Copilot and Hackers: Security Issues Noted
August 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
The online publication Cybernews ran a story I found interesting. It title suggests something about Black Hat USA 2024 attendees I have not considered. Here’s the headline:
Black Hat USA 2024: : Microsoft’s Copilot Is Freaking Some Researchers Out
Wow. Hackers (black, gray, white, and multi-hued) are “freaking out.” As defined by the estimable Urban Dictionary, “freaking” means:
Obscene dancing which simulates sex by the grinding the of the genitalia with suggestive sounds/movements. often done to pop or hip hop or rap music
No kidding? At Black Hat USA 2024?
Thanks, Microsoft Copilot. Freak out! Oh, y0ur dance moves are good enough.
The article reports:
Despite Microsoft’s claims, cybersecurity researcher Michael Bargury demonstrated how Copilot Studio, which allows companies to build their own AI assistant, can be easily abused to exfiltrate sensitive enterprise data. We also met with Bargury during the Black Hat conference to learn more. “Microsoft is trying, but if we are honest here, we don’t know how to build secure AI applications,” he said. His view is that Microsoft will fix vulnerabilities and bugs as they arise, letting companies using their products do so at their own risk.
Wait. I thought Microsoft has tied cash to security work. I thought security was Job #1 at the company which recently accursed Delta Airlines of using outdated technology and failing its customers. Is that the Microsoft that Mr. Bargury is suggesting has zero clue how to make smart software secure?
With MSFT Copilot turning up in places that surprise me, perhaps the Microsoft great AI push is creating more problems. The SolarWinds glitch was exciting for some, but if Mr. Bargury is correct, cyber security life will be more and more interesting.
Stephen E Arnold, August 12, 2024
The Customer Is Not Right. The Customer Is the Problem!
August 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
The CrowdStrike misstep (more like a trivial event such as losing the cap to a Bic pen or misplacing an eraser) seems to be morphing into insights about customer problems. I pointed out that CrowdStrike in 2022 suggested it wanted to become a big enterprise player. The company has moved toward that goal, and it has succeeded in capturing considerable free marketing as well.
Two happy high-technology customers learn that they broke their system. The good news is that the savvy vendor will sell them a new one. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
The interesting failure of an estimated 8.5 million customers’ systems made CrowdStrike a household name. Among some airline passengers, creative people added more colorful language. Delta Airlines has retained a big time law firm. The idea is to sue CrowdStrike for a misstep that caused concession sales at many airports to go up. Even Panda Chinese looks quite tasty after hours spent in an airport choked with excited people, screaming babies, and stressed out over achieving business professionals.
“Microsoft Claims Delta Airlines Declined Help in Upgrading Technology After Outage” reports that like CrowdStrike, Microsoft’s attorneys want to make quite clear that Delta Airlines is the problem. Like CrowdStrike, Microsoft tried repeatedly to offer a helping hand to the airline. The airline ignored that meritorious, timely action.
Like CrowdStrike, Delta is the problem, not CrowdStrike or Microsoft whose systems were blindsided by that trivial update issue. The write up reports:
Mark Cheffo, a Dechert partner [another big-time lawfirm] representing Microsoft, told Delta’s attorney in a letter that it was still trying to figure out how other airlines recovered faster than Delta, and accused the company of not updating its systems. “Our preliminary review suggests that Delta, unlike its competitors, apparently has not modernized its IT infrastructure, either for the benefit of its customers or for its pilots and flight attendants,” Cheffo wrote in the letter, NBC News reported. “It is rapidly becoming apparent that Delta likely refused Microsoft’s help because the IT system it was most having trouble restoring — its crew-tracking and scheduling system — was being serviced by other technology providers, such as IBM … and not Microsoft Windows," he added.
The language in the quoted passage, if accurate, is interesting. For instance, there is the comparison of Delta to other airlines which “recovered faster.” Delta was not able to recover faster. One can conclude that Delta’s slowness is the reason the airline was dead on the hot tarmac longer than more technically adept outfits. Among customers grounded by the CrowdStrike misstep, Delta was the problem. Microsoft systems, as outstanding as they are, wants to make darned sure that Delta’s allegations of corporate malfeasance goes nowhere fast oozes from this characterization and comparison.
Also, Microsoft’s big-time attorney has conducted a “preliminary review.” No in-depth study of fouling up the inner workings of Microsoft’s software is needed. The big-time lawyers have determined that “Delta … has not modernized its IT infrastructure.” Okay, that’s good. Attorneys are skillful evaluators of another firm’s technological infrastructure. I did not know big-time attorneys had this capability, but as a dinobaby, I try to learn something new every day.
Plus the quoted passed makes clear that Delta did not want help from either CrowdStrike or Microsoft. But the reason is clear: Delta Airlines relied on other firms like IBM. Imagine. IBM, the mainframe people, the former love buddy of Microsoft in the OS/2 days, and the creator of the TV game show phenomenon Watson.
As interesting as this assertion that Delta is not to blame for making some airports absolute delights during the misstep, it seems to me that CrowdStrike and Microsoft do not want to be in court and having to explain the global impact of misplacing that ballpoint pen cap.
The other interesting facet of the approach is the idea that the best defense is a good offense. I find the approach somewhat amusing. The customer, not the people licensing software, is responsible for its problems. These vendors made an effort to help. The customer who screwed up their own Rube Goldberg machine, did not accept these generous offers for help. Therefore, the customer caused the financial downturn, relying on outfits like the laughable IBM.
Several observations:
- The “customer is at fault” is not surprising. End user licensing agreements protect the software developer, not the outfit who pays to use the software.
- For CrowdStrike and Microsoft, a loss in court to Delta Airlines will stimulate other inept customers to seek redress from these outstanding commercial enterprises. Delta’s litigation must be stopped and quickly using money and legal methods.
- None of the yip-yap about “fault” pays much attention to the people who were directly affected by the trivial misstep. Customers, regardless of the position in the food chain of revenue, are the problem. The vendors are innocent, and they have rights too just like a person.
For anyone looking for a new legal matter to follow, the CrowdStrike Microsoft versus Delta Airlines may be a replacement for assorted murders, sniping among politicians, and disputes about “get out of jail free cards.” The vloggers and the poohbahs have years of interactions to observe and analyze. Great stuff. I like the customer is the problem twist too.
Oh, I must keep in mind that I am at fault when a high-technology outfit delivers low-technology.
Stephen E Arnold, August 7, 2024
The US Government Wants Honesty about Security
August 6, 2024
I am not sure what to make of words like “trust,” “honesty,” and “security.”
The United States government doesn’t want opinions from its people. They only want people to vote, pay their taxes, and not cause trouble. In an event rarer than a blue moon, the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency wants to know what it could better. Washington Technology shares the story, “CISA’s New Cybersecurity Official Jeff Greene Wants To Know Where The Agency Can Improve On Collaboration Efforts That Have Been Previously Criticized For Their Misdirection.”
Jeff Greene is the new executive assistant director for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). He recently held a meeting at the US Chamber of Commerce and asked the private sector attendees that his agency holding an “open house” discussion. The open house discussion welcomes input from the private sector about how the US government and its industry partners can improve on sharing information about cyber threats.
Why does the government want input?
“The remarks come in the wake of reports from earlier this year that said a slew of private sector players have been pulling back from the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative — stood up by CISA in 2021 to encourage cyber firms to team up with the government to detect and deter hacking threats — due to various management mishaps, including cases where CISA allegedly did not staff enough technical analysts for the program.”
Greene wants to know what CISA is doing correctly, but also what the agency is doing wrong. He hopes the private sector will give the agency grace as they make changes, because they’re working on numerous projects. Greene said that the private sector is better at detecting threats before the federal government. The 2015 Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act enabled the private sector and US government to collaborate. The act allowed the private sector to bypass obstacles they were otherwise barred from so white hat hackers could stop bad actors.
CISA has a good thing going for it with Greene. Hopefully the rest of the government will listen. It might be useful if cyber security outfits and commercial organizations caught the pods, the vlogs, and the blogs about the issue.
Whitney Grace, August 6, 2024
Fancy Cyber Methods Are Useless Against Insider Threats
August 2, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
In my lectures to law enforcement and intelligence professionals, I end the talks with one statement: “Do not assume. Do not reduce costs by firing experienced professionals. Do not ignore human analyses of available information. Do not take short cuts.” Cyber security companies are often like the mythical kids of the village shoemaker. Those who can afford to hire the shoemaker have nifty kicks and slides. Those without resources have almost useless footware.
Companies in the security business often have an exceptionally high opinion of their capabilities and expertise. I think of this as the Google Syndrome or what some have called by less salubrious names. The idea is that one is just so smart, nothing bad can happen here. Yeah, right.
An executive answers questions about a slight security misstep. Thanks, Microsoft Copilot. You have been there and done that I assume.
I read “North Korean Hacker Got Hired by US Security Vendor, Immediately Loaded Malware.” The article is a reminder that outfits in the OSINT, investigative, and intelligence business can make incredibly interesting decisions. Some of these lead to quite significant consequences. This particular case example illustrates how a hiring process using humans who are really smart and dedicated can be fooled, duped, and bamboozled.
The write up explains:
KnowBe4, a US-based security vendor, revealed that it unwittingly hired a North Korean hacker who attempted to load malware into the company’s network. KnowBe4 CEO and founder Stu Sjouwerman described the incident in a blog post yesterday, calling it a cautionary tale that was fortunately detected before causing any major problems.
I am a dinobaby, and I translated the passage to mean: “We hired a bad actor but, by the grace of the Big Guy, we avoided disaster.”
Sure, sure, you did.
I would suggest you know you trapped an instance of the person’s behavior. You may not know and may never know what that individual told a colleague in North Korea or another country what the bad actor said or emailed from a coffee shop using a contact’s computer. You may never know what business processes the person absorbed, converted to an encrypted message, and forwarded via a burner phone to a pal in a nation-state whose interests are not aligned with America’s.
In short, the cyber security company dropped the ball. It need not feel too bad. One of the companies I worked for early in my 60 year working career hired a person who dumped top secrets into journalists’ laps. Last week a person I knew was complaining about Delta Airlines which was shown to be quite addled in the wake of the CrowdStrike misstep.
What’s the fix? Go back to how I end my lectures. Those in the cyber security business need to be extra vigilant. The idea that “we are so smart, we have the answer” is an example of a mental short cut. The fact is that the company KnowBe4 did not. It is lucky it KnewAtAll. Some tips:
- Seek and hire vetted experts
- Question procedures and processes in “before action” and “after action” incidents
- Do not rely on assumptions
- Do not believe the outputs of smart software systems
- Invest in security instead of fancy automobiles and vacations.
Do these suggestions run counter to your business goals and your image of yourself? Too bad. Life is tough. Cyber crime is the growth business. Step up.
Stephen E Arnold, August 2, 2024
Every Cloud Has a Silver Lining: Cyber Security Software from Israel
August 1, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I wonder if those lucky Delta passengers have made it to their destinations yet? The Crowdstrike misstep caused a bit of a problem for some systems and for humans too. I saw a notice that CrowdStrike, founded by a Russian I believe, offered $10 to each person troubled by the teenie tiny mistake. Isn’t that too much for something which cannot be blamed on any one person, just on an elusive machine-centric process that had a bad hair day? Why pay anything?
And there is a silver lining to the CrowdStrike cloud! I read “CrowdStrike’s Troubles Open New Doors for Israeli Cyber Companies.” [Note that this source document may be paywalled. Just a heads up, gentle reader.] The write up asserts:
For the Israeli cyber sector, CrowdStrike’s troubles are an opportunity.
Yep, opportunity.
The write up adds:
Friday’s [July 26, 2024] drop in CrowdStrike shares reflects investor frustration and the expectation that potential customers will now turn to competitors, strengthening the position of Israeli companies. This situation may renew interest in smaller startups and local procurement in Israel, given how many institutions were affected by the CrowdStrike debacle.
The write up uses the term platformization, which is a marketing concept of the Palo Alto Networks cyber security firm. The idea is that a typical company is a rat’s nest of cyber security systems. No one is able to keep the features, functions, and flaws of several systems in mind. When something misfires or a tiny stumble occurs, Mr. Chaos, the friend of every cyber security professional, strolls in and asks, “Planning on a fun weekend, folks?”
The sales person makes reality look different. Thanks, Microsoft Copilot. Your marketing would never distort anything, right?
Platformization sounds great. I am not sure that any cyber security magic wand works. My econo-box automobile runs, but I would not say, “It works.” I can ponder this conundrum as I wait for the mobile repair fellow to arrive and riding in an Uber back to my office in rural Kentucky. The rides are evidence that “just works” is not exactly accurate. Your mileage may vary.
I want to point out that the write up is a bit of content marketing for Palo Alto Networks. Furthermore, I want to bring up a point which irritates some of my friends; namely, the Israeli cyber security systems, infrastructure, and smart software did not work in October 2023. Sure, there are lots of explanations. But which is more of a problem? CrowdStrike or the ineffectiveness of multiple systems?
Your call. The solution to cyber issues resides in informed professionals, adequate resources like money, and a commitment to security. Assumptions, marketing lingo, and fancy trade show booths simply prove that overpromising and under delivering is standard operating procedure at this time.
Stephen E Arnold, August 1, 2024
One Legal Stab at CrowdStrike Liability
July 30, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read “CrowdStrike Will Be Liable for Damages in France, Based on the OVH Precedent.” OVH is a provider of hosting and what I call “enabling services” to organizations in France, Europe, and other countries. The write up focuses on a modest problem OVH experienced in 2021. A fire consumed four of OVH’s data centers. Needless to say the customers of one of the largest online services providers in Europe were not too happy for two reasons: Backups were not available and the affected organizations were knocked offline.
Two astronauts look down at earth from the soon to be decommissioned space station. The lights and power on earth just flicked off. Thanks, Microsoft Copilot. No security meetings today?
The article focuses on the French courts’ decision that OVH was liable for damages. A number of details about the legal logic appear in the write up. For those of you who still watch Perry Mason reruns on Sling, please, navigate to the cited article for the details. I boiled the OVH tale down to a single dot point from the excellent article:
The court ruled the OVH backup service was not operated to a reasonable standard and failed at its purpose.
This means that in France and probably the European Union those technology savvy CrowdStrike wizards will be writing checks. The firm’s lawyers will get big checks for a number of years. Then the falconers of cyber threats will be scratching out checks to the customers and probably some of the well-heeled downstream airport lounge sleepers, the patients’ families died because surgeries could not be performed, and a kettle of seething government agencies whose emergency call services were dead.
The write concludes with this statement:
Customers operating in regulated industries like healthcare, finance, aerospace, transportation, are actually required to test and stage and track changes. CrowdStrike claims to have a dozen certifications and standards which require them to follow particular development practices and carry out various level of testing, but they clearly did not. The simple fact that CrowdStrike does not do any of that and actively refuses to, puts them in breach of compliance, which puts customers themselves in breach of compliance by using CrowdStrike. All together, there may be sufficient grounds to unilaterally terminate any CrowdStrike contracts for any customer who wishes to.
The key phrase is “in breach of compliance”. That’s going to be an interesting bit of lingo for lawyers involved in the dead Falcon affair to sort out.
Several observations:
- Will someone in the post-Falcon mess raise the question, “Could this be a recipe for a bad actor to emulate?” Could friends of one of the founder who has some ties to Russia be asked questions?
- What about that outstanding security of the Microsoft servers? How will the smart software outfit fixated on putting ads for a browser in an operating system respond? Those blue screens are not what I associate with my Apple Mini servers. I think our Linux boxes display a somewhat ominous black screen. Blue is who?
- Will this incident be shoved around until absolutely no one knows who signed off on the code modules which contributed to this somewhat interesting global event? My hunch it could be a person working as a contractor from a yurt somewhere northeast of Armenia. What’s your best guess?
Net net: It is definite that a cyber attack aimed at the heart of Microsoft’s software can create global outages. How many computer science students in Bulgaria are thinking about this issue? Will bad actors’ technology wizards rethink what can be done with a simple pushed update?
Stephen E Arnold, July 30, 2024
A Windows Expert Realizes Suddenly Last Outage Is a Rerun
July 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness
I love poohbahs. One quite interesting online outlet I consult occasionally continues to be quite enthusiastic for all things Microsoft. I spotted a write up about the Crowdstrike matter and its unfortunate downstream consequences for a handful of really tolerant people using its cyber security software. The absolute gem of a write up which arrested my attention was “As the World Suffers a Global IT Apocalypse, What’s More Worrying is How Easy It Is for This to Happen.” The article discloses a certain blind spot among a few Windows cheerleaders. (I thought the Apple fan core was the top of the marketing mountain. I was wrong again, a common problem for a dinobaby like me.
Is the blue screen plague like the sinking of the Swedish flagship Vasa? Thanks, OpenAI. Good enough.
The subtitle is even more striking. Here it is:
Nefarious actors might not be to blame this time, but it should serve as a warning to us all how fragile our technology is.
Who knew? Perhaps those affected by the flood of notable cyber breaches. Norton Hospital, Solarwinds, the US government, et al are examples which come to mind.
To what does the word “nefarious” refer? Perhaps it is one of those massive, evil, 24×7 gangs of cyber thugs which work to find the very, very few flaws in Microsoft software? Could it be cyber security professionals who think about security only when some bad — note this — like global outages occur and the flaws in their procedures or code allow people to spend the night in airports or have their surgeries postponed?
The article states:
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works.
I find it interesting that the money-raising information appears before the stunning insights in the article.
The article reveals this pivotal item of information:
It’s an unprecedented situation around the globe, with banks, healthcare, airlines, TV stations, all affected by it. While Crowdstrike has confirmed this isn’t the result of any type of hack, it’s still incredibly alarming. One piece of software has crippled large parts of industry all across the planet. That’s what worries me.
Ah, a useful moment of recognizing the real world. Quite a leap for those who find certain companies a source of calm and professionalism. I am definitely glad Windows Central, the publisher of this essay, is worried about concentration of technology and the downstream dependencies. Worry only when a cyber problem takes down banks, emergency call services, and other technologically-dependent outfits.
But here’s the moment of insight for the Windows Central outfit. I can here “Eureka!” echoing in the workspace of this intrepid collection of poohbahs:
This time we’re ‘lucky’ in the sense it wasn’t some bad actors causing deliberate chaos.
Then the write up offers this stunning insight after decades of “good enough” software:
This stuff is all too easy. Bad actors can target a single source and cripple millions of computers, many of which are essential.
Holy Toledo. I am stunned with the brilliance of the observations in the article. I do have several thoughts from my humble office in rural Kentucky:
- A Windows cheerleading outfit is sort of admitting that technology concentration where “good enough” is excellence creates a global risk. I mean who knew? The Apple and Linux systems running Crowdstrike’s estimable software were not affected. Is this a Windows thing, this global collapse?
- Awareness of prior security and programming flaws simply did not exist for the author of the essay. I can understand why Windows Central found the Windows folding phone and a first generation Windows on Arm PCs absolutely outstanding.
- Computer science students in a number of countries learn online and at school how to look for similar configuration vulnerabilities in software and exploit them. The objective is to steal, cripple, or start up a cyber security company and make oodles of money. Incidents like this global outage are a road map for some folks, good and not so good.
My take away from this write up is that those who only worry when a global problem arises from what seems to be US-managed technology have not been paying attention. Online security is the big 17th century Swedish flagship Vasa (Wasa). Upon launch, the marine architect and assorted influential government types watched that puppy sink.
But the problem with the most recent and quite spectacular cyber security goof is that it happened to Microsoft and not to Apple or Linux systems. Perhaps there is a lesson in this fascinating example of modern cyber practices?
Stephen E Arnold, July 22, 2024
What Will the AT&T Executives Serve Their Lawyers at the Security Breach Debrief?
July 15, 2024
![dinosaur30a_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/dinosaur30a_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_1_thumb_thumb-1.gif "dinosaur30a_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb")
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
On the flight back to my digital redoubt in rural Kentucky, I had the thrill of sitting behind a couple of telecom types who were laughing at the pickle AT&T has plopped on top of what I think of a Judge Green slushee. Do lime slushees and dill pickles go together? For my tastes, nope. Judge Green wanted to de-monopolize the Ma Bell I knew and loved. (Yes, I cashed some Ma Bell checks and I had a Young Pioneers hat.)
We are back to what amounts a Ma Bell trifecta: AT&T (the new version which wears spurs and chaps), Verizon (everyone’s favorite throw back carrier), and the new T-Mobile (bite those customer pocketbooks as if they were bratwursts mit sauerkraut). Each of these outfits is interesting. But at the moment, AT&T is in the spotlight.
“Data of Nearly All AT&T Customers Downloaded to a Third-Party Platform in a 2022 Security Breach” dances around a modest cyber misstep at what is now a quite old and frail Ma Bell. Imagine the good old days before the Judge Green decision to create Baby Bells. Security breaches were possible, but it was quite tough to get the customer data. Attacks were limited to those with the knowledge (somewhat tough to obtain), the tools (3B series computers and lots of mainframes), and access to network connections. Technology has advanced. Consequently competition means that no one makes money via security. Security is better at old-school monopolies because money can be spent without worrying about revenue. As one AT&T executive said to my boss at a blue-chip consulting company, “You guys charge so much we will have to get another railroad car filled with quarters to pay your bill.” Ho ho ho — except the fellow was not joking. At the pre-Judge Green AT&T, spending money on security was definitely not an issue. Today? Seems to be different.
A more pointed discussion of Ma Bell’s breaking her hip again appears in “AT&T Breach Leaked Call and Text Records from Nearly All Wireless Customers” states:
AT&T revealed Friday morning (July 12, 2024) that a cybersecurity attack had exposed call records and texts from “nearly all” of the carrier’s cellular customers (including people on mobile virtual network operators, or MVNOs, that use AT&T’s network, like Cricket, Boost Mobile, and Consumer Cellular). The breach contains data from between May 1st, 2022, and October 31st, 2022, in addition to records from a “very small number” of customers on January 2nd, 2023.
The “problem” if I understand the reference to Snowflake. Is AT&T suggesting that Snowflake is responsible for the breach? Big outfits like to identify the source of the problem. If Snowflake made the misstep, isn’t it the responsibility of AT&T’s cyber unit to make sure that the security was as good as or better than the security implemented before the Judge Green break up? I think AT&T, like other big companies, wants to find a way to shift blame, not say, “We put the pickle in the lime slushee.”
My posture toward two year old security issues is, “What’s the point of covering up a loss of ‘nearly all’ customers’ data?” I know the answer: Optics and the share price.
As a person who owned a Young Pioneers’ hat, I am truly disappointed in the company. The Regional Managers for whom I worked as a contractor had security on the list of top priorities from day one. Whether we were fooling around with a Western Electric data service or the research charge back system prior to the break up, security was not someone else’s problem.
Today it appears that AT&T has made some decisions which are now perched on the top officer’s head. Security problems are, therefore, tough to miss. Boeing loses doors and wheels from aircraft. Microsoft tantalizes bad actors with insecure systems. AT&T outsources high value data and then moves more slowly than the last remaining turtle in the mine run off pond near my home in Harrod’s Creek.
Maybe big is not as wonderful as some expect the idea to be? Responsibility for one’s decisions and an ethical compass are not cyber tools, but both notions are missing in some big company operations. Will the after-action team guzzle lime slushees with pickles on top?
Stephen E Arnold, July 15, 2024
NSO Group Determines Public Officials Are Legitimate Targets
July 12, 2024
Well, that is a point worth making if one is the poster child of the specialized software industry.
NSO Group, makers of the infamous Pegasus spyware, makes a bold claim in a recent court filing: “Government and Military Officials Fair Targets of Pegasus Spyware in All Cases, NSO Group Argues,” reports cybersecurity news site The Record. The case at hand is Pegasus’ alleged exploitation of a WhatsApp vulnerability back in 2019. Reporter Suzanne Smalley cites former United Nations official David Kaye, who oversaw the right to free expression at that time. Smalley writes:
“Friday’s filing seems to suggest a broader purpose for Pegasus, Kaye said, pointing to NSO’s explanation that the technology can be used on ‘persons who, by virtue of their positions in government or military organizations, are the subject of legitimate intelligence investigations.’ ‘This appears to be a much more extensive claim than made in 2019, since it suggests that certain persons are legitimate targets of Pegasus without a link to the purpose for the spyware’s use,’ said Kaye, who was the U.N.’s special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression from 2014 to 2020. … The Israeli company’s statement comes as digital forensic researchers are increasingly finding Pegasus infections on phones belonging to activists, opposition politicians and journalists in a host of countries worldwide. NSO Group says it only sells Pegasus to governments, but the frequent and years-long discoveries of the surveillance technology on civil society phones have sparked a public uproar and led the U.S. government to crack down on the company and commercial spyware manufacturers in general.”
See the article for several examples of suspected targets around the world. We understand both the outrage and the crack down. However, publicly arguing about the targets of spyware may have unintended consequences. Now everyone knows about mobile phone data exfiltration and how that information can be used to great effect.
As for the WhatsApp court case, it is proceeding at the sluggish speed of justice. In March 2024, a California federal judge ordered NSO Group to turn over its secret spyware code. What will be the verdict? When will it be handed down? And what about the firm’s senior managers?
Cynthia Murrell, July 12, 2024
OpenAI Says, Let Us Be Open: Intentionally or Unintentionally
July 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read a troubling but not too surprising write up titled “ChatGPT Just (Accidentally) Shared All of Its Secret Rules – Here’s What We Learned.” I have somewhat skeptical thoughts about how big time organizations implement, manage, maintain, and enhance their security. It is more fun and interesting to think about moving fast, breaking things, and dominating a market sector. In my years of dinobaby experience, I can report this about senior management thinking about cyber security:
- Hire a big name and let that person figure it out
- Ask the bean counter and hear something like this, “Security is expensive, and its monetary needs are unpredictable and usually quite large and just go up over time. Let me know what you want to do.”
- The head of information technology will say, “I need to license a different third party tool and get those cyber experts from [fill in your own preferred consulting firm’s name].”
- How much is the ransom compared to the costs of dealing with our “security issue”? Just do what costs less.
- I want to talk right now about the meeting next week with our principal investor. Let’s move on. Now!
The captain of the good ship OpenAI asks a good question. Unfortunately the situation seems to be somewhat problematic. Thanks, MSFT Copilot.
The write up reports:
ChatGPT has inadvertently revealed a set of internal instructions embedded by OpenAI to a user who shared what they discovered on Reddit. OpenAI has since shut down the unlikely access to its chatbot’s orders, but the revelation has sparked more discussion about the intricacies and safety measures embedded in the AI’s design. Reddit user F0XMaster explained that they had greeted ChatGPT with a casual "Hi," and, in response, the chatbot divulged a complete set of system instructions to guide the chatbot and keep it within predefined safety and ethical boundaries under many use cases.
Another twist to the OpenAI governance approach is described in “Why Did OpenAI Keep Its 2023 Hack Secret from the Public?” That is a good question, particularly for an outfit which is all about “open.” This article gives the wonkiness of OpenAI’s technology some dimensionality. The article reports:
Last April [2023], a hacker stole private details about the design of Open AI’s technologies, after gaining access to the company’s internal messaging systems. …
OpenAI executives revealed the incident to staffers in a company all-hands meeting the same month. However, since OpenAI did not consider it to be a threat to national security, they decided to keep the attack private and failed to inform law enforcement agencies like the FBI.
What’s more, with OpenAI’s commitment to security already being called into question this year after flaws were found in its GPT store plugins, it’s likely the AI powerhouse is doing what it can to evade further public scrutiny.
What these two separate items suggest to me is that the decider(s) at OpenAI decide to push out products which are not carefully vetted. Second, when something surfaces OpenAI does not find amusing, the company appears to zip its sophisticated lips. (That’s the opposite of divulging “secrets” via ChatGPT, isn’t it?)
Is the company OpenAI well managed? I certainly do not know from first hand experience. However, it seems to be that the company is a trifle erratic. Imagine the Chief Technical Officer did not allegedly know a few months ago if YouTube data were used to train ChatGPT. Then the breach and keeping quiet about it. And, finally, the OpenAI customer who stumbled upon company secrets in a ChatGPT output.
Please, make your own decision about the company. Personally I find it amusing to identify yet another outfit operating with the same thrilling erraticism as other Sillycon Valley meteors. And security? Hey, let’s talk about August vacations.
Stephen E Arnold, July 12, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
