malicious Life," an award-winning Top 20 tech podcast on Apple and Spotify. Outside of Dark Reading, he also co-hosts "The Industrial Security Podcast."

Microsoft: Russia's Sandworm APT Exploits Edge Bugs Globally

Microsoft’s February Patch Tuesday addresses 63 security vulnerabilities, including two actively exploited zero-days. Update your systems now to…

Microsoft’s February Patch Tuesday addresses 63 security vulnerabilities, including two actively exploited zero-days. Update your systems now to protect against these threats.

Microsoft’s February 2025 Patch Tuesday update addresses 63 security vulnerabilities across its product range, including two zero-day exploits actively being used by attackers. Four of these vulnerabilities are classified as critical.

The update covers a variety of vulnerability types, including remote code execution, elevation of privilege, denial of service, spoofing, security feature bypass, information disclosure, and tampering.

Screenshot via SOCRadar

Two zero-day vulnerabilities are of particular concern due to their active exploitation.  

CVE-2025-21391, an elevation of privilege flaw in Windows Storage, could allow attackers to delete critical system files, potentially causing data loss and service disruptions.  While Microsoft states this vulnerability doesn’t expose confidential data, the ability to disrupt services is, nevertheless, a serious concern.  

The second actively exploited zero-day, CVE-2025-21418, affects the Ancillary Function Driver for Windows Sockets.  This vulnerability enables privilege escalation, potentially granting attackers SYSTEM-level access.  Details about the exploitation methods for these vulnerabilities remain undisclosed.

Microsoft is also addressing two publicly disclosed zero-day vulnerabilities. CVE-2025-21194, a hypervisor flaw, could compromise the secure kernel in UEFI-based virtual machines. This vulnerability is speculated to be related to the PixieFail vulnerabilities. Another flaw, CVE-2025-21377, could allow attackers to steal NTLM hashes through minimal user interaction with a malicious file.

Some critical vulnerabilities patched by Microsoft include: CVE-2025-21376, an RCE vulnerability in Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol allowing arbitrary code execution. CVE-2025-21177, a Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability in Dynamics 365 that may lead to privilege escalation. CVE-2025-21379 in the DHCP Client Service and CVE-2025-21381 in Microsoft Excel, both allow remote code execution.  

Another severe flaw addressed was in Microsoft’s High-Performance Compute Pack. Tracked as CVE-2025-21198, it is a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability that allows attackers to perform RCE on other clusters or nodes connected to the targeted head node by sending a specially crafted HTTPS request

Microsoft also addressed some high-risk flaws in this update including vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office SharePoint, Windows Disk Cleanup Tool, Windows CoreMessaging, Windows Win32 Kernel Subsystem, Windows Setup Files Cleanup, Windows DWM Core Library, and others. These vulnerabilities are considered high-risk due to their potential for exploitation and the lack of existing workarounds.  

Beyond Microsoft’s updates, other vendors, including Adobe, SAP, and Ivanti, have also released security patches.  SAP’s updates address vulnerabilities in BusinessObjects, Supplier Relationship Management, and Approuter, including a critical authorization flaw.  Ivanti’s patch fixes a critical OS command injection vulnerability in its Cloud Services Application.  

These updates highlight the ongoing need for timely security patching. With actively exploited zero-days and a range of critical vulnerabilities, organizations must prioritize applying these updates to mitigate risks. The sheer volume of vulnerabilities tracked by security platforms is staggering, as illustrated by SOCRadar’s Vulnerability Intelligence dashboard.

Screenshot via SOCRadar

Mr. Saeed Abbasi, Manager of Vulnerability Research at Qualys Threat Research Unit, told Hackread.com that CVE-2025-21391, though appearing as a file deletion bug, is actively exploited and far more dangerous when combined with code execution. While it doesn’t threaten confidentiality, it severely impacts integrity and availability, potentially crippling servers. Attackers can exploit it to delete critical system files, replacing them with weakly secured versions, and ultimately gaining SYSTEM-level access. Abbasi warns this is no minor flaw; it’s a stealthy path to full system control.

Patch Tuesday: Microsoft Fixes 63 Bugs with 2 Zero-Days

When it comes to keeping patient information safe, people empowerment is just as necessary as deploying new technologies.

Source: Yuri Arcurs via Alamy Stock Photos

COMMENTARY

Some say artificial intelligence (AI) has changed healthcare in ways we couldn't have imagined just a few years ago. It's now used for everything from paperwork to helping doctors make better diagnoses. But like any new tech, there are risks involved.

Currently, AI is both a potent defense mechanism and an attacker enabler. Therefore, the question that must be asked is clear: Is AI an enemy or a friend of cybersecurity in healthcare? Honestly, the answer is both.

**AI as the Defender: Enhancing Healthcare Security**

Healthcare systems are rich targets for malicious actors, with considerable protected health information (PHI) spread across interconnected assets such as electronic health records, Internet of Things (IoT)-enabled medical devices, and telehealth platforms. It has been proven that traditional cybersecurity tools often lack the resources and features required to protect such complex ecosystems and, as in different industries, struggle to keep pace with both the volume of data being generated and evolving attack methodologies.

The advantage of machine learning algorithms is that they can find a potential threat before it is serious. AI-powered security tools can detect anomalies in system behaviors, such as unauthorized data transfer or suspicious login activities, and thus proactively prevent a breach. Indeed, several hospitals using AI-powered systems have been able to avert ransomware attacks and maintain operational integrity and patient safety.

Artificial Intelligence is also incomparable in terms of its critical role in reducing administrative burdens and further complying with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and other regulations. AI-powered tools, such as virtual assistants and data processing systems, take over administrative work while safeguarding sensitive data. These tools protect PHI and free human resources to focus on patient care.

**AI as the Enabler of Cyber Threats**

While AI hardens the defense, it turbocharges the attacker side, too. In such a way, cyber threats in healthcare have become increasingly sophisticated. The game changed with generative AI tools that let attackers create unbelievably realistic tailor-made emails with perfect grammar and formatting that quickly slipped through traditional security filters.

Deepfakes add another layer to these deceptions: generating hyperreal audio and video that makes an attacker sound like senior health leaders or other trusted voices. These fabrications have been used to deceive staff into granting unauthorized access, sharing PHI, and even making fraudulent financial transactions. In some cases, attackers have used deepfakes to spread false medical information or to undermine public confidence, further destabilizing an already complex threat landscape.

AI-powered malware leverages machine learning to make live changes, evade traditional detection, and zero in on critical systems, such as IoT-enabled devices and electronic health records. Attackers manipulate diagnostic data, alter medical imaging, and gain entry through vulnerabilities in lightly secured IoT devices, enabling them to create avenues to coordinate attacks. Combining AI with IoT could pose a greater threat to patient safety and trust in healthcare systems than just financial losses. 

AI-powered threats sound an alarm for information security, IT, and healthcare leaders. These risks are reshaping the cybersecurity landscape. Preemptive defenses require advanced AI tools, employee training, and collaboration across cross-functional teams. This would, in turn, involve policy and detection system reviews to grant top priority for countering AI-impelled social engineering and malware. Constantly being one step ahead of the bad actors requires constant vigilance, innovative thinking, and a core commitment to data safety and patient care.

**Balancing AI's Potential with Realistic Implementation**

As an expert or executive, you face the critical decision of managing the promise of AI and the risk it further introduces into an already overcomplicated cybersecurity landscape. AI is not the Holy Grail; it's a tool that can be used for and against us. AI’s transformative potential in healthcare and security comes from how it is implemented, so leaders must approach its adoption with a balanced perspective. They should be excited yet cautious, knowing full well that attackers are leveraging the very same technology to undermine our systems, data, and trust.

In my experience, the excitement around adopting AI tools like transcript generators, grammar checkers, or automated note-taking systems often takes precedence over critical security assessments. I have seen teams advocate for rapid implementation to save time and resources without assessing the risks; common questions such as where the data is stored, how it is processed, or if the vendor is compliant often are not asked. This rush to embrace convenience creates gaps that attackers can exploit, especially in healthcare, where even minor oversights can lead to significant breaches of PHI or personally identifiable information (PII).

Deepfakes, adaptive malware, and the exploitation of IoT devices, all powered by AI, require a new type of thinking to address these threats — one that changes from legacy defenses or even leading-edge AI-powered tools to placing those tools within an extended proactive security framework encompassing audits, employee training, and reliable governance. For that to happen, health workers and administrators must be empowered to recognize sophisticated attacks, faked video calls, or some other unexpected data transfer AI flagged up. People empowerment is just as necessary in deploying new technologies.

Drive collaboration between IT, security, and clinical teams in developing customized strategies for technical vulnerabilities and operational realities. This means vigilance, from systems monitoring to continuing review of AI's evolving role in your institution.

Safeguarding healthcare systems includes protecting the trust and well-being of the patients it cares for and its entire community. This depends entirely on the type of leadership that doesn't just react to threats but proactively takes bold measures to mitigate risks before they spread. Security embedded in all facets of the organization should ensure continuity of critical operations and uncompromised care of the patients by leaders in healthcare.

**About the Author**

Lead Security Engineer, C4HCO

Claudio Gallo is a lead security engineer of the Colorado Marketplace Exchange, dedicated to protecting critical information in the healthcare and insurance industries. With expertise in application security, cloud architecture, and compliance, Claudio designs innovative strategies to safeguard sensitive data and ensure trust in important services. Passionate about making a meaningful difference, he is equally committed to mentoring aspiring professionals in the information security industry, sharing knowledge, and fostering the next generation of cybersecurity talent.

Is AI a Friend or Foe of Healthcare Security?

Etsy sellers are being targeted by scammers that use a legitimate Etsy domain to host their dodgy PDFs.

_This article was researched and written by Stefan Dasic, manager, research and response for ThreatDown, powered by Malwarebytes_.

As an online seller, you’re already juggling product listings, customer service and marketing—so the last thing you need is to be targeted by scammers.

Unfortunately, a new scam is making the rounds, and it’s crucial to recognize the warning signs before you fall victim. In this post, we’ll walk you through exactly how this scam works, show you what to watch out for, and give you tips on keeping your Etsy account secure. 

The scam usually starts with an email/message that appears to be from Etsy’s support team, with what looks like an official invoice in PDF format attached. The PDF is hosted on etsystatic.com**,** which is particularly alarming given it’s a legitimate domain that Etsy uses for static content. This clever detail makes the file seem even more trustworthy, catching unsuspecting sellers offguard.

Despite this, there are still some red flags to look for: 

*   The email uses language like “Dear Seller” or “Hello Etsy Member”, instead of addressing you by your Etsy shop name or username
*   The sender’s email address doesn’t end in @etsy.com, or has suspicious variations (extra numbers or letters)
*   Phrases like “immediate action required” or “your account will be closed” that rush you into clicking. This is a common scare tactic.

Inside the PDF, there’s often a clickable link urging you to “confirm your identity” or “verify your account.” If you click through, you’re taken to a website that, at first glance, looks very much like an official Etsy support page.

Here’s where you need to be extra vigilant: 

1.  The web address might look similar to etsy.com but could include extra words, missing letters, or unusual extensions (e.g., verlflcation-**etsy**\[.\]cfd). 
2.  The site may ask for more information than Etsy would normally request for verification – like your full name, address, and even your credit card details. 
3.  Real Etsy pages usually have fully working navigation and other standard features. Scam sites often have broken or non-functioning links. 

In the final step, the counterfeit page will prompt you to enter your **credit card details**, supposedly to “confirm your billing information” or “validate your seller account.”

This is an immediate red flag: Etsy never requires you to provide credit card information for identity verification outside of its standard, secure payment setup. If you provide these details, scammers can use them to make unauthorized purchases—or sell them on underground markets. 

**How to protect yourself from Etsy scams**

*   Check the “From” field in emails to make sure it comes from a legitimate Etsy address.
*   Rather than click on the links inside the email, open a new browser and go directly to etsy.com instead and navigate there
*   Question any urgent or unusual requests: Legitimate platforms do not ask for full credit card information for verification via a PDF link or email.
*   Use Malwarebytes Browser Guard to protect you from malicious websites, card skimmers, ads, and more. Browser Guard already blocks the domains in this article.
*   If something feels off, reach out to Etsy’s official support directly. They can confirm whether any invoice or verification request is real. This won’t protect your credit card data if you hand it over, but it does help secure your Etsy account from unauthorized logins. 

****Indicators of Compromise (IOCs)** **

Below are some known IOCs associated with this fake invoice scam. (Please note these are examples, and actual IOCs can vary over time.) 

com-etsy-verify\[.\]cfd 

etsy-car\[.\]switchero\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]1562587027\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]3841246\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]39849329\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]447385638\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]57434\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]5847325245\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]6562587027\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]6841246\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]72871\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]7562587027\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]8841246\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]92875\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]9438632572\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]948292\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]97434\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]984323\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]checkid1573\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]chekup-out\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]coinbox\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]fastpay\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]offer584732\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]offer62785\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]offer684732\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]paylink\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]paymint\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]paywave\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]requlred-verlfication\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]requstlon-verflcation\[.\]cfd 

etsy\[.\]web-proff-point\[.\]cfd 

verlflcation-etsy\[.\]cfd 

**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.

 Fake Etsy invoice scam tricks sellers into sharing credit card information  

Apple fixes the USB Restricted Mode flaw in iOS 18.3.1 and iPadOS 18.3.1.  Vulnerability exploited in targeted attacks.…

Apple fixes the USB Restricted Mode flaw in iOS 18.3.1 and iPadOS 18.3.1.  Vulnerability exploited in targeted attacks. Update your iPhone/iPad now.

Apple has issued an urgent security update for iPhones and iPads, addressing a significant vulnerability that has, reportedly, already been exploited in targeted attacks. Tracked as CVE-2025-24200, the vulnerability affects the USB Restricted Mode, a security feature introduced in 2018 to protect devices from unauthorized access. 

For your information, this security feature is designed to disable the Lightning or USB ports of iPhones and iPads if they remain locked for more than an hour. Normally, these ports are re-enabled once the user authenticates and unlocks their device.   

However, it appears that this protection mechanism itself has been compromised. The bug can be exploited by an attacker with physical possession of a locked phone, enabling them to re-enable the data port and potentially allowing further intrusion. Apple has acknowledged that this flaw can disable the feature.

“A physical attack may disable USB Restricted Mode on a locked device. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been exploited in an “extremely sophisticated” attack against specific targeted individuals,” the iPhone maker’s advisory read.

Security experts believe that Apple’s unusual choice of words, describing the exploit as “extremely sophisticated,” highlights the seriousness of the issue.   

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has also assessed this vulnerability, describing it as an “authorization issue” that has been resolved through “improved state management.”  

The company has released patches, iOS 18.3.1, iPadOS 18.3.1, and iPadOS 17.7.5 to address this issue. These updates are available for a wide range of devices, including iPhone XS and later models, as well as various iPad Pro, iPad Air, iPad Mini, and standard iPad models.

The vulnerability was discovered by Bill Marczak, a senior researcher at the Citizen Lab. While Apple has not provided detailed information about the attack or the specific methods used, the discovery by the Citizen Lab suggests a possible connection to sophisticated surveillance techniques, potentially at the nation-state level.

> Update your iPhones.. again! iOS 18.3.1 out today with a fix for an ITW USB restricted mode bypass (via Accessibility) https://t.co/jcrsab7RGu pic.twitter.com/ER42QQcsLj
> 
> — Bill Marczak (@billmarczak) February 10, 2025

Apple Confirms ‘Extremely Sophisticated’ Exploit Threatening iOS Security

More than half of attacks on Indian businesses come from outside the country, while 45% of those targeting consumers come from Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos.

Source: NicoElNino via Shutterstock

India continues to see a surge in cybercrime affecting both citizens and businesses, with cyber fraud against citizens jumping 51% over the past year and cyberattackers targeting businesses in volumes significantly higher than global averages.

Overall, Indian citizens filed more than 1.7 million cybercrime complaints in 2024, up from 1.1 million complaints in 2023, according to the latest data from India's National Cyber Reporting Platform (NCRP) released in early February. While many of those cyber scams came from domestic sources, about 45% of the cyberattacks came from cybercriminal havens in Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos, according to the report.

The problem underscores the dark side of increasing access to online services. While the country is digitizing many of its government services — giving citizens easier access — crime has followed online, President Droupadi Murmu said during a speech to Parliament on Jan. 31.

"\[I\]n an increasingly digital society, cybersecurity has become a crucial issue of national importance," Murmu said. "Digital fraud, cybercrime, and emerging technologies like deepfakes pose challenges to our social, economic, and national security."

India's citizens are not the only targets of cybercriminals — business sites increasingly face online attacks. Cyber-risks and digital/technology risks are the most pressing concerns for companies in India, with businesses in the region prioritizing those issues more than their global counterparts, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers' "2025 Global Digital Trust Insights — India Edition."

Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers, "2025 Global Digital Trust Insights — India Edition"

"Over the next 12 months, Indian organizations are prioritizing the mitigation of three key risks: cyberthreats, digital vulnerabilities and inflation," PwC India stated in the report. "This focus highlights the critical need for robust cybersecurity, reliable technological infrastructure, and strategies to counter rising costs and ensure resilience and sustained growth."

**Businesses See Different Threat Profile**

Compared with other regions of the world, India is seeing a greater volume of attacks. The average website in India sees about 6.9 million unwanted requests — often referred to as "attacks" by vendors — every year, with 26% more attacks per site compared with the global average, according to Indusface. Denial-of-service attacks are also more common against Indian targets, compared with the global average, says Venky Sundar, founder and president for the Americas at Indusface.

The threat actors have gone mobile-first, with API servers for mobile applications targeted with 43% more requests per host compared with websites, he says.

There is "a shift in attack strategies towards disrupting mobile and connected services," Sundar says. "Cybercrime is increasingly targeting external-facing APIs associated with mobile apps rather than just traditional web platforms."

The attacks are split fairly evenly between domestic sources and global ones, he adds. Overall, about half of the malicious traffic targeting company sites and API servers are domestic, with much of the rest coming from four countries: US, France, UK, and Singapore.

**Government Moves to Protect Citizens**

The government is currently taking steps to make life harder for attackers. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), for example, has created exclusive Internet domains for banks (bank.in) and for non-bank financial institutions (fin.in), which will be run by the Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology (IDRBT). India also passed its first privacy and data-protection law in 2023, and drafted implementation rules last month, which together define the rights of Indian citizens and requirements for companies handling data.

India and the US also recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that allows the two countries to cooperate on intelligence gathering, the exchange of information on cybercrime cases, and collaborative training. India has also fought to rescue and repatriate its citizens from forced labor camps for criminal syndicates in Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos, where they are forced to conduct a variety of online scams.

Yet the country still faces a shortage of cybersecurity professionals. In September, the government announced an effort to train 5,000 "cyber commandos" over the next five years, to help national and state governments with cyber investigations.

Training citizens in cybersecurity can have additional benefits, President Murmu said in her remarks to Parliament.

"My government has taken numerous measures to control these cyber threats, creating opportunities for employment in the field of cybersecurity for the youth \[and\] is continuously working to ensure competence in cybersecurity," she said, noting that the country has reached Tier 1 status in the International Telecommunication Union's Global Cybersecurity Index.

**About the Author**

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline Journalism (Online) in 2003 for coverage of the Blaster worm. Crunches numbers on various trends using Python and R. Recent reports include analyses of the shortage in cybersecurity workers and annual vulnerability trends.

India's Cybercrime Problems Grow as Nation Digitizes

Microsoft today issued security updates to fix at least 56 vulnerabilities in its Windows operating systems and supported software, including two zero-day flaws that are being actively exploited.

**Microsoft** today issued security updates to fix at least 56 vulnerabilities in its Windows operating systems and supported software, including two zero-day flaws that are being actively exploited.

All supported Windows operating systems will receive an update this month for a buffer overflow vulnerability that carries the catchy name CVE-2025-21418. This patch should be a priority for enterprises, as Microsoft says it is being exploited, has low attack complexity, and no requirements for user interaction.

**Tenable** senior staff research engineer **Satnam Narang** noted that since 2022, there have been nine elevation of privilege vulnerabilities in this same Windows component — three each year — including one in 2024 that was exploited in the wild as a zero day (CVE-2024-38193).

“CVE-2024-38193 was exploited by the North Korean APT group known as Lazarus Group to implant a new version of the FudModule rootkit in order to maintain persistence and stealth on compromised systems,” Narang said. “At this time, it is unclear if CVE-2025-21418 was also exploited by Lazarus Group.”

The other zero-day, CVE-2025-21391, is an elevation of privilege vulnerability in Windows Storage that could be used to delete files on a targeted system. Microsoft’s advisory on this bug references something called “CWE-59: Improper Link Resolution Before File Access,” says no user interaction is required, and that the attack complexity is low.

**Adam Barnett**, lead software engineer at **Rapid7**, said although the advisory provides scant detail, and even offers some vague reassurance that ‘an attacker would only be able to delete targeted files on a system,’ it would be a mistake to assume that the impact of deleting arbitrary files would be limited to data loss or denial of service.

“As long ago as 2022, ZDI researchers set out how a motivated attacker could parlay arbitrary file deletion into full SYSTEM access using techniques which also involve creative misuse of symbolic links,”Barnett wrote.

One vulnerability patched today that was publicly disclosed earlier is CVE-2025-21377, another weakness that could allow an attacker to elevate their privileges on a vulnerable Windows system. Specifically, this is yet another Windows flaw that can be used to steal NTLMv2 hashes — essentially allowing an attacker to authenticate as the targeted user without having to log in.

According to Microsoft, minimal user interaction with a malicious file is needed to exploit CVE-2025-21377, including selecting, inspecting or “performing an action other than opening or executing the file.”

“This trademark linguistic ducking and weaving may be Microsoft’s way of saying ‘if we told you any more, we’d give the game away,'” Barnett said. “Accordingly, Microsoft assesses exploitation as more likely.”

The SANS Internet Storm Center has a handy list of all the Microsoft patches released today, indexed by severity. Windows enterprise administrators would do well to keep an eye on askwoody.com, which often has the scoop on any patches causing problems.

It’s getting harder to buy Windows software that isn’t also bundled with Microsoft’s flagship Copilot artificial intelligence (AI) feature. Last month Microsoft started bundling Copilot with **Microsoft Office 365**, which Redmond has since rebranded as “**Microsoft 365 Copilot**.” Ostensibly to offset the costs of its substantial AI investments, Microsoft also jacked up prices from 22 percent to 30 percent for upcoming license renewals and new subscribers.

Office-watch.com writes that existing Office 365 users who are paying an annual cloud license do have the option of “Microsoft 365 Classic,” an AI-free subscription at a lower price, but that many customers are not offered the option until they attempt to cancel their existing Office subscription.

In other security patch news, **Apple** has shipped iOS 18.3.1, which fixes a zero day vulnerability (CVE-2025-24200) that is showing up in attacks.

**Adobe** has issued security updates that fix a total of 45 vulnerabilities across **InDesign**, **Commerce**, **Substance 3D** **Stager**, **InCopy**, **Illustrator**, **Substance 3D Designer** and **Photoshop Elements**.

**Chris Goettl** at **Ivanti** notes that **Google Chrome** is shipping an update today which will trigger updates for Chromium based browsers including **Microsoft Edge**, so be on the lookout for Chrome and Edge updates as we proceed through the week.

Microsoft Patch Tuesday, February 2025 Edition

In a letter to a US senator, a Florida-based data broker says it obtained sensitive data on US military members in Germany from a Lithuanian firm, revealing the global nature of online ad surveillance.

Last year, a media investigation revealed that a Florida-based data broker, Datastream Group, was selling highly sensitive location data that tracked United States military and intelligence personnel overseas. At the time, the origin of that data was unknown.

Now, a letter sent to US senator Ron Wyden’s office that was obtained by an international collective of media outlets—including WIRED and 404 Media—reveals that the ultimate source of that data was Eskimi, a little-known Lithuanian ad-tech company.

Eskimi’s role highlights the opaque and interconnected nature of the location data industry: A Lithuanian company provided data on US military personnel in Germany to a data broker in Florida, which could then theoretically sell that data to essentially anyone.

“There’s a global insider threat risk, from some unknown advertising companies, and those companies are essentially breaking all these systems by abusing their access and selling this extremely sensitive data to brokers who further sell it to government and private interests,” says Zach Edwards, senior threat analyst at cybersecurity firm Silent Push, referring to the ad-tech ecosystem broadly.

In December, the joint investigation by WIRED, Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR), and Netzpolitik.org analyzed a free sample of location data provided by Datastream. The investigation revealed that Datastream was offering access to precise location data from devices likely belonging to American military and intelligence personnel overseas—including at German airbases believed to store US nuclear weapons. Datastream is a data broker in the location data history, sourcing data from other providers and then selling it to customers. Its website previously said it offered “internet advertising data coupled with hashed emails, cookies, and mobile location data.”

That dataset contained 3.6 billion location coordinates, some logged at millisecond intervals, from up to 11 million mobile advertising IDs in Germany over a one-month period. The data was likely collected through SDKs (software development kits) embedded in mobile apps by developers who knowingly integrate tracking tools in exchange for revenue-sharing agreements with data brokers.

Following this reporting, Wyden’s office demanded answers from Datastream Group about its role in trafficking the location data of US military personnel. In response, Datastream identified Eskimi as its source, stating it obtained the data “legitimately from a respected third-party provider, Eskimi.com.” Vytautas Paukstys, CEO of Eskimi, says that “Eskimi does not have or have ever had any commercial relationship with Datasys/Datastream Group,” referring to another name that Datastream has used, and that Eskimi “is not a data broker.”

In an email responding to detailed questions from the reporting collective, M. Seth Lubin, an attorney representing Datastream Group, described the data as lawfully sourced from a third party. While Lubin acknowledged to Wyden that the data was intended for use in digital advertising, he stressed to the reporting collective that it was never intended for resale. Lubin declined to disclose the source of the data, citing a nondisclosure agreement, and dismissed the reporting collective’s analysis as reckless and misleading.

The Department of Defense (DOD) declined to answer specific questions related to our investigation. However, in December, DOD spokesperson Javan Rasnake said that the Pentagon is aware that geolocation services could put personnel at risk and urged service members to remember their training and adhere strictly to operational security protocols.

In an email, Keith Chu, chief communications adviser and deputy policy director for Wyden, explained how their office has tried to engage with Eskimi and Lithuania’s Data Protection Authority (DPA) for months. The office contacted Eskimi on November 21 and has not received a response, Chu says. Staff then contacted the DPA multiple times, “raising concerns about the national security impact of a Lithuanian company selling location data of US military personnel serving overseas.” After receiving no response, Wyden staff contacted the defense attaché at the Lithuanian embassy in Washington, DC.

It was only after that, and on January 13, that the DPA responded, asking for more information. “Once additional information is received, we will assess the situation within the scope of our competence and determine the appropriate course of action,” the DPA said, according to Chu.

The Lithuanian DPA told reporters in an email that it “currently is not investigating this company” and it “is gathering information and assessing the situation in order to be prepared to take well-informed actions, if needed.” If the Lithuanian DPA does decide to investigate and finds Eskimi in violation of GDPR provisions, the company could face significant consequences—including fines up to €20 million.

Wyden’s office also contacted Google in November, to alert them to Datastream saying that Eskimi, a Google advertising partner, was selling the location data of DOD personnel overseas, Chu says.

Jacel Booth, Google spokesperson, wrote in an email that “Eskimi is currently part of Google’s Authorized Buyer program and must abide by our policies.”

“Google regularly audits its Authorized Buyers program participants, and reviews allegations of potential misconduct,” the spokesperson adds.

Even if Google does act against Eskimi, there may be plenty more advertising companies ready to sell harvested location data.

“Advertising companies are merely surveillance companies with better business models,” Edwards says.

_This story was produced as part of an ongoing reporting project from an international coalition of media outlets, including Netzpolitik.org and Bayerischer Rundfunk (Germany), Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (Switzerland), BNR Nieuwsradio (Netherlands), NRK (Norway), Dagens Nyheter (Sweden), Le Monde (France), and WIRED and 404 Media (US)._

This Ad-Tech Company Is Powering Surveillance of US Military Personnel

The Temporal api-go library prior to version 1.44.1 did not send `update response` information to Data Converter when the proxy package within the api-go module was used in a gRPC proxy prior to transmission. This resulted in information contained within the `update response` field not having Data Converter transformations (e.g. encryption) applied. This is an issue only when using the UpdateWorkflowExecution APIs (released on 13th January 2025)  with a proxy leveraging the api-go library before version 1.44.1.

Other data fields were correctly sent to Data Converter. This issue does not impact the Data Converter server. Data was encrypted in transit. Temporal Cloud services are not impacted.

**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-q9w6-cwj4-gf4p: Unencrypted transmission in Temporal api-go library

An issue in Anyscale Inc Ray between v.2.9.3 and v.2.40.0 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via a crafted script.

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.

Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.

User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.

Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.

Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.

Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.

Tag

#auth