Lock and Code

You’ve likely felt it: The dull pull downwards of a smartphone scroll. The “five more minutes” just before bed. The sleep still there after waking. The edges of your calm slowly fraying.

After more than a decade of our most recent technological experiment, in turns out that having the entirety of the internet in the palm of your hands could be … not so great. Obviously, the effects of this are compounded by the fact that the internet that was built after the invention of the smartphone is a very different internet than the one before—supercharged with algorithms that get you to click more, watch more, buy more, and rest so much less.

But for one group, in particular, across the world, the impact of smartphones and constant social media may be causing an unprecedented mental health crisis: Young people.

According to the American College Health Association, the percentage of undergraduates in the US—so, mainly young adults in college—who were diagnosed with anxiety increased 134% since 2010. In the same time period for the same group, there was in increase in diagnoses of depression by 106%, ADHD by 72%, bipolar by 57%, and anorexia by 100%.

That’s not all. According to a US National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the prevalence of anxiety in America increased for every age group except those over 50, again, since 2010. Those aged 35 – 49 experienced a 52% increase, those aged 26 – 34 experienced a 103% increase, and those aged 18 – 25 experienced a 139% increase.

This data, and much more, was cited by the social psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt, in debuting his latest book, “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.” In the book, Haidt examines what he believes is a mental health crisis unique amongst today’s youth, and he proposes that much of the crisis has been brought about by a change in childhood—away from a “play-based” childhood and into a “phone-based” one.

This shift, Haidt argues, is largely to blame for the increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidality, and more.

And rather than just naming the problem, Haidt also proposes five solutions to turn things around:

• Give children far more time playing with other children. 
• Look for more ways to embed children in stable real-world communities.  
• Don’t give a smartphone as the first phone.
• Don’t give a smartphone until high school.  
• Delay the opening of accounts on nearly all social media platforms until the beginning of high school (at least).

But while Haidt’s proposals may feel right—his book has spent five weeks on the New York Times Best Seller list—some psychologists disagree.

Writing for the outlet Platformer, reporter Zoe Schiffer spoke with multiple behavioral psychologists who alleged that Haidt’s book cherry-picks survey data, ignores mental health crises amongst adults, and over-simplifies a complex problem with a blunt solution.  

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Dr. Jean Twenge to get more clarity on the situation: Is there a mental health crisis amongst today’s teens? Is it unique to their generation? And can it really be traced to the use of smartphones and social media?

According to Dr. Twenge, the answer to all those questions is, pretty much, “Yes.” But, she said, there’s still some hope to be found.

“This is where the argument around smartphones and social media being behind the adolescent mental health crisis actually has, kind of paradoxically, some optimism to it. Because if that’s the cause, that means we can do something about it.”

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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.

Our Lock and Code host, David Ruiz, has a bit of an apology to make:

“Sorry for all the depressing episodes.”

When the Lock and Code podcast explored online harassment and abuse this year, our guest provided several guidelines and tips for individuals to lock down their accounts and remove their sensitive information from the internet, but larger problems remained. Content moderation is failing nearly everywhere, and data protection laws are unequal across the world.

When we told the true tale of a virtual kidnapping scam in Utah, though the teenaged victim at the center of the scam was eventually found, his family still lost nearly $80,000.

And when we asked Mozilla’s Privacy Not Included team about what types of information modern cars can collect about their owners, we were entirely blindsided by the policies from Nissan and Kia, which claimed the companies can collect data about their customers’ “sexual activity” and “sex life.”

(Let’s also not forget about that Roomba that took a photo of someone on a toilet and how that photo ended up on Facebook.)

In looking at these stories collectively, it can feel like the everyday consumer is hopelessly outmatched against modern companies. What good does it do to utilize personal cybersecurity best practices, when the companies we rely on can still leak our most sensitive information and suffer few consequences? What’s the point of using a privacy-forward browser to better obscure my online behavior from advertisers when the machinery that powers the internet finds new ways to surveil our every move?

These are entirely relatable, if fatalistic, feelings. But we are here to tell you that nihilism is not the answer.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast, we speak with Justin Brookman, director of technology policy at Consumer Reports, about some of the most recent, major consumer wins in the tech world, what it took to achieve those wins, and what levers consumers can pull on today to have their voices heard.

Brookman also speaks candidly about the shifting priorities in today's legislative landscape.

“One thing we did make the decision about is to focus less on Congress because, man, I’ll meet with those folks so we can work on bills, [and] there’ll be a big hearing, but they’ve just failed to do so much.”

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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.

A digital form of protest could become the go-to response for the world’s largest porn website as it faces increased regulations: Not letting people access the site.

In March, PornHub blocked access to visitors connecting to its website from Texas. It marked the second time in the past 12 months that the porn giant shut off its website to protest new requirements in online age verification.

The Texas law, which was signed in June 2023, requires several types of adult websites to verify the age of their visitors by either collecting visitors’ information from a government ID or relying on a third party to verify age through the collection of multiple streams of data, such as education and employment status.

PornHub has long argued that these age verification methods do not keep minors safer and that they place undue onus on websites to collect and secure sensitive information.

The fact remains, however, that these types of laws are growing in popularity.

Today, Lock and Code revisits a prior episode from 2023 with guest Alec Muffett, discussing online age verification proposals, how they could weaken security and privacy on the internet, and whether these efforts are oafishly trying to solve a societal problem with a technological solution.

“The battle cry of these people have has always been—either directly or mocked as being—’Could somebody think of the children?’” Muffett said. “And I’m thinking about the children because I want my daughter to grow up with an untracked, secure private internet when she’s an adult. I want her to be able to have a private conversation. I want her to be able to browse sites without giving over any information or linking it to her identity.”

Muffett continued:

“I’m trying to protect that for her. I’d like to see more people grasping for that.”

Alec Muffett

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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.

Few words apply as broadly to the public—yet mean as little—as “home network security.”

For many, a “home network” is an amorphous thing. It exists somewhere between a router, a modem, an outlet, and whatever cable it is that plugs into the wall. But the idea of a “home network” doesn’t need to intimidate, and securing that home network could be simpler than many folks realize.

For starters, a home network can be simply understood as a router—which is the device that provides access to the internet in a home—and the other devices that connect to that router. That includes obvious devices like phones, laptops, and tablets, and it includes “Internet of Things” devices, like a Ring doorbell, a Nest thermostat, and any Amazon Echo device that come pre-packaged with the company’s voice assistant, Alexa. There are also myriad “smart” devices to consider: smartwatches, smart speakers, smart light bulbs, don’t forget the smart fridges.

If it sounds like we’re describing a home network as nothing more than a “list,” that’s because a home network is pretty much just a list. But where securing that list becomes complicated is in all the updates, hardware issues, settings changes, and even scandals that relate to every single device on that list.

Routers, for instance, provide their own security, but over many years, they can lose the support of their manufacturers. IoT devices, depending on the brand, can be made from cheap parts with little concern for user security or privacy. And some devices have scandals plaguing their past—smart doorbells have been hacked and fitness trackers have revealed running routes to the public online.

This shouldn’t be cause for fear. Instead, it should help prove why home network security is so important.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we’re speaking with cybersecurity and privacy advocate Carey Parker about securing your home network.

Author of the book Firewalls Don’t Stop Dragons and host to the podcast of the same name, Parker chronicled the typical home network security journey last year and distilled the long process into four simple categories: Scan, simplify, assess, remediate.

In joining the Lock and Code podcast yet again, Parker explains how everyone can begin their home network security path—where to start, what to prioritize, and the risks of putting this work off, while also emphasizing the importance of every home’s router:

Your router is kind of the threshold that protects all the devices inside your house. But, like a vampire, once you invite the vampire across the threshold, all the things inside the house are now up for grabs.

Carey Parker

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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.

A disappointing meal at a restaurant. An ugly breakup between two partners. A popular TV show that kills off a beloved, main character.

In a perfect world, these are irritations and moments of vulnerability. But online today, these same events can sometimes be the catalyst for hate. That disappointing meal can produce a frighteningly invasive Yelp review that exposes a restaurant owner’s home address for all to see. That ugly breakup can lead to an abusive ex posting a video of revenge porn. And even a movie or videogame can enrage some individuals into such a fury that they begin sending death threats to the actors and cast mates involved.

Online hate and harassment campaigns are well-known and widely studied. Sadly, they’re also becoming more frequent.

In 2023, the Anti-Defamation League revealed that 52% of American adults reported being harassed online at least some time in their life—the highest rate ever recorded by the organization and a dramatic climb from the 40% who responded similarly just one year earlier. When asking teens about recent harm, 51% said they’d suffered from online harassment in strictly the 12 months prior to taking the survey itself—a radical 15% increase from what teens said the year prior.

The proposed solutions, so far, have been difficult to implement.

Social media platforms often deflect blame—and are frequently shielded from legal liability—and many efforts to moderate and remove hateful content have either been slow or entirely absent in the past. Popular accounts with millions of followers will, without explicitly inciting violence, sometimes draw undue attention to everyday people. And the increasing need to have an online presence for teens—even classwork is done online now—makes it near impossible to simply “log off.”

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Tall Poppy CEO and co-founder Leigh Honeywell, about the evolution of online hate, personal defense strategies that mirror many of the best practices in cybersecurity, and the modern risks of accidentally becoming viral in a world with little privacy.

“It's not just that your content can go viral, it's that when your content goes viral, five people might be motivated enough to call in a fake bomb threat at your house.”

Leigh Honeywell, CEO and co-founder of Tall Poppy

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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.

For decades, fake IDs had roughly three purposes: Buying booze before legally allowed, getting into age-restricted clubs, and, we can only assume, completing nation-state spycraft for embedded informants and double agents.

In 2024, that’s changed, as the uses for fake IDs have become enmeshed with the internet.

Want to sign up for a cryptocurrency exchange where you’ll use traditional funds to purchase and exchange digital currency? You’ll likely need to submit a photo of your real ID so that the cryptocurrency platform can ensure you’re a real user. What about if you want to watch porn online in the US state of Louisiana? It’s a niche example, but because of a law passed in 2022, you will likely need to submit, again, a photo of your state driver’s license to a separate ID verification mobile app that then connects with porn sites to authorize your request.

The discrepancies in these end-uses are stark; cryptocurrency and porn don’t have too much in common with Red Bull vodkas and, to pick just one example, a Guatemalan coup. But there’s something else happening here that reveals the subtle differences between yesteryear’s fake IDs and today’s, which is that modern ID verification doesn’t need a physical ID card or passport to work—it can sometimes function only with an image.

Last month, the technology reporting outfit 404 Media investigated an online service called OnlyFake that claimed to use artificial intelligence to pump out images of fake IDs. By filling out some bogus personal information, like a made-up birthdate, height, and weight, OnlyFake would provide convincing images of real forms of ID, be they driver’s licenses in California or passports from the US, the UK, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and more. Those images, in turn, could then be used to fraudulently pass identification checks on certain websites.

When 404 Media co-founder and reporter Joseph Cox learned about OnlyFake, he tested whether an image of a fake passport he generated could be used to authenticate his identity with an online cryptocurrency exchange.

In short, it did.

By creating a fraudulent British passport through OnlyFake, Joseph Cox—or as his fake ID said, “David Creeks”—managed to verify his false identity when creating an account with the cryptocurrency market OKX.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Cox about the believability of his fake IDs, the capabilities and limitations of OnlyFake, what’s in store for the future of the site— which went dark after Cox’s report—and what other types of fraud are now dangerously within reach for countless threat actors.

Making fake IDs, even photos of fake IDs, is a very particular skill set—it’s like a trade in the criminal underground. You don’t need that anymore.

Joseph Cox, 404 Media co-founder

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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.

If your IT and security teams think malware is bad, wait until they learn about everything else.

In 2024, the modern cyberattack is a segmented, prolonged, and professional effort, in which specialists create strictly financial alliances to plant malware on unsuspecting employees, steal corporate credentials, slip into business networks, and, for a period of days if not weeks, simply sit and watch and test and prod, escalating their privileges while refraining from installing any noisy hacking tools that could be flagged by detection-based antivirus scans.

In fact, some attacks have gone so "quiet" that they involve no malware at all. Last year, some ransomware gangs refrained from deploying ransomware in their own attacks, opting to steal sensitive data and then threaten to publish it online if their victims refused to pay up—a method of extracting a ransom that is entirely without ransomware.

Understandably, security teams are outflanked. Defending against sophisticated, multifaceted attacks takes resources, technologies, and human expertise. But not every organization has that at hand.

What, then, are IT-constrained businesses to do?

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Jason Haddix, the former Chief Information Security Officer at the videogame developer Ubisoft, about how he and his colleagues from other companies faced off against modern adversaries who, during a prolonged crime spree, plundered employee credentials from the dark web, subverted corporate 2FA protections, and leaned heavily on internal web access to steal sensitive documentation.

Haddix, who launched his own cybersecurity training and consulting firm Arcanum Information Security this year, said he learned so much during his time at Ubisoft that he and his peers in the industry coined a new, humorous term for attacks that abuse internet-connected platforms: "A browser and a dream."

"When you first hear that, you're like, 'Okay, what could a browser give you inside of an organization?'"

But Haddix made it clear:

"On the internal LAN, you have knowledge bases like SharePoint, Confluence, MediaWiki. You have dev and project management sites like Trello, local Jira, local Redmine. You have source code managers, which are managed via websites—Git, GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Subversion. You have repo management, build servers, dev platforms, configuration, management platforms, operations, front ends. These are all websites."

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

LLM Prompt Injection Game: https://gandalf.lakera.ai/

Overwhelmed by modern cyberthreats? ThreatDown can help.

The 2024 ThreatDown State of Malware report is a comprehensive analysis of six pressing cyberthreats this year—including Big Game ransomware, Living Off The Land (LOTL) attacks, and malvertising—with strategies on how IT and security teams can protect against them.

Read the report here.

If the internet helped create the era of mass surveillance, then artificial intelligence will bring about an era of mass spying.

That’s the latest prediction from noted cryptographer and computer security professional Bruce Schneier, who, in December, shared a vision of the near future where artificial intelligence—AI—will be able to comb through reams of surveillance data to answer the types of questions that, previously, only humans could.  

“Spying is limited by the need for human labor,” Schneier wrote. “AI is about to change that.”

As theorized by Schneier, if fed enough conversations, AI tools could spot who first started a rumor online, identify who is planning to attend a political protest (or unionize a workforce), and even who is plotting a crime.

But “there’s so much more,” Schneier said.

“To uncover an organizational structure, look for someone who gives similar instructions to a group of people, then all the people they have relayed those instructions to. To find people’s confidants, look at whom they tell secrets to. You can track friendships and alliances as they form and break, in minute detail. In short, you can know everything about what everybody is talking about.”

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Bruce Schneier about artificial intelligence, Soviet era government surveillance, personal spyware, and why companies will likely leap at the opportunity to use AI on their customers.

“Surveillance-based manipulation is the business model [of the internet] and anything that gives a company an advantage, they’re going to do.”

Tune in today to listen to the full conversation.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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.

On Thursday, December 28, at 8:30 pm in the Utah town of Riverdale, the city police began investigating what they believed was a kidnapping.

17-year-old foreign exchange student Kai Zhuang was missing, and according to Riverdale Police Chief Casey Warren, Zhuang was believed to be “forcefully taken” from his home, and “being held against his will.”

The evidence leaned in police’s favor. That night, Zhuang’s parents in China reportedly received a photo of Zhuang in distress. They’d also received a ransom demand.

But as police in Riverdale and across the state of Utah would soon learn, the alleged kidnapping had a few wrinkles.

For starters, there was no sign that Zhuang had been forcefully removed from his home in Riverdale, where he’d been living with his host family. In fact, Zhuang’s disappearance was so quiet that his host family was entirely unaware that he’d been missing until police came and questioned them. Additionally, investigators learned that Zhuang had experienced a recent run-in with police officers nearly 75 miles away in the city of Provo. Just eight days before his disappearance in Riverdale, Zhuang caught the attention of Provo residents because of what they deemed strange behavior for a teenager: Buying camping gear in the middle of a freezing winter season. Police officers who intervened at the residents’ requests asked Zhuang if he was okay, he assured them he was, and a ride was arranged for the teenager back home.

But what Zhuang didn’t tell Provo police at the time was that, already, he was being targeted in an extortion scam. But when Zhuang started to push back against his scammers, it was his parents who became the next target.

Zhuang—and his family—had become victims of what is known as “virtual kidnapping.”

For years, virtual kidnapping scams happened most frequently in Mexico and the Southwestern United States, in cities like Los Angeles and Houston. But in 2015, the scams began reaching farther into the US.

The scams themselves are simple yet cruel attempts at extortion. Virtual kidnappers will call phone numbers belonging to affluent neighborhoods in the US and make bogus threats about a holding a family member hostage.

As explained by the FBI in 2017, virtual kidnappers do not often know the person they are calling, their name, their occupation, or even the name of the family member they have pretended to abduct:

“When an unsuspecting person answered the phone, they would hear a female screaming, ‘Help me!’ The screamer’s voice was likely a recording. Instinctively, the victim might blurt out his or her child’s name: ‘Mary, are you okay?’ And then a man’s voice would say something like, ‘We have Mary. She’s in a truck. We are holding her hostage. You need to pay a ransom and you need to do it now or we are going to cut off her fingers.’”

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we are presenting a short, true story from December about virtual kidnapping. Today’s episode cites reporting and public statements from the Associated Press, the FBI, ABC4.com, Fox 6 Milwaukee, and the Riverdale Police Department.

Tune in today

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

Hackers want to know everything about you: Your credit card number, your ID and passport info, and now, your DNA.

On October 1 2023, on a hacking website called BreachForums, a group of cybercriminals claimed that they had stolen—and would soon sell—individual profiles for users of the genetic testing company 23andMe.

23andMe offers direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits that provide customers with different types of information, including potential indicators of health risks along with reports that detail a person’s heritage, their DNA’s geographical footprint, and, if they opt in, a service to connect with relatives who have also used 23andMe’s DNA testing service.

The data that 23andMe and similar companies collect is often seen as some of the most sensitive, personal information that exists about people today, as it can expose health risks, family connections, and medical diagnoses. This type of data has also been used to exonerate the wrongfully accused and to finally apprehend long-hidden fugitives.

In 2018, deputies from the Sacramento County Sherriff’s department arrested a serial killer known as the Golden State Killer, after investigators took DNA left at decades-old crime scenes and compared it to a then-growing database of genetic information, finding the Golden State Killer’s relatives, and then zeroing in from there.

And while the story of the Golden State Killer involves the use of genetic data to solve a crime, what happens when genetic data is part of a crime? What law enforcement agency, if any, gets involved? What rights do consumers have? And how likely is it that consumer complaints will get heard?

For customers of 23andMe, those are particularly relevant questions. After an internal investigation from the genetic testing company, it was revealed that 6.9 million customers were impacted by the October breach.

What do they do?

Today on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Suzanne Bernstein, a law fellow at Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) to understand the value of genetic data, the risks of its exposure, and the unfortunate reality that consumers face in having to protect themselves while also trusting private corporations to secure their most sensitive data.

“We live our lives online and there's certain risks that are unavoidable or that are manageable relative to the benefit that a consumer might get from it,” Bernstein said.

“Ultimately, while it's not the consumer's responsibility, an informed consumer can make the best choices about what kind of risks to take online.”

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

It talks, it squawks, it even blocks! The stocking-stuffer on every hobby hacker’s wish list this year is the Flipper Zero.

“Talk” across low-frequency radio to surreptitiously change TV channels, emulate garage door openers, or even pop open your friend’s Tesla charging port without their knowing! “Squawk” with the Flipper Zero’s mascot and user-interface tour guide, a “cyber-dolphin” who can “read” the minds of office key fobs and insecure hotel entry cards. And, introducing in 2023, block iPhones running iOS 17!

No, really, for a couple of months near the end of 2023, this consumer-friendly device could crash iPhones (a vulnerability that Apple fixed in a software update in mid-December), and in the United States, it is entirely legal to own.

The Flipper Zero is advertised as a “multi-tool device for geeks.” It’s an open-source tool that can be used to hack into radio protocols, access control systems, hardware, and more. It can emulate keycards, serve as a universal remote for TVs, and make attempts to brute force garage door openers.

But for security researcher Jeroen van der Ham, the Flipper Zero also served as a real pain in the butt one day in October, when, aboard a train in the Netherlands, he got a popup on his iPhone about a supposed Bluetooth pairing request with a nearby Apple TV. Strange as that may be on a train, van der Ham soon got another request. And then another, and another, and another.

In explaining the problem to the outlet Ars Technica, van der Ham wrote:

“My phone was getting these popups every few minutes and then my phone would reboot. I tried putting it in lock down mode, but it didn’t help.”

Later that same day, on his way back home, once again aboard the train, van der Ham noticed something odd: the iPhone popups came back, and this time, he noticed that his fellow passengers were also getting hit.

What van der Ham soon learned is that he—and the other passengers on the train—were being subjected to a Denial-of-Service attack, which weaponized the way that iPhones receive Bluetooth pairing requests. A Denial-of-Service attack is simple. Essentially, a hacker, or more commonly, an army of bots, will flood a device or a website with requests. The target in these attacks cannot keep up with the requests, so it often locks up and becomes inaccessible. That can be a major issue for a company that is suffering from having its website attacked, but it’s also dangerous for everyday people who may need to use their phones to, say, document something important, or reach out to someone when in need.

In van der Ham’s case, the Denial-of-Service attack was likely coming from one passenger on the train, who was aided by the small, handheld device, the Flipper Zero.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast, with host David Ruiz, we speak with Cooper Quintin, senior public interest technologist with Electronic Frontier Foundation—and Flipper Zero owner—about what the Flipper Zero can do, what it can’t do, and whether governments should get involved in the regulation of the device (that’s a hard “No,” Quintin said).

“Governments should be welcoming this device,” Quintin said. “Every government right now is saying, ‘We need more cyber security capacity. We need more cyber security researchers. We got cyber wars to fight, blah, blah, blah,’ right?”

Quintin continued:

“Then, when you make this amazing tool that is, I think, a really great way for people to start interacting with cybersecurity and getting really interested in it—then you ban that?”

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

Like the grade-school dweeb who reminds their teacher to assign tonight’s homework, or the power-tripping homeowner who threatens every neighbor with an HOA citation, the ransomware group ALPHV can now add itself to a shameful roster of pathetic, little tattle-tales.

In November, the ransomware gang ALPHV, which also goes by the name Black Cat, notified the US Securities and Exchange Commission about the Costa Mesa-based software company MeridianLink, alleging that the company had failed to notify the government about a data breach. Under newly announced rules by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), public companies will be expected to notify the government agency about “material cybersecurity incidents” within four days of determining whether such an incident could have impacted the company’s stock prices or any investment decisions from the public.

According to ALPHV, MeridianLink had violated that rule. But how did ALPHV know about this alleged breach?

Simple. They claimed to have done it.

“It has come to our attention that MeridianLink, in light of a significant breach compromising customer data and operational information, has failed to file the requisite disclosure under Item 1.05 of Form 8-K within the stipulated four business days, as mandated by the new SEC rules,” wrote ALPHV in a complaint that the group claimed to have filed with the US government.

The victim, MeridianLink, refuted the claims. According to a MeridianLink spokesperson, while the company confirmed a cybersecurity incident, it denied the severity of the incident.

“Based on our investigation to date, we have identified no evidence of unauthorized access to our production platforms, and the incident has caused minimal business interruption,” a MeridianLink spokesperson said at the time. “If we determine that any consumer personal information was involved in this incident, we will provide notifications as required by law.”

This week on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak to Recorded Future intelligence analyst Allan Liska about what ALPHV could hope to accomplish with its SEC complaint, whether similar threats have been made in the past under other regulatory regime, and what organizations everywhere should know about ransomware attacks going into the new year. One big takeaway, Liska said, is that attacks are getting bigger, bolder, and brasher.

“There are no protections anymore,” Liska said. “For a while, some ransomware actors were like, ‘No, we won’t go after hospitals, or we won’t do this, or we won’t do that.’ Those protections all seem to have flown out the window, and they’ll go after anything and anyone that will make them money. It doesn’t matter how small they are or how big they are.”

Liska continued:

“We’ve seen ransomware actors go after food banks. You’re not going to get a ransom from a food bank. Don’t do that.”

Tune in today to listen to the full conversation.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

A worrying trend is cropping up amongst Americans, particularly within Generation Z—they're spying on each other more.

Whether reading someone's DMs, rifling through a partner's text messages, or even rummaging through the bags and belongings of someone else, Americans enjoy keeping tabs on one another, especially when they're in a relationship. According to recent research from Malwarebytes, a shocking 49% of Gen Zers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “Being able to track my spouse's/significant other's location when they are away is extremely important to me.”

On the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we've repeatedly tackled the issue of surveillance, from the NSA's mass communications surveillance program exposed by Edward Snowden, to the targeted use of Pegasus spyware against human rights dissidents and political activists, to the purchase of privately-collected location data by state law enforcement agencies across the country. But the type of surveillance we're talking about today is different. It isn't so much "Big Brother"—a concept introduced in the socio-dystopian novel 1984 by author George Orwell. It's "Little Brother."

As far back as 2010, in a piece titled “Little Brother is Watching,” author Walter Kirn wrote for the New York Times:

 “As the Internet proves every day, it isn’t some stern and monolithic Big Brother that we have to reckon with as we go about our daily lives, it’s a vast cohort of prankish Little Brothers equipped with devices that Orwell, writing 60 years ago, never dreamed of and who are loyal to no organized authority. The invasion of privacy — of others’ privacy but also our own, as we turn our lenses on ourselves in the quest for attention by any means — has been democratized.”

Little Brother is us, recording someone else on our phones and then posting it on social media. Little Brother is us, years ago, Facebook stalking someone because they’re a college crush. Little Brother is us, watching a Ring webcam of a delivery driver, including when they are mishandling a package but also when they are doing a stupid little dance that we requested so we could post it online and get little dopamine hits from the Likes. Little Brother is our anxieties being soothed by watching the shiny blue GPS dots that represent our husbands and our wives, driving back from work.

Little Brother isn't just surveillance. It is increasingly popular, normalized, and accessible surveillance. And it's creeping its way into more and more relationships every day. 

So, what can stop it? 

Today, we speak with our guests, Malwarebytes security evangelist Mark Stockley and Malwarebytes Labs editor-in-chief Anna Brading, about the apparent "appeal" of Little Brother surveillance, whether the tenets of privacy can ever fully defeat that surveillance, and what the possible merits of this surveillance could be, including, as Stockley suggested, in revealing government abuses of power. 

"My question to you is, as with all forms of technology, there are two very different sides for this. So is it bad? Is it good? Or is it just oxygen now?" 

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

In September, the Las Vegas casino and hotel operator MGM Resorts became a trending topic on social media... but for all the wrong reasons. A TikTok user posted a video taken from inside the casino floor of the MGM Grand—the company's flagship hotel complex near the southern end of the Las Vegas strip—that didn't involve the whirring of slot machines or the sirens and buzzers of sweepstake earnings, but, instead, row after row of digital gambling machines with blank, non-functional screens. That same TikTok user commented on their own post that it wasn't just errored-out gambling machines that were causing problems—hotel guests were also having trouble getting into their own rooms.

As the user said online about their own experience: “Digital keys weren’t working. Had to get physical keys printed. They doubled booked our room so we walked in on someone.”

The trouble didn't stop there.

A separate photo shared online allegedly showed what looked like a Walkie-Talkie affixed to an elevator's handrail. Above the device was a piece of paper and a message written by hand: “For any elevator issues, please use the radio for support.”  

As the public would soon learn, MGM Resorts was the victim of a cyberattack, reportedly carried out by a group of criminals called Scattered Spider, which used the ALPHV ransomware.

It was one of the most publicly-exposed cyberattacks in recent history. But just a few days before the public saw the end result, the same cybercriminal group received a reported $15 million ransom payment from a separate victim situated just one and a half miles away.

On September 14, Caesar’s Entertainment reported in a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission that it, too, had suffered a cyber breach, and according to reporting from CNBC, it received a $30 million ransom demand, which it then negotiated down by about 50 percent.

The social media flurry, the TikTok videos, the comments and confusion from customers, the ghost-town casino floors captured in photographs—it all added up to something strange and new: Vegas was breached. 

But how? 

Though follow-on reporting suggests a particularly effective social engineering scam, the attacks themselves revealed a more troubling, potential vulnerability for businesses everywhere, which is that a company's budget—and its relative ability to devote resources to cybersecurity—doesn't necessarily insulate it from attacks. 

Today on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with James Fair, senior vice president of IT Services at the managed IT services company Executech, about whether businesses are taking cybersecurity seriously enough, which industries he's seen pushback from for initial cybersecurity recommendations (and why), and the frustration of seeing some companies only take cybersecurity seriously after a major attack. 

"How many do we have to see? MGM got hit, you guys. Some of the biggest targets out there—people who have more cybersecurity budget than people can imagine—got hit. So, what are you waiting for?"

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

What are you most worried about online? And what are you doing to stay safe? 

Depending on who you are, those could be very different answers, but for teenagers and members of Generation Z, the internet isn't so scary because of traditional threats like malware and viruses. Instead, the internet is scary because of what it can expose. To Gen Z, a feared internet is one that is vindictive and cruel—an internet that reveals private information that Gen Z fears could harm their relationships with family and friends, damage their reputations, and even lead to their being bullied and physically harmed. 

Those are some of the findings from Malwarebytes' latest research into the cybersecurity and online privacy beliefs and behaviors of people across the United States and Canada this year.

Titled "Everyone's afraid of the internet and no one's sure what to do about it," Malwarebytes' new report shows that 81 percent of Gen Z worries about having personal, private information exposed—like their sexual orientations, personal struggles, medical history, and relationship issues (compared to 75 percent of non-Gen Zers). And 61 percent of Gen Zers worry about having embarrassing or compromising photos or videos shared online (compared to 55% of non Gen Zers). Not only that, 36 percent worry about being bullied because of that info being exposed, while 34 percent worry about being physically harmed. For those outside of Gen Z, those numbers are a lot lower—only 22 percent worry about bullying, and 27 percent worry about being physically harmed.

Does this mean Gen Z is uniquely careful to prevent just that type of information from being exposed online? Not exactly. They talk more frequently to strangers online, they more frequently share personal information on social media, and they share photos and videos on public forums more than anyone—all things that leave a trail of information that could be gathered against them.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we drill down into what, specifically, a Bay Area teenager is afraid of when using the internet, and what she does to stay safe. Visiting the Lock and Code podcast for the second year in the row is Nitya Sharma, discussing AI "sneak attacks," political disinformation campaigns, the unannounced location tracking of Snapchat, and why she simply cannot be bothered about malware. 

"I know that there's a threat of sharing information with bad people and then abusing it, but I just don't know what you would do with it. Show up to my house and try to kill me?" 

Tune in today for the full conversation.

You can read our full report here: "Everyone's afraid of the internet and no one's sure what to do about it."

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

When you think of the modern tools that most invade your privacy, what do you picture?

There's the obvious answers, like social media platforms including Facebook and Instagram. There's email and "everything" platforms like Google that can track your locations, your contacts, and, of course, your search history. There's even the modern web itself, rife with third-party cookies that track your browsing activity across websites so your information can be bundled together into an ad-friendly profile. 

But here's a surprise answer with just as much validity: Cars. 

A team of researchers at Mozilla which has reviewed the privacy and data collection policies of various product categories for several years now, named "Privacy Not Included," recently turned their attention to modern-day vehicles, and what they found shocked them. Cars are, to put it shortly, a privacy nightmare. 

According to the team's research, Nissan says it can collect “sexual activity” information about consumers. Kia says it can collect information about a consumer's “sex life.” Subaru passengers allegedly consent to the collection of their data by simply being in the vehicle. Volkswagen says it collects data like a person's age and gender and whether they're using your seatbelt, and it can use that information for targeted marketing purposes. 

But those are just some of the highlights from the Privacy Not Included team. Explains Zoë MacDonald, content creator for the research team: 

"We were pretty surprised by the data points that the car companies say they can collect... including social security number, information about your religion, your marital status, genetic information, disability status... immigration status, race. And of course, as you said.. one of the most surprising ones for a lot of people who read our research is the sexual activity data."

Today on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with MacDonald and Jen Caltrider, Privacy Not Included team lead, about the data that cars can collect, how that data can be shared, how it can be used, and whether consumers have any choice in the matter.

We also explore the booming revenue stream that car manufacturers are tapping into by not only collecting people's data, but also packaging it together for targeted advertising. With so many data pipelines being threaded together, Caltrider says the auto manufacturers can even make "inferences" about you.  

"What really creeps me out [is] they go on to say that they can take all the information they collect about you from the cars, the apps, the connected services, and everything they can gather about you from these third party sources," Caltrider said, "and they can combine it into these things they call 'inferences' about you about things like your intelligence, your abilities, your predispositions, your characteristics." 

Caltrider continued:

"And that's where it gets really creepy because I just imagine a car company knowing so much about me that they've determined how smart I am."

Tune in today. 

In 2022, Malwarebytes investigated the blurry, shifting idea of “identity” on the internet, and how online identities are not only shaped by the people behind them, but also inherited by the internet’s youngest users, children. Children have always inherited some of their identities from their parents—consider that two of the largest indicators for political and religious affiliation in the US are, no surprise, the political and religious affiliations of someone’s parents—but the transfer of online identity poses unique risks. 

When parents create email accounts for their kids, do they also teach their children about strong passwords? When parents post photos of their children online, do they also teach their children about the safest ways to post photos of themselves and others? When parents create a Netflix viewing profile on a child's iPad, are they prepared for what else a child might see online? Are parents certain that a kid is ready to watch before they can walk?

Those types of questions drove a joint report that Malwarebytes published last year, based on a survey of 2,000 people in North America. That research showed that, broadly, not enough children and teenagers trust their parents to support them online, and not enough parents know exactly how to give the support their children need.

But stats and figures can only tell so much of the story, which is why last year, Lock and Code host David Ruiz spoke with a Bay Area high school graduate about her own thoughts on the difficulties of growing up online. Lock and Code is re-airing that episode this week because, in less than one month, Malwarebytes is releasing a follow-on report about behaviors, beliefs, and blunders in online privacy and cybersecurity. And as part of that report, Lock and Code is bringing back the same guest as last year, Nitya Sharma. 

Before then, we are sharing with listeners our prior episode that aired in 2022 about the difficulties that an everyday teenager faces online, including managing her time online, trying to meet friends and complete homework, the traps of trading online interaction with in-person socializing, and what she would do differently with her children, if she ever started a family, in preparing them for the Internet.

Tune in today. 

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

Becky Holmes is a big deal online. 

Hugh Jackman has invited her to dinner. Prince William has told her she has "such a beautiful name." Once, Ricky Gervais simply needed her photos ("I want you to take a snap of yourself and then send it to me on here...Send it to me on here!" he messaged on Twitter), and even Tom Cruise slipped into her DMs (though he was a tad boring, twice asking about her health and more often showing a core misunderstanding of grammar). 

Becky has played it cool, mostly, but there's no denying the "One That Got Away"—Official Keanu Reeves. 

After repeatedly speaking to Becky online, convincing her to download the Cash app, and even promising to send her $20,000 (which Becky said she could use for a new tea towel), Official Keanu Reeves had a change of heart earlier this year: "I hate you," he said. "We are not in any damn relationship." 

Official Keanu Reeves, of course, is not Keanu Reeves. And hughjackman373—as he labeled himself on Twitter—is not really Hugh Jackman. Neither is "Prince William," or "Ricky Gervais," or "Tom Cruise." All of these "celebrities" online are fake, and that isn't commentary on celebrity culture. It's simply a fact, because all of the personas online who have reached out to Becky Holmes are romance scammers. 

Romance scams are serious crimes that follow similar plots. 

Online, an attractive stranger or celebrity—coupled with an appealing profile picture—will send a message to a complete stranger, often on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, or LinkedIn. They will flood the stranger with affectionate messages and promises of a perfect life together, sometimes building trust and emotional connection for weeks or even months. As time continues, they will also try to remove the conversation away from the social media platform where it started, instead moving it to WhatsApp, Telegram, Messages, or simple text. 

Here, the scam has already started. Away from the major social media and networking platforms, the scammers persistent messages cannot be flagged for abuse or harassment, and the scammer is free to press on. Once an emotional connection is built, the scammer will suddenly be in trouble, and the best way out, is money—the victim’s money.

These crimes target vulnerable people, like recently divorced individuals, widows, and the elderly. But when these same scammers reach out to Becky Holmes, Becky Holmes turns the tables.

Becky once tricked a scammer into thinking she was visiting him in the far-off Antarctic. She has led one to believe that she had accidentally murdered someone and she needed help hiding the body. She has given fake, lewd addresses, wasted their time, and even shut them down when she can by coordinating with local law enforcement.

And today on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, Becky Holmes returns to talk about romance scammer "education" and the potential involvement in pyramid schemes, a disappointing lack of government response to protect victims, and the threat of Twitter removing its block function, along with some of the most recent romance scams that Becky has encountered online.

“There’s suddenly been this kind of influx of Elons. Absolutely tons of those have come about… I think I get probably at least one, maybe two a day.”

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

"Freedom" is a big word, and for many parents today, it's a word that includes location tracking. 

Across America, parents are snapping up Apple AirTags, the inexpensive location tracking devices that can help owners find lost luggage, misplaced keys, and—increasingly so—roving toddlers setting out on mini-adventures. 

The parental fear right now, according to The Washington Post technology reporter Heather Kelly, is that "anybody who can walk, therefore can walk away." 

Parents wanting to know what their children are up to is nothing new. Before the advent of the Internet—and before the creation of search history—parents read through diaries. Before GPS location tracking, parents called the houses that their children were allegedly staying at. And before nearly every child had a smart phone that they could receive calls on, parents relied on a much simpler set of tools for coordination: Going to the mall, giving them a watch, and saying "Be at the food court at noon." 

But, as so much parental monitoring has moved to the digital sphere, there's a new problem: Children become physically mobile far faster than they become responsible enough to own a mobile. Enter the AirTag: a small, convenient device for parents to affix to toddlers' wrists, place into their backpacks, even sew into their clothes, as Kelly reported in her piece for The Washington Post. 

In speaking with parents, families, and childcare experts, Kelly also uncovered an interesting dynamic. Parents, she reported, have started relying on Apple AirTags as a means to provide freedom, not restrictions, to their children. 

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Kelly about why parents are using AirTags, how childcare experts are reacting to the recent trend, and whether the devices can actually provide a balm to increasingly stressed parents who may need a moment to sit back and relax. Or, as Kelly said:

"In the end, parents need to chill—and if this lets them chill, and if it doesn't impact the kids too much, and it lets them go do silly things like jumping in some puddles with their friends or light, really inconsequential shoplifting, good for them."

Tune in today. 

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

Earlier this month, a group of hackers was spotted using a set of malicious tools—that originally gained popularity with online video game cheaters—to hide their Windows-based malware from being detected.

Sounds unique, right? 

Frustratingly, it isn't, as the specific security loophole that was abused by the hackers has been around for years, and Microsoft's response, or lack thereof, is actually a telling illustration of the competing security environments within Windows and macOS. Even more perplexing is the fact that Apple dealt with a similar issue nearly 10 years ago, locking down the way that certain external tools are given permission to run alongside the operating system's critical, core internals. 

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Malwarebytes' own Director of Core Tech Thomas Reed about everyone's favorite topic: Windows vs. Mac. But this isn't a conversation about the original iPod vs. Microsoft's Zune (we're sure you can find countless, 4-hour diatribes on YouTube for that), but instead about how the companies behind these operating systems can respond to security issues in their own products. Because it isn't fair to say that Apple or Microsoft are wholesale "better" or "worse" about security. Instead, they're hampered by their users and their core market segments—Apple excels in the consumer market, whereas Microsoft excels with enterprises. And when your customers include hospitals, government agencies, and pretty much any business over a certain headcount, well, it comes with complications in deciding how to address security problems that won't leave those same customers behind. 

Still, there's little excuse in leaving open the type of loophole that Windows has, said Reed:

"Apple has done something that was pretty inconvenient for developers, but it really secured their customers because it basically meant we saw a complete stop in all kernel-level malware. It just shows you [that] it can be done. You're gonna break some eggs in the process, and Microsoft has not done that yet... They're gonna have to."

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

The language of a data breach, no matter what company gets hit, is largely the same. There's the stolen data—be it email addresses, credit card numbers, or even medical records. There are the users—unsuspecting, everyday people who, through no fault of their own, mistakenly put their trust into a company, platform, or service to keep their information safe. And there are, of course, the criminals. Some operate in groups. Some act alone. Some steal data as a means of extortion. Others steal it as a point of pride. All of them, it appears, take something that isn't theirs. 

But what happens if a cybercriminal takes something that may have already been stolen? 

In late June, a mobile app that can, without consent, pry into text messages, monitor call logs, and track GPS location history, warned its users that its services had been hacked. Email addresses, telephone numbers, and the content of messages were swiped, but how they were originally collected requires scrutiny. That's because the app itself, called LetMeSpy, is advertised as a parental and employer monitoring app, to be installed on the devices of other people that LetMeSpy users want to track. 

Want to read your child's text messages? LetMeSpy says it can help. Want to see where they are? LetMeSpy says it can do that, too. What about employers who are interested in the vague idea of "control and safety" of their business? Look no further than LetMeSpy, of course.  

While LetMeSpy's website tells users that "phone control without your knowledge and consent may be illegal in your country," (it is in the US and many, many others) the app also claims that it can hide itself from view from the person being tracked. And that feature, in particular, is one of the more tell-tale signs of "stalkerware." 

Stalkerware is a term used by the cybersecurity industry to describe mobile apps, primarily on Android, that can access a device's text messages, photos, videos, call records, and GPS locations without the device owner knowing about said surveillance. These types of apps can also automatically record every phone call made and received by a device, turn off a device's WiFi, and take control of the device's camera and microphone to snap photos or record audio—all without the victim knowing that their phone has been compromised. 

Stalkerware poses a serious threat—particularly to survivors of domestic abuse—and Malwarebytes has defended users against these types of apps for years. But the hacking of an app with similar functionality raises questions. 

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with the hacktivist and security blogger maia arson crimew about the data that was revealed in LetMeSpy's hack, the almost-clumsy efforts by developers to make and market these apps online, and whether this hack—and others in the past—are "good." 

"I'm the person on the podcast who can say 'We should hack things,' because I don't work for Malwarebytes. But the thing is, I don't think there really is any other way to get info in this industry."

Tune in today. 

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

In the United States, when the police want to conduct a search on a suspected criminal, they must first obtain a search warrant. It is one of the foundational rights given to US persons under the Constitution, and a concept that has helped create the very idea of a right to privacy at home and online. 

But sometimes, individualized warrants are never issued, never asked for, never really needed, depending on which government agency is conducting the surveillance, and for what reason. Every year, countless emails, social media DMs, and likely mobile messages are swept up by the US National Security Agency—even if those communications involve a US person—without any significant warrant requirement. Those digital communications can be searched by the FBI. The information the FBI gleans from those searches can be used can be used to prosecute Americans for crimes. And when the NSA or FBI make mistakes—which they do—there is little oversight. 

This is surveillance under a law and authority called Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. 

The law and the regime it has enabled are opaque. There are definitions for "collection" of digital communications, for "queries" and "batch queries," rules for which government agency can ask for what type of intelligence, references to types of searches that were allegedly ended several years ago, "programs" that determine how the NSA grabs digital communications—by requesting them from companies or by directly tapping into the very cables that carry the Internet across the globe—and an entire, secret court that, only has rarely released its opinions to the public. 

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast, with host David Ruiz, we speak with Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Matthew Guariglia about what the NSA can grab online, whether its agents can read that information and who they can share it with, and how a database that was ostensibly created to monitor foreign intelligence operations became a tool for investigating Americans at home. 

As Guariglia explains:

"In the United States, if you collect any amount of data, eventually law enforcement will come for it, and this includes data that is collected by intelligence communities."

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

When you think about the word "cyberthreat," what first comes to mind? Is it ransomware? Is it spyware? Maybe it's any collection of the infamous viruses, worms, Trojans, and botnets that have crippled countless companies throughout modern history. 

In the future, though, what many businesses might first think of is something new: Disinformation. 

Back in 2021, in speaking about threats to businesses, the former director of the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Chris Krebs, told news outlet Axios: “You’ve either been the target of a disinformation attack or you are about to be.”

That same year, the consulting and professional services firm Price Waterhouse Coopers released a report on disinformation attacks against companies and organizations, and it found that these types of attacks were far more common than most of the public realized. From the report: 

“In one notable instance of disinformation, a forged US Department of Defense memo stated that a semiconductor giant’s planned acquisition of another tech company had prompted national security concerns, causing the stocks of both companies to fall. In other incidents, widely publicized unfounded attacks on a businessman caused him to lose a bidding war, a false news story reported that a bottled water company’s products had been contaminated, and a foreign state’s TV network falsely linked 5G to adverse health effects in America, giving the adversary’s companies more time to develop their own 5G network to compete with US businesses.”

Disinformation is here, and as much of it happens online—through coordinated social media posts and fast-made websites—it can truly be considered a "cyberthreat." 

But what does that mean for businesses? 

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Lisa Kaplan, founder and CEO of Alethea, about how organizations can prepare for a disinformation attack, and what they should be thinking about in the intersection between disinformation, malware, and cybersecurity. Kaplan said:

"When you think about disinformation in its purest form, what we're really talking about is people telling lies and hiding who they are in order to achieve objectives and doing so in a deliberate and malicious life. I think that this is more insidious than malware. I think it's more pervasive than traditional cyber attacks, but I don't think that you can separate disinformation from cybersecurity."

Tune in today. 

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

In May, a lawyer who was defending their client in a lawsuit against Columbia's biggest airline, Avianca, submitted a legal filing before a court in Manhattan, New York, that listed several previous cases as support for their main argument to continue the lawsuit.

But when the court reviewed the lawyer's citations, it found something curious: Several were entirely fabricated. 

The lawyer in question had gotten the help of another attorney who, in scrounging around for legal precedent to cite, utilized the "services" of ChatGPT. 

ChatGPT was wrong. So why do so many people believe it's always right? 

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Malwarebytes security evangelist Mark Stockley and Malwarebytes Labs editor-in-chief Anna Brading to discuss the potential consequences of companies and individuals embracing natural language processing tools—like ChatGPT and Google's Bard—as arbiters of truth. Far from being understood simply as chatbots that can produce remarkable mimicries of human speech and dialogue, these tools are becoming sources of truth for countless individuals, while also gaining attraction amongst companies that see artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLM) as the future, no matter what industry they operate in. 

The future could look eerily similar to an earlier change in translation services, said Stockley, who witnessed the rapid displacement of human workers in favor of basic AI tools. The tools were far, far cheaper, but the quality of the translations—of the truth, Stockley said—was worse. 

"That is an example of exactly this technology coming in and being treated as the arbiter of truth in the sense that there is a cost to how much truth we want."

Tune in today. 

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

On January 1, 2023, the Internet in Louisiana looked a little different than the Internet in Texas, Mississippi, and Arkansas—its next-door state neighbors. And on May 1, the Internet in Utah looked quite different, depending on where you looked, than the Internet in Arizona, or Idaho, or Nevada, or California or Oregon or Washington or, really, much of the rest of the United States. 

The changes are, ostensibly, over pornography. 

In Louisiana, today, visitors to the online porn site PornHub are asked to verify their age before they can access the site, and that age verification process hinges on a state-approved digital ID app called LA Wallet. In the United Kingdom, sweeping changes to the Internet are being proposed that would similarly require porn sites to verify the ages of their users to keep kids from seeing sexually explicit material. And in Australia, similar efforts to require age verification for adult websites might come hand-in-hand with the deployment of a government-issued digital ID. 

But the large problem with all these proposals is not that they would make a new Internet only for children, but a new Internet for everyone.

Look no further than Utah. 

On May 1, after new rules came into effect to make porn sites verify the ages of their users, the site PornHub decided to refuse to comply with the law and instead, to block access to the site for anyone visiting from an IP address based in Utah. If you’re in Utah, right now, and connecting to the Internet with an IP address located in Utah, you cannot access PornHub. Instead, you’re presented with a message from adult film star Cheri Deville who explains that:

“As you may know, your elected officials have required us to verify your age before granting you access to our website. While safety and compliance are at the forefront of our mission, giving your ID card every time you want to visit an adult platform is not the most effective solution for protecting our users, and in fact, will put children and your privacy at risk.”

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with longtime security researcher Alec Muffett (who has joined us before to talk about Tor) to understand what is behind these requests to change the Internet, what flaws he's seen in studying past age verification proposals, and whether many members of the public are worrying about the wrong thing in trying to solve a social issue with technology. 

"The battle cry of these people have has always been—either directly or mocked as being—'Could somebody think of the children?' And I'm thinking about the children because I want my daughter to grow up with an untracked, secure private internet when she's an adult. I want her to be able to have a private conversation. I want her to be able to browse sites without giving over any information or linking it to her identity."

Muffett continued:

"I'm trying to protect that for her. I'd like to see more people grasping for that."

Tune in today.

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)

Additional Resources and Links for today's episode:

"A Sequence of Spankingly Bad Ideas." - An analysis of age verification technology presentations from 2016. Alec Muffett.

"Adults might have to buy £10 ‘porn passes’ from newsagents to prove their age online." - The United Kingdom proposes an "adult pass" for purchase in 2018 to comply with earlier efforts for online age verification. Metro. 

"Age verification won't block porn. But it will spell the end of ethical porn." - An independent porn producer explains how compliance costs for age verification could shut down small outfits that make, film, and sell ethical pornography. The Guardian. 

"Minnesota’s Attempt to Copy California’s Constitutionally Defective Age Appropriate Design Code is an Utter Fail." - Age verification creeps into US proposals. Technology and Marketing Law Blog, run by Eric Goldman. 

"Nationwide push to require social media age verification raises questions about privacy, industry standards." - Cyberscoop.

"The Fundamental Problems with Social Media Age Verification Legislation." - R Street Institute.

YouTube's age verification in action. - Various methods and requirements shown in Google's Support center for ID verification across the globe. 

"When You Try to Watch Pornhub in Utah, You See Me Instead. Here’s Why." - Cheri Deville's call for specialized phones for minors. Rolling Stone. 

Ransomware is becoming bespoke, and that could mean trouble for businesses and law enforcement investigators. 

It wasn't always like this. 

For a few years now, ransomware operators have congregated around a relatively new model of crime called "Ransomware-as-a-Service." In the Ransomware-as-a-Service model, or RaaS model, ransomware itself is not delivered to victims by the same criminals that make the ransomware. Instead, it is used almost "on loan" by criminal groups called "affiliates" who carry out attacks with the ransomware and, if successful, pay a share of their ill-gotten gains back to the ransomware’s creators.

This model allows ransomware developers to significantly increase their reach and their illegal hauls. By essentially leasing out their malicious code to smaller groups of cybercriminals around the world, the ransomware developers can carry out more attacks, steal more money from victims, and avoid any isolated law enforcement action that would put their business in the ground, as the arrest of one affiliate group won't stop the work of dozens of others. 

And not only do ransomware developers lean on other cybercriminals to carry out attacks, they also rely on an entire network of criminals to carry out smaller, specialized tasks. There are "Initial Access Brokers" who break into company networks and then sell that illegal method of access online. "You also have coders that you can contract out to," Liska said. "You have pen testers that you can contract out to. You can contract negotiators if you want. You can contract translators if you want."

But as Liska explained, as the ransomware "business" spreads out, so do new weak points: disgruntled criminals. 

"This whole underground marketplace that exists to serve ransomware means that your small group can do a lot," Liska said. "But that also means that you are entrusting the keys to your kingdom to these random contractors that you're paying in Bitcoin every now and then. And that, for example, is why the LockBit code got leaked—dude didn't pay his contractor."

With plenty of leaked code now circulating online, some smaller cybercriminals gangs have taken to making minor alterations and then sending that new variant of ransomware out into the world—no affiliate model needed. 

"Most of what we see is just repurposed code and we see a lot of what I call 'Franken-ransomware.'" 

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, Liska explains why Franken-ransomware poses unique challenges to future victims, cybersecurity companies, and law enforcement investigators. 

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

In January, a mental health nonprofit admitted that it had used Artificial Intelligence to help talk to people in distress. 

Prompted first by a user's longing for personal improvement—and the difficulties involved in that journey—the AI tool generated a reply, which, with human intervention, could be sent verbatim in a chat box, or edited and fine-tuned to better fit the situation. The AI said:

“I hear you. You’re trying to become a better person and it’s not easy. It’s hard to make changes in our lives, especially when we’re trying to do it alone. But you’re not alone. There are people here who care about you and want to help you. I’m proud of you for making the decision to try to improve your life. It takes a lot of courage and strength. I send you love and support as you go through this journey.”

This was experimental work from Koko, a mental health nonprofit that integrated the GPT-3 large language model into its product for a short period of time that is now over. In a video demonstration posted on Twitter earlier this year, Koko co-founder Rob Morris revealed that the nonprofit had used AI to provide "mental health support to about 4,000 people" across "about 30,000 messages." Though Koko pulled GPT-3 from its system after a reportedly short period of time, Morris said on Twitter that there are several questions left from the experience. 

"The implications here are poorly understood," Morris said. "Would people eventually seek emotional support from machines, rather than friends and family?"

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Courtney Brown, a social services administrator with a history in research and suicidology, to dig into the ethics, feasibility, and potential consequences of relying increasingly on AI tools to help people in distress. For Brown, the immediate implications draw up several concerns. 

"It disturbed me to see AI using 'I care about you,' or 'I'm concerned,' or 'I'm proud of you.' That made me feel sick to my stomach. And I think it was partially because these are the things that I say, and it's partially because I think that they're going to lose power as a form of connecting to another human."

But, importantly, Brown is not the only voice in today's podcast with experience in crisis support. For six years and across 1,000 hours, Ruiz volunteered on his local suicide prevention hotline. He, too, has a background to share. 

Tune in today as Ruiz and Brown explore the boundaries for deploying AI on people suffering from emotional distress, whether the "support" offered by any AI will be as helpful and genuine as that of a human, and, importantly, whether they are simply afraid of having AI encroach on the most human experiences. 

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

The list of people and organizations that are hungry for your location data—collected so routinely and packaged so conveniently that it can easily reveal where you live, where you work, where you shop, pray, eat, and relax—includes many of the usual suspects.

Advertisers, obviously, want to send targeted ads to you and they believe those ads have a better success rate if they're sent to, say, someone who spends their time at a fast-food drive-through on the way home from the office, as opposed to someone who doesn't, or someone whose visited a high-end department store, or someone who, say, vacations regularly at expensive resorts. Hedge funds, interestingly, are also big buyers of location data, constantly seeking a competitive edge in their investments, which might mean understanding whether a fast food chain's newest locations are getting more foot traffic, or whether a new commercial real estate development is walkable from nearby homes. 

But perhaps unexpected on this list is police.

According to a recent investigation from Electronic Frontier Foundation and The Associated Press, a company called Fog Data Science has been gathering Americans' location data and selling it exclusively to local law enforcement agencies in the United States. Fog Data Science's tool—a subscription-based platform that charges clients for queries of the company's database—is called Fog Reveal. And according to Bennett Cyphers, one of the investigators who uncovered Fog Reveal through a series of public record requests, it's rather powerful. 

"What [Fog Data Science] sells is, I would say, like a God view mode for the world... It's a map and you draw a shape on the map and it will show you every device that was in that area during a specified timeframe."

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak to Cyphers about how he and his organization uncovered a massive data location broker that seemingly works only with local law enforcement, how that data broker collected Americans' data in the first place, where this data comes from, and why it is so easy to sell. 

Tune in now. 

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.

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)

How many passwords do you have? If you're at all like our Lock and Code host David Ruiz, that number hovers around 200. But the important follow up question is: How many of those passwords can you actually remember on your own? Prior studies suggest a number that sounds nearly embarrassing—probably around six. 

After decades of requiring it, it turns out that the password has problems, the biggest of which is that when users are forced to create a password for every online account, they resort to creating easy-to-remember passwords that are built around their pets' names, their addresses, even the word "password." Those same users then re-use those weak passwords across multiple accounts, opening them up to easy online attacks that rely on entering the compromised credentials from one online account to crack into an entirely separate online account. 

As if that weren't dangerous enough, passwords themselves are vulnerable to phishing attacks, where hackers can fraudulently pose as businesses that ask users to enter their login information on a website that looks legitimate, but isn't. 

Thankfully, the cybersecurity industry has built a few safeguards around password use, such as multifactor authentication, which requires a second form of approval from a user beyond just entering their username and password. But, according to 1Password Head of Passwordless Anna Pobletts, many attempts around improving and replacing passwords have put extra work into the hands of users themselves:

"There's been so many different attempts in the last 10, 20 years to replace passwords or improve passwords and the security around. But all of these attempts have been at the expense of the user."

For Pobletts, who is our latest guest on the Lock and Code podcast, there is a better option now available that does not trade security for ease-of-use. Instead, it ensures that the secure option for users is also the easy option. That latest option is the use of "passkeys." 

Resistant to phishing attacks, secured behind biometrics, and free from any requirement by users to create new ones on their own, passkeys could dramatically change our security for the better. 

Today, we speak with Pobletts about whether we'll ever truly live in a passwordless future, along with what passkeys are, how they work, and what industry could see huge benefit from implementation. Tune in now. 

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)

Becky Holmes knows how to throw a romance scammer off script—simply bring up cannibalism. 

In January, Holmes shared on Twitter that an account with the name "Thomas Smith" had started up a random chat with her that sounded an awful lot like the beginnins stages of a romance scam. But rather than instantly ignoring and blocking the advances—as Holmes recommends everyone do in these types of situations—she first had a little fun. 

"I was hoping that you'd let me eat a small part of you when we meet," Holmes said. "No major organs or anything obviously. I'm not weird lol." 

By just a few messages later, "Thomas Smith" had run off, refusing to respond to Holmes' follow-up requests about what body part she fancied, along with her preferred seasoning (paprika). 

Romance scams are a serious topic. In 2022, the US Federal Trade Commission reported that, in the five years prior, victims of romance scams had reported losing a collective $1.3 billion. In just 2021, that number was $547 million, and the average amount of money reported stolen per person was $2,400. Worse, romance scammers themselves often target vulnerable people, including seniors, widows, and the recently divorced, and they show no remorse when developing long-lasting online relationships, all bit on lies, so that they can emotionally manipulate their victims into handing over hundreds or thousands of dollars. 

But what would you do if you knew a romance scammer had contacted you and you, like our guest on today's Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, had simply had enough? If you were Becky Holmes, you'd push back. 

For a couple of years now, Holmes has teased, mocked, strung along, and shut down online romance scammers, much of her work in public view as she shares some of her more exciting stories on Twitter. There's the romance scammer who she scared by not only accepting an invitation to meet, but ratcheting up the pressure by pretending to pack her bags, buy a ticket to Stockholm, and research venues for a perhaps too-soon wedding. There's the scammer she scared off by asking to eat part of his body. And, there's the story of the fake Brad Pitt:

" My favorite story is Brad Pitt and the the dead tumble dryer repairman. And I honestly have to say, I don't think I'm ever going to top that. Every time ...I put a new tweet up, I think, oh, if only it was Brad Pitt and the dead body. I'm just never gonna get better."

Tune in today to hear about Holmes' best stories, her first ever effort to push back, her insight into why she does what she does, and what you can do to spot a romance scam—and how to safely respond to one. 

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog. And you can read our most recent report, the 2023 State of Malware, which reveals the top five cyberthreats targeting businesses this year, along with important data on how cybercriminals have responded to our industry’s increasing capabilities to keep them out. Download the report at malwarebytes.com/SoM.

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)

Government threats to end-to-end encryption—the technology that secures your messages and shared photos and videos—have been around for decades, but the most recent threats to this technology are unique in how they intersect with a broader, sometimes-global effort to control information on the Internet.

Take two efforts in the European Union and the United Kingdom. New proposals there would require companies to scan any content that their users share with one another for Child Sexual Abuse Material, or CSAM. If a company offers end-to-end encryption to its users, effectively locking the company itself out of being able to access the content that its users share, then it's tough luck for those companies. They will still be required to find a way to essentially do the impossible—build a system that keeps everyone else out, while letting themselves and the government in. 

While these government proposals may sound similar to previous global efforts to weaken end-to-end encryption in the past, like the United States' prolonged attempt to tarnish end-to-end encryption by linking it to terrorist plots, they differ because of how easily they could become tools for censorship. 

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Mallory Knodel, chief technology officer for Center for Democracy and Technology, about new threats to encryption, old and bad repeated proposals, who encryption benefits (everyone), and how building a tool to detect one legitimate harm could, in turn, create a tool to detect all sorts of legal content that other governments simply do not like. 

"In many places of the world where there's not such a strong feeling about individual and personal privacy, sometimes that is replaced by an inability to access mainstream media, news, accurate information, and so on, because there's a heavy censorship regime in place," Knodel said.  "And I think that drawing that line between 'You're going to censor child sexual abuse material, which is illegal and disgusting and we want it to go away,' but it's so very easy to slide that knob over into 'Now you're also gonna block disinformation,' and you might at some point, take it a step further and block other kinds of content, too, and you just continue down that path."

Knodel continued:

"Then you do have a pretty easy way of mass-censoring certain kinds of content from the Internet that probably shouldn't be censored."

Tune in today. 

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

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)

In November of last year, the AI research and development lab OpenAI revealed its latest, most advanced language project: A tool called ChatGPT.

ChatGPT is so much more than "just" a chatbot. As users have shown with repeated testing and prodding, ChatGPT seems to "understand" things.  It can give you recipes that account for whatever dietary restrictions you have. It can deliver basic essays about moments in history. It can—and has been—used to cheat by university students who are giving a new meaning to plagiarism, stealing work that is not theirs. It can write song lyrics about X topic as though composed by Y artist. It can even have fun with language. 

For example, when ChatGPT was asked to “Write a Biblical verse in the style of the King James Bible explaining how to remove a peanut butter sandwich from a VCR,” ChatGPT responded in part:

“And it came to pass that a man was troubled by a peanut butter sandwich, for it had been placed within his VCR, and he knew not how to remove it. And he cried out to the Lord, saying ‘Oh Lord, how can I remove this sandwich from my VCR, for it is stuck fast and will not budge.’”

Is this fun? Yes. Is it interesting? Absolutely. But what we're primarily interested about in today's episode of Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz, is where artificial intelligence and machine learning—ChatGPT included—can be applied to cybersecurity, because as some users have already discovered, ChatGPT can be used to some success to analyze lines of code for flaws.

It is a capability that has likely further energized the multibillion-dollar endeavor to apply AI to cybersecurity.

Today, on Lock and Code, we speak to Joshua Saxe about what machine learning is "good" at, what problems it can make worse, whether we have defenses to those problems, and what place machine learning and artificial intelligence have in the future of cybersecurity. According to Saxe, there are some areas where, under certain conditions, machine learning will never be able to compete.

"If you're, say, gonna deploy a set of security products on a new computer network that's never used your security products before, and you want to detect, for example, insider threats—like insiders moving files around in ways that look suspicious—if you don't have any known examples of people at the company doing that, and also examples of people not doing that, and if you don't have thousands of known examples of people at the company doing that, that are current and likely to reoccur in the future, machine learning is just never going to compete with just manually writing down some heuristics around what we think bad looks like."

Saxe continued: 

"Because basically in this case, the machine learning is competing with the common sense model of the world and expert knowledge of a security analyst, and there's no way machine learning is gonna compete with the human brain in this context."

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

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)

In 2020, a photo of a woman sitting on a toilet—her shorts pulled half-way down her thighs—was shared on Facebook, and it was shared by someone whose job it was to look at that photo and, by labeling the objects in it, help train an artificial intelligence system for a vacuum.

Bizarre? Yes. Unique? No. 

In December, MIT Technology Review investigated the data collection and sharing practices of the company iRobot, the developer of the popular self-automated Roomba vacuums. In their reporting, MIT Technology Review discovered a series of 15 images that were all captured by development versions of Roomba vacuums. Those images were eventually shared with third-party contractors in Venezuela who were tasked with the responsibility of "annotation"—the act of labeling photos with identifying information. This work of, say, tagging a cabinet as a cabinet, or a TV as a TV, or a shelf as a shelf, would help the robot vacuums "learn" about their surroundings when inside people's homes. 

In response to MIT Technology Review's reporting, iRobot stressed that none of the images found by the outlet came from customers. Instead, the images were "from iRobot development robots used by paid data collectors and employees in 2020." That meant that the images were from people who agreed to be part of a testing or "beta" program for non-public versions of the Roomba vacuums, and that everyone who participated had signed an agreement as to how iRobot would use their data.

According to the company's CEO in a post on LinkedIn: "Participants are informed and acknowledge how the data will be collected."

But after MIT Technology Review published its investigation, people who'd previously participated in iRobot's testing environments reached out. According to several of them, they felt misled. 

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with the investigative reporter of the piece, Eileen Guo, about how all of this happened, and about how, she said, this story illuminates a broader problem in data privacy today.

"What this story is ultimately about is that conversations about privacy, protection, and what that actually means, are so lopsided because we just don't know what it is that we're consenting to."

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

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)

Last month, the TikTok user TracketPacer posted a video online called “Network Engineering Facts to Impress No One at Zero Parties.”  TracketPacer regularly posts fun, educational content about how the Internet operates. The account is run by a network engineer named Lexie Cooper, who has worked in a network operations center, or NOC, and who’s earned her Cisco Certified Network Associate certificate, or CCNA. 

In the video, Cooper told listeners about the first spam email being sent over Arpanet, about how an IP address doesn't reveal that much about you, and about how Ethernet isn't really a cable—it's a protocol. But amidst Cooper's bite-sized factoids, a pair of comments she made about something else—the gender gap in the technology industry—set off a torrent of anger. 

As Cooper said in her video:   

“There are very few women in tech because there’s a pervasive cultural idea that men are more logical than women and therefor better at technical, 'computery' things.”

This, the Internet decided, would not stand. 

The IT industry is “not dominated by men, well actually, the women it self just few of them WANT to be engineer. So it’s not man fault," said one commenter. 

“No one thinks it’s because women can’t be logical. They’re finally figuring out those liberal arts degrees are worthless," said another. 

“The women not in computers fact is BS cuz the field was considered nerdy and uncool until shows like Big Bang Theory made it cool!” said yet another. 

The unfortunate reality facing many women in tech today is that, when they publicly address the gender gap in their field, they receive dozens of comments online that not only deny the reasons for the gender gap, but also, together, likely contribute to the gender gap. Nobody wants to work in a field where they aren't taken seriously, but that's what is happening. 

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Cooper about the gender gap in technology, what she did with the negative comments she received, and what, if anything, could help make technology a more welcoming space for women. One easy lesson, she said:

"Guys... just don't hit on people at work. Just don't." 

Tune in today.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

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)

When did technology last excite you? 

If Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, is to be believed, your own excitement ended, simply had to end, after turning 35 years old. Decades ago, at first writing privately and later having those private writings published after his death, Adams had come up with "a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies." They were simple and short: 

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we explore why technology seemingly no longer excites us. It could be because every annual product release is now just an iterative improvement from the exact same product release the year prior. It could be because just a handful of companies now control innovation. It could even be because technology is now fatally entangled with the business of money-making, and so, with every one money-making idea, dozens of other companies flock to the same idea, giving us the same product, but with a different veneer—Snapchat recreated endlessly across the social media landscape, cable television subscriptions "disrupted" by so many streaming services that we recreate the same problem we had before. 

Or, it could be because, as was first brought up by Shannon Vallor, director of the Centre for Technomoral Futures in the Edinburgh Futures Institute, that the promise of technology is not what it once was, or at least, not what we once thought it was. As Vallor wrote on Twitter in August of this year: 

"There’s no longer anything being promised to us by tech companies that we actually need or asked for. Just more monitoring, more nudging, more draining of our data, our time, our joy."

For our first episode of Lock and Code in 2023—and our first episode of our fourth season (how time flies)—we bring back Malwarebytes Labs editor-in-chief Anna Brading and Malwarebytes Labs writer Mark Stockley to ask: Why does technology no longer excite them? 

Tune in today. 

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

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)

On June 7, 2021, the US Department of Justice announced a breakthrough: Less than one month after the oil and gas pipeline company Colonial Pipeline had paid its ransomware attackers roughly $4.4 million in bitcoin in exchange for a decryption key that would help the company get its systems back up and running, the government had in turn found where many of those bitcoins had gone, clawing back a remarkable $2.3 million from the cybercriminals.

In cybercrime, this isn't supposed to happen—or at least it wasn't, until recently. 

Cryptocurrency is vital to modern cybercrime. Every recent story you hear about a major ransomware attack involves the implicit demand from attackers to their victims for a payment made in cryptocurrency—and, almost always, the preferred cryptocurrency is bitcoin. In 2019, the ransomware negotiation and recovery company Coveware revealed that a full 98 percent of ransomware payments were made using bitcoin.

Why is that? Well, partly because, for years, bitcoin received an inflated reputation for being truly "anonymous," as payments to specific "bitcoin addresses" could not, seemingly, be attached to specific persons behind those addresses. But cryptocurrency has matured. Major cryptocurrency exchanges do not want their platforms to be used to exchange stolen funds into local currencies for criminals, so they, in turn, work with law enforcement agencies that have, independently, gained a great deal of experience in understanding cybercrime. Improving the rate and quality of investigations has also been the advancement of technology that actually tracks cryptocurrency payments online. 

All of these development don't necessarily mean that cybercriminals' identities can be easily revealed. But as Brian Carter, senior cybercrimes specialist for Chainalysis, explains on today's episode, it has become easier for investigators to know who is receiving payments, where they're moving it to, and even how their criminal organizations are set up.

"We will plot a graph, like a link graph, that shows [a victim's] payment to the address provided by ransomware criminals, and then that payment will split among the members of the crew, and then those payments will end up going eventually to a place where it'll be cashed out for something that they can use on their local economy."

Tune in to today's Lock and Code podcast, with host David Ruiz, to learn about the world of cryptocurrency forensics, what investigators are looking for in reams of data, how they find it, and why it’s so hard. 

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

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)

Decades ago, patching was, to lean into a corny joke, a bit patchy. 

In the late 90s, the Microsoft operating system (OS) Windows 98 had a supportive piece of software that would find security patches for the OS so that users could then download those patches and deploy them to their computers. That software was simply called Windows Update. 

But Windows Update had two big problems. One, it had to be installed by a user—if a user was unaware of Windows Update, then they were also likely unaware of the patches that should be deployed to Windows. Two, Windows Update did not scale well because corporations that were running hundreds of instances of Windows had to install every update and they had to uninstall any patches issued by Microsoft that may have broken existing functionality.

That time-sink proved to be a real obstacle for systems administrators because, back in the late 90s, patches weren't scheduled. They came when they were needed, and that could be whenever Microsoft learned about a vulnerability that needed to be addressed. Without a schedule, companies were left to react to patches, rather than plan for them. 

So, from the late 90s to the early 2000s, Microsoft standardized its patching process. Patches would be released on the second Tuesday of each month. In 2003, Microsoft formalized this process with Patch Tuesday. 

Around the same time, the United States National Infrastructure Advisory Council began researching a way to communicate the severity of discovered software vulnerabilities. What they came up with in 2005 was the Common Vulnerability Scoring System, or CVSS. CVSS, which is still used today, is a formula that people rely on to assign a score from 1 to 10, 10 being the highest, to determine the severity of a vulnerability.

Patch Tuesday and CVSS are good examples of what happens when people come together to fix a problem with patching. 

But as we discuss in today's episode of the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, patches—both in effectiveness and education—are backsliding. Companies are becoming more tight-lipped about what their patches do, leaving businesses in the dark about what a patch addresses and whether it is actually critical to their own systems. 

Our guest Dustin Childs, head of threat awareness for Trend Micro Zero Day Initiative (ZDI), explains the consequences of such an ecosystem. 

"If you're not getting the right information about a vulnerability or a group of vulnerabilities, you might spend your resources elsewhere and that vulnerability that you didn't think was important becomes very important to you, or you're spending all of your time and, and energy on."

Tune in today. 

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)

A cyberattack is not the same thing as malware—in fact, malware itself is typically the last stage of an attack, the punctuation mark that closes out months of work from cybercriminals who have infiltrated a company, learned about its systems and controls, and slowly spread across its network through various tools, some of which are installed on a device entirely by default. 

The goal of cybersecurity, though, isn't to recover after an attack, it's to stop an attack before it happens. 

On today's episode of the Lock and Code with host David Ruiz, we speak to two experts at Malwarebytes about how they've personally discovered and stopped attacks in the past and why many small- and medium-sized businesses should rely on a newer service called Managed Detection and Response for protecting their own systems. 

Many organizations today will already be familiar with the tool called Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), the de facto cybersecurity tool that nearly every vendor makes that lets security teams watch over their many endpoints and respond if the software detects a problem. But the mass availability of EDR does not mean that cybersecurity itself is always within arm's reach. Countless organizations today are so overwhelmed with day-to-day IT issues that monitoring cybersecurity can be difficult. The expertise can be lacking at a small company. The knowledge of how to configure an EDR tool to flag the right types of warning signs can be missing. And the time to adequately monitor an EDR tool can be in short supply.

This is where Managed Detection and Response—MDR—comes in. More a service than a specific tool, MDR is a way for companies to rely on a team of experienced analysts to find and protect against cyberattacks before they happen. The power behind MDR services are its threat hunters, people who have prevented ransomware from being triggered, who have investigated attackers’ moves across a network, who have pulled the brakes on a botnet infection.

These threat hunters can pore over log files and uncover, for instance, a brute force attack against a remote desktop protocol port, or they can recognize a pattern of unfamiliar activity coming from a single account that has perhaps been compromised, or they can spot a ransomware attack in real time, before it has launched, even creating a new rule to block an entirely new ransomware variant before it has been spotted in the wild. Most importantly, these threat hunters can do what software cannot, explained Matt Sherman, senior manager of MDR delivery services. They can stop the people behind an attack, not just the malware those people are deploying. 

"Software stops software, people stop people."

Today, we speak with Sherman and MDR lead analyst AnnMarie Nayiga about how they find attacks, what attacks they've stopped in the past, why MDR offers so many benefits to SMBs, and what makes for a good threat hunter.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

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)

Last month, when Malwarebytes published joint research with 1Password about the online habits of parents and teenagers today, we spoke with a Bay Area high school graduate on the Lock and Code podcast about how she spends her days online and what she thinks are the hardest parts about growing up with the Internet. And while we learned a lot in that episode—about time management, about comparing one's self to others, and about what gets lost when kids swap in-person time with online time—we didn't touch on an increasingly concerning issue affecting millions of children and teenagers today: Student surveillance.

Nailing down the numbers on the use of surveillance technologies in schools today is nearly impossible, as the types and the capabilities of student surveillance software are many. 

There’s the surveillance of students’ messages to one another in things like emails or chats. There’s the surveillance of their public posts, on platforms like Twitter or Instagram. There are even tools that claim they can integrate directly with Google products, like Google Docs, to try to scan for worrying language about self-harm, or harm towards others, or drug use. There's also surveillance that requires hardware. Facial recognition technology, paired with high-resolution cameras, is often sold with the promise that it can screen school staff and visitors when they approach a building. Some products even claim to detect emotion in a person’s face. Other software, when paired with microphones that are placed within classrooms, claims to detect “aggression.” A shout or a yelp or a belting of anger would, in theory, trigger a warning from these types of monitoring applications, maybe alerting a school administrator to a problem as it is happening.

All of these tools count when we talk about student surveillance, and, at least from what has been publicly reported, many forms are growing. 

In 2021, the Center for Democracy and Technology surveyed teachers in K through 12 schools and simply asked if their schools used monitoring software: 81 percent said yes. 

With numbers like that, it'd be normal to assume that these tools also work. But a wealth of investigative reporting—upon which today's episode is based—reveals that these tools often vastly over-promise their own results. If those promises only concerned, say, drug use, or bullying, or students ditching classes, these failures would already cause concern. But as we explore in today’s episode, too many of schools buy and use this software because they think it will help solve a uniquely American problem: School shootings.

Today’s episode does not contain any graphic depictions of school shootings, but it does discuss details and the topic itself.

Sources:

School Surveillance Zone, The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Student Activity Monitoring Software Research Insights and Recommendations, Center for Democracy and Technology With Safety in Mind, Schools Turn to Facial Recognition Technology. But at What Cost?,  EdSurge RealNetworks Provides SAFR Facial Recognition Solution for Free to Every K-12 School in the U.S. and Canada, RealNetworks Under digital surveillance: how American schools spy on millions of kids, The Guardian Facial recognition in schools: Even supporters say it won't stop shootings, CNET Aggression Detectors: The Unproven, Invasive Surveillance Technology Schools Are Using to Monitor Students, ProPublica Why Expensive Social Media Monitoring Has Failed to Protect Schools, Slate Tracked: How colleges use AI to monitor student protests, The Dallas Morning News Demonstrations and Protests: Using Social Media to Gather Intelligence and Respond to Campus Crowds, Social Sentinel New N.C. A&T committee will address sexual assault, Winston-Salem Journal BYU students hold ‘I Can’t Breathe’ protest on campus, Daily Herald Thrown bagels during MSU celebration lead to arrests, Detroit Free Press

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)

A thief has been stalking London. 

This past summer, multiple women reported similar crimes to the police: While working out at their local gyms, someone snuck into the locker rooms, busted open their locks, stole their rucksacks and gym bags, and then, within hours, purchased thousands of pounds of goods. Apple, Selfridges, Balenciaga, Harrod's—the thief has expensive taste. 

At first blush, the crimes sound easy to explain: A thief stole credit cards and used them in person at various stores before they could be caught. 

But for at least one victim, the story is more complex.  

In August, Charlotte Morgan had her bag stolen during an evening workout at her local gym in Chiswick. The same pattern of high-price spending followed—the thief spent nearly £3,000 at an Apple store in West London, another £1,000 at a separate Apple store, and then almost £700 at Selfridges. But upon learning just how much the thief had spent, Morgan realized something was wrong: She didn't have that much money in her primary account. To access all of her funds, the thief would have needed to make a transfer out of her savings account, which would have required the use of her PIN. 

"[My PIN is] not something they could guess... So I thought 'That's impossible,'" Morgan told the Lock and Code podcast. But, after several calls with her bank and in discussions with some cybersecurity experts, she realized there could be a serious flaw with her online banking app. "But the bank... what they failed to mention is that every customer's PIN can actually be viewed on the banking app once you logged in."

Today on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Charlotte Morgan about what happened this past summer in London, what she did as she learned about the increasing theft of her funds, and how one person could so easily abuse her information. 

Tune in today to also learn about what you can do to help protect yourself from this type of crime. 

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)

Growing up is different for teens today. 

Issues with identity, self-expression, bullying, fitting in, and trusting your friends and family—while all those certainly existed decades ago, they were never magnified in quite the same way that they are today, and that's largely because of one enormous difference: The Internet. 

On the Internet, the lines of friendship are re-enforced and blurred by comments or likes on photos and videos. Bullying can reach outside of schools, in harmful texts or messages posted online. Entirely normal feelings of isolation can be negatively preyed upon in online forums where users almost radicalize one another by sharing anti-social theories and beliefs. And the opportunity to compare one’s self against another—another who is taller, or thinner, or a different color, or who lives somewhere else or has more friends—never goes away. 

The Internet is forever present for our youngest generation, and, from what we know, it’s hurting a lot of them. 

In 2021, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveyed nearly 8,000 high school students in the country and found that children today were sadder, more hopeless, and more likely to have contemplated suicide than just 12 years prior.

Despite the concerns, we still thrust children into the Internet today, either to complete a homework assignment, or to create an email account to register for other online accounts, or to simply talk with their friends. We also repeatedly post photos of them online, often without discussing whether they want that. 

In today's episode of Lock and Code with host David Ruiz, we speak to two guests so that we can better understand what it is like to grow up online today and what the challenges are of raising children in this same environment now. 

Our first guest, Nitya Sharma, is a Bay Area teenager who speaks with us about the difficulties of managing her time online and in trying to meet friends and complete homework, the traps of trading online interaction with in-person socializing, and what she would do differently with her children, if she ever started a family, in preparing them for the Internet.

"I think the things that kids find on the Internet, they're going to find anyways. I probably found some stuff too young and it was bad... I think it's more of, I don't want them to become dependent on it."

But our episode doesn't end there, as we also bring in 1Password co-founder Sara Teare to discuss how parents can help their kids navigate the Internet today and in the future. Teare's keenly attuned to this subject, not only because she is a parent, but also because her company has partnered with Malwarebytes to release new reserach this week—available October 13—on growing up and raising kids online. 

Tune in today to hear both Nitya's stories and Sara's advice on growing up and raising children online. 

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)

Ransomware can send any company into crisis. 

Immediately following an attack, the notoriously disruptive malware can spread across networks and machines, locking up important files and rendering vital data almost useless for all employees. As we learned in a previous episode of Lock and Code, a ransomware attack not only threatens an organization's clients and external customers, but all the internal teams who are just trying to do their jobs. When Northshore School District was hit several years ago by ransomware, teacher and staff pay were threatened, and children's school lunches needed to be reworked because the payment system had been wiped out.

These threats are not new. If anything, the potential damage and fallout of a ransomware attack is more publicly known than ever before, which might explain why a new form of ransomware response has emerged in the past year—the ransomware negotiator.

Increasingly, companies are seeking the help of ransomware negotiators to handle their response to a ransomware attack. The negotiator, or negotiators, can work closely with a company's executives, security staff, legal department, and press handlers to accurately and firmly represent the company's needs during a ransomware attack. Does the company refuse to pay the ransom because of policy? The ransomware negotiator can help communicate that. Is the company open to paying, but not the full amount demanded? The negotiator can help there, too. What if the company wants to delay the attackers, hoping to gain some much-needed time to rebuild systems? The negotiator will help there, too. 

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Kurtis Minder, CEO of the cyber reconnaissance company GroupSense about the intricate work of ransomware negotiation. Minder himself has helped clients with ransomware negotiation and his company has worked to formalize ransomware negotiation training. In his experience, Minder has also learned that the current debate over whether companies should pay the ransom has too few options. For a lot of small and medium-sized businesses, the question isn't an ideological one, but an existential one: Pay the ransom or go out of business.

"What you don't hear about is the thousands and thousands of small businesses in middle America, main street America—they get hit... they're either going to pay a ransom or they're going to go out of business."

Tune in today to listen to Minder discuss how a company decides to engage a ransomware negotiator, what a ransomware negotiator's experience and background consist of, and what the actual work of ransomware negotiation involves.

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)

The in-person cybersecurity conference has returned.

More than two years after Covid-19 pushed nearly every in-person event online, cybersecurity has returned to the exhibition hall. In San Francisco earlier this year, thousands of cybersecurity professionals walked the halls of Moscone Center at RSA 2022. In Las Vegas just last month, even more hackers, security experts, and tech enthusiasts flooded the Mandalay Bay hotel, attending the conferences Black Hat and DEFCON. 

And at nearly all of these conferences—and many more to come—cybersecurity vendors are setting up shop to show off their latest, greatest, you-won't-believe-we've-made-this product. 

The dizzying array of product names, features, and promises can overwhelm even the most veteran security professional, but for one specific group of attendee, sorting the value from the verve is all part of the job description. 

We're talking today about managed service providers, or MSPs. 

MSPs are the tech support and cybersecurity backbone for so many small businesses. Dentists, mom-and-pop restaurants, bakeries, small markets, local newspapers, clothing stores, bed and breakfasts off the side of the road—all of these businesses need tech support because nearly everything they do, from processing credit card fees to storing patient information to managing room reservations, all of that, has a technical component to it today.

These businesses, unlike major corporations, rarely have the budget to hire a full-time staff member to provide tech support, so, instead, they rely on a managed service provider to be that support when needed. And so much of tech support today isn't just setting up new employee devices or solving a website issue. Instead, it's increasingly about providing cybersecurity. 

What that means, then, is that wading through the an onslaught of marketing speak at the latest cybersecurity conference is actually the responsibility of some MSPs. They have to decipher what tech tools will work not just for their own employees, but for the dozens if not hundreds of clients they support. 

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with two experts at Malwarebytes about how MSPs can go about staying up to date on the latest technology while also vetting the vendors behind it. As our guests Eddie Phillips, strategic account manager, and Nadia Karatsoreos, senior MSP growth strategist, explain, the work of an MSP isn't just to select the right tools, but to review whether the makers behind those tools are the right partners both for the MSP and its clients. 

In 1993, the video game developers at id Software released Doom, a first-person shooter that placed a nameless protagonist into the fiery depths of hell, equipped with an arsenal of weapons to mow down imps, demons, lost souls, and the intimidating "Barons of Hell." 

In 2022, the hacker Sick Codes installed a modified version of Doom on the smart control panel of a John Deere tractor, with the video game's nameless protagonist this time mowing down something entirely more apt for the situation: Corn.

At DEFCON 30, Sick Codes presented his work to an audience of onlookers at the conference's main stage. His efforts to run the modified version of Doom, which are discussed in today's episode of Lock and Code with host David Ruiz, are not just good for a laugh, though. For one specific community, the work represents a possible, important step forward in their own fight—the fight for the "right to repair." 

"Right to Repair" enthusiasts want to be able to easily repair the things they own. It sounds like a simple ask, but when’s the last time you repaired your own iPhone? When’s the last time you were even able to replace the battery yourself on your smartphone?

The right to repair your equipment, without intervention from an authorized dealer, is hugely important to some farmers. If their tractor breaks down because of a software issue, they don’t want to wait around for someone to have to physically visit their site to fix it. They want to be able to fix it then and there and get on with their work.

So, when a hacker shows off that he was able to do something that wasn’t thought possible on a device that can be notoriously difficult to self-repair, it garners attention.  

Today, we speak with Sick Codes about his most recent work on a John Deere tractor, and how his work represents a follow-up to what he a group of researchers showed last year, when he revealed how he was able to glean an enormous amount of information about John Deere smart tractor owners from John Deere's data operations center. This time around, as Sick Codes explained, the work was less about tinkering around on a laptop and more about getting physical with a few control panels that he found online. 

“It’s kind of like surgery but for metallic objects, if that makes sense. Non-organic material.”

Tune in today to listen to Sick Codes discuss his work, why he did what he did, and how John Deere has reacted to his research. 

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)

When Mike Miller was hired by a client to run a penetration test on one of their offices, he knew exactly where to start: Krispy Kreme. Equipped with five dozen donuts (the boxes stacked just high enough to partially obscure his face, Miller said), Miller walked briskly into a side-door of his client's offices, tailing another employee and asking them to hold the door open. Once inside, he cheerfully asked where the break room was located, dropped off the donuts, and made small talk.

Then he went to work.

By hard-wiring his laptop into the company's Internet, Miller's machine received an IP address and, immediately after, he got online. Once connected, Miller ran a few scanners that helped him take a rough inventory of the company's online devices. He could see the systems, ports, and services running on the network, and gained visibility into the servers, the work stations, even the printers. Miller also ran a vulnerability scanner to see what vulnerabilities the network contained, and, after a little probing, he learned of an easy way to access the physical printers, even peering into print histories. 

Miller's work as a penetration tester means he is routinely hired by clients to do this exact type of work—to test the security of their own systems, from their physical offices to their online networks. And while his covert work doesn't always go like this, he said that it isn't uncommon for companies to allow basic flaws. Even when he shared his story on LinkedIn, several people doubted his story. 

"It’s crazy because so many people say ‘Well, there’s no way you could’ve just plugged in.’ Well, you’re right, I should not have been able to do that,” Miller said.

Today, on Lock and Code with host David Ruiz, we speak with Miller about common problems he's seen in his work as a pen-tester, how companies can empower their employees to provide better security, and what the relationship is between physical security and cybersecurity. 

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)

At the end of 2021, Lock and Code invited the folks behind our news-driven cybersecurity and online privacy blog, Malwarebytes Labs, to discuss what upset them most about cybersecurity in the year prior. Today, we’re bringing those same guests back to discuss the other, biggest topic in this space and on this show: Data privacy.

You see, in 2021, a lot has happened.

Most recently, with the US Supreme Court’s decision to remove the national right to choose to have an abortion, individual states have now gained control to ban abortion, which has caused countless individuals to worry about whether their data could be handed over to law enforcement for investigations into alleged criminal activity. Just months prior, we also learned about a mental health nonprofit that had taken the chat messages of at-times suicidal teenagers and then fed those messages to a separate customer support tool that was being sold to corporate customers to raise money for the nonprofit itself. And we learned about how difficult it can be to separate yourself from Google’s all-encompassing, data-tracking empire.

None of this is to mention more recent, separate developments: Facebook finding a way to re-introduce URL tracking, facial recognition cameras being installed in grocery stores, and Google delaying its scheduled plan to remove cookie tracking from Chrome.

Today, on Lock and Code with host David Ruiz, we speak with Malwarebytes Labs editor-in-chief Anna Brading and Malwarebytes Labs writer Mark Stockley to answer one, big question: Have we lost the fight to meaningfully preserve data privacy?

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)

On June 24, that Constitutional right to choose to have an abortion was removed by the Supreme Court, and immediately, this legal story became one of data privacy. Today, countless individuals ask themselves: What surrounding activity is allowed?

Should Google be used to find abortion providers out of state? Can people write on Facebook or Instagram that they will pay for people to travel to their own states, where abortion is protected? Should people continue texting friends about their thoughts on abortion? Should they continue to use a period-tracking app? Should they switch to a different app that is now promising to technologically protect their data from legal requests? Should they clamp down on all their data? What should they do?

On this episode of the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with two experts on this intersection of data privacy and legal turmoil—Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Saira Hussain and senior staff technologist Cooper Quintin.

As Quintin explains in the podcast, while much of the focus has recently been on the use of period-tracking apps, there are so many other forms of data out there that people should protect:

"Period-tracking apps aren’t the only apps that are problematic. The fact is that the majority of apps are harvesting data about you. Location data, data that you put into the apps, personal data. And that data is being fed to data brokers, to people who sell location data, to advertisers, to analytics companies, and we’re building these giant warehouses of data that could eventually be trawled through by law enforcement for dragnet searches."

By spotlighting how benign data points—including shopping habits and locations—have already been used to reveal pregnancies and miscarriages and to potentially identify abortion-seekers, our guests explain what data could now be of interest to law enforcement, and how people at home can keep their decisions private and secure.

Show notes and credits:

Intro Music: “SCP-x5x (Outer Thoughts)” 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)

When Lock and Code host David Ruiz talks to hackers—especially good-faith hackers who want to dutifully report any vulnerabilities they uncover in their day-to-day work—he often hears about one specific law in hushed tones of fear: the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or CFAA, is a decades-old hacking law in the United States whose reputation in the hacker community is dim. To hear hackers tell it, the CFAA is responsible not only for equipping law enforcement to imprison good-faith hackers, but it also for many of the legal threats that hackers face from big companies that want to squash their research.

The fears are not entirely unfounded.

In 2017, a security researcher named Kevin Finisterre discovered that he could access sensitive information about the Chinese drone manufacturer DJI by utilizing data that the company had inadvertently left public on GitHub. Conducting research within rules set forth by DJI's recently announced bug bounty program, Finisterre took his findings directly to the drone maker. But, after informing DJI about the issues he found, he was faced not with a bug bounty reward, but with a lawsuit threat alleging that he violated the CFAA.

Though DJI dropped its interest, as Harley Geiger, senior director for public policy at Rapid7, explained on today's episode of Lock and Code, even the threat itself can destabilize a security researcher.

"[It] is really indicative of how questions of authorization can be unclear and how CFAA threats can be thrown about when researchers don’t play ball, and the pressure that a large company like that can bring to bear on an independent researcher," Geiger said.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast, we speak with Geiger about other hacking laws can be violated when conducting security researcher, how hackers can document their good-faith intentions, and the Department of Justice's recent decision to not prosecute hackers who are only hacking for the benefits of security.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

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)

At the start of the global coronavirus pandemic, nearly everyone was forced to learn about the "supply chain." Immediate stockpiling by an alarmed (and from a smaller share, opportunistic) public led to an almost overnight disappearance of hand sanitizer, bottled water, toilet paper, and face masks.

In time, those items returned to stores. But then a big ship got stuck in the Suez, and once again, we learned even more about the vulnerability of supply chains. They can handle little stress. They can be derailed with one major accident. They spread farther than we know.

While the calamity in the canal involved many lessons, there was another story in late 2020 that required careful study in cyberspace—an attack on the digital supply chain.

That year, attackers breached a network management tool called Orion, which is developed by the Texas-based company SolarWinds. Months before the attack was caught, the attackers swapped malicious code into a legitimately produced security update from SolarWinds. This malicious code gave the attackers a backdoor into every Orion customer who both downloaded and deployed the update and who had their servers connected online. Though the initial number of customers who downloaded the update was about 18,000 companies, the number of customers infected with the attackers’ malware was far lower, somewhere around 100 companies and about a dozen government agencies.

This attack, which did involve a breach of a company, had a broader focus—the many, many clients of that one company. This was an attack on the software supply chain, and since that major event, similar attacks have happened again and again.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Kim Lewandowski, founder and head of product at Chainguard, about the software supply chain, its vulnerabilities, and how we can fix it.

Kubernetes diagram:

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/622577/170547400-ef9e2ef8-e35b-46df-adee-057cbce847d1.svg

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)

Tor, which stands for "The Onion Router," has a storied reputation in the world of online privacy, but on today's episode of Lock and Code with host David Ruiz, we speak with security researcher Alec Muffett about the often-undiscussed security benefits of so-called "onion networking." 

The value proposition to organizations interested in using Tor goes beyond just anonymity, Muffett explains, and its a value prop that has at least persuaded the engineers at Facebook, Twitter, The New York Times, Buzzfeed, The Intercept, and The Guardian to build onion versions of their sites. 

Tune in to hear about the security benefits of onion networking, why an organization would want to launch an onion site for its service, and whether every site in the future should utilize Tor.

Show notes and credits:

Why and How you should start using Onion Networking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pebRZyg_bh8

How WhatsApp uses metadata analysis for spam and abuse fighting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBTOKlrhKXk

Alec Muffett's blog and about page: https://alecmuffett.com/about

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)

Last year, Whitney Merrill wanted to know just how much information the company Clubhouse had on her, even though she wasn't a user. After many weeks of, at first, non-responses, she learned that her phone number had been shared with Clubhouse more than 80 times—the byproduct of her friends joining the platform.  Today on Lock and Code with host David Ruiz, we speak with Merrill about why hunting down your data can be so difficult today, even though some regions have laws that specifically allow for this. We also talk about the future of data privacy and whether "data localization" will make things easier, or if it will add another layer of geopolitics to growing surveillance operations around the world. 

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: “God God” by Wowa (unminus.com)

Earlier this year, a flashy documentary premiered on Netflix that shed light onto on often-ignored cybercrime—a romance scam. In this documentary, called The Tinder Swindler, the central scam artist relied on modern technologies, like Tinder, and he employed an entire team, which included actors posing as his bodyguard and potentially even his separated wife. After months of getting close to several women, the scam artist pounced, asking for money because he was supposedly in danger. 

The public response to the documentary was muddy. Some viewers felt for the victims featured by the filmmakers, but others blamed them. This tendency to blame the victims is nothing new, but according to our guest Cindy Liebes, Chief Cybersecurity Evangelist for Cybercrime Support Network, it's all wrong. That's because, as we discuss in today's episode on Lock and Code with host David Ruiz, these scam artists are professional criminals.  Today, we speak with Liebes to understand how romance scams work, who the victims are, who the criminals are, what the financial and emotional damages are, and how people can find help. 

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: “God God” by Wowa (unminus.com)

Every few months, a basic but damaging flaw is revealed in a common piece of software, or a common tool used in many types of programs, and the public will be left asking: What is going on with how our applications are developed?

Today on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak to returning guest Tanya Janca to understand the many stages of software development and how security trainers can better work with developers to build safe, secure products.

Data protection, believe it or not, is not synonymous with privacy, or even data privacy. But around the world, countless members of the public often innocently misconstrue these three topics with one another, swapping the terms and the concepts behind them. 

Typically, that wouldn't be a problem—not every person needs to know the minute details of every data-related concept, law, and practice. But when the public is unaware of its rights under data protection, it might be unaware of how to assert those rights.  Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Gabriela Zanfir-Fortuna, the vice president for global privacy at Future of Privacy Forum, to finally clear up the air on these related topics, and to understand how US law differs from EU law, even though the US helped lead the way on data protection proposals all the way back in 1973. 

In 2017, a former NSA contractor was arrested for allegedly leaking an internal report to the online news outlet The Intercept. To verify the report itself, a journalist for The Intercept sent an image of the report to the NSA, but upon further inspection, it was revealed that the image was actually a scan of a physical document. 

This difference—between an entirely digital, perhaps only-emailed document, and a physical piece of paper—spurred several suspicions that the news outlet had played an unintended role in identifying the NSA contractor to her employer, because the NSA did not have to find people who merely accessed the report, but only people who had printed it. 

This is what journalism can look like in the modern age. There are countless digital traces left behind that can puncture the safety and security of both journalists and their sources.  Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with security researcher Runa Sandvik about how she helps reporters tell important stories securely and privately amongst many digital threats. 

Three years ago, a journalist for Gizmodo removed five of the biggest tech companies from her life—restricting her from using services and hardware developed or owned by Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft. The experiment, according to the reporter, was "hell." 

But in 2022, cybersecurity evangelist Carey Parker, who also hosts the podcast Firewalls Don't Stop Dragons, wanted to do something similar, just on a smaller scale, and with a focus on privacy. Today, on Lock and Code with host David Ruiz, we speak with Parker about lessening his own interactions with one of the biggest tech companies around: Google. Tune in to hear about privacy-preserving alternatives and unforeseen obstacles in Parker's current de-Googlization effort. 

How would you feel if the words you wrote to someone while in a crisis—maybe you were suicidal, maybe you were newly homeless, maybe you were suffering from emotional abuse at home—were later used to train a customer support tool? 

Those emotions you might behaving right now were directed last month at Crisis Text Line, after the news outlet Politico reported that the nonprofit organization had been sharing anonymized conversational data with a for-profit venture that Crisis Text Line had itself spun off at an earlier date, in an attempt to one day boost the nonprofit's own funding. 

Today, on Lock and Code with host David Ruiz, we’re speaking with Courtney Brown, the former director of a suicide hotline network that was part of the broader National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, to help us understand data privacy principles for crisis support services and whether sharing this type of data is ever okay. 

Two years ago, the FBI reportedly purchased a copy of the world's most coveted spyware, a tool that can remotely and silently crack into Androids and iPhones without leaving a trace, spilling device contents onto a console possibly thousands of miles away, with little more effort than entering a phone number.

This tool is Pegasus, and, though the FBI claimed it never used the spyware in investigations, the use of Pegasus abroad has led to surveillance abuses the world over. 

On Lock and Code today, host David Ruiz provides an in-depth look at Pegasus: Who makes it, how much information can steal from mobile devices, how does it get onto those devices, and who has been provably harmed by its surveillance capabilities?

You've likely fallen for it before—a simulated test sent by your own company to determine whether its employees are vulnerable to one of the most pernicious online threats today: Phishing.

Those simulated phishing tests often come with a voluntary or mandatory training afterwards, with questions and lessons about what mistakes you made, right after you made them. 

But this extremely popular phishing defense practice might not work. In fact, it might make you worse at recognizing phishing attempts in the future.

That's what Daniele Lain and his fellow PhD candidates at the ETH Zurich university in Switzerland revealed in a recent 15-month study, which we discuss today on Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz.

In 2017, the largest ransomware attack ever recorded hit the world, infecting more than 230,000 computers across more than 150 countries in just 24 hours. And it could have been solved with a patch that was released nearly two months prior.

This was the WannaCry ransomware attack, and its final, economic impact—in ransoms paid but also in downtime and recovery efforts—has been estimated at about $4 billion. All of it could have been avoided if every organization running a vulnerable version of Windows 7 had patched that vulnerability, as Microsoft recommended. But that obviously didn't happen.

Why is that?

In today's episode of Lock and Code with host David Ruiz, we speak with cybersecurity professional Jess Dodson about why patching is so hard to get right for so many organizations, and what we could all do to better improve our patching duties.

We are only days into 2022, which means what better time for a 2021 retrospective? But rather than looking at the biggest cyberattacks of last year—which we already did—or the most surprising—like we did a couple of years ago—we wanted to offer something different for readers and listeners. 

On today's episode of Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz, we spoke with Malwarebytes Labs' editor-in-chief Anna Brading and Labs' writer Mark Stockley about what upset them the most about cybersecurity in 2021.

In August, the NFT for a cartoon rock sold for $1.3 million, and ever since then, much of the world has been asking: What the heck is going on?

On today's episode of Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz, we speak with Malwarebytes' Mark Stockley, TechCrunch's Lucas Matney, and Pilot 44's Mike Maizels about the basics of NFTs and the cryptocurrency-related technology behind them, the implied value of NFTs and why people are paying so much money for them, and the future of NFT's both within the art world and beyond it.

In 2021, the war for computer superiority has a clear winner, and it is the Macintosh, by Apple. The company's Pro laptops are finally, belatedly equipped with ports that have been standard in other computers for years. The company's beleaguered "butterfly" keyboard has seemingly been erased from history. And the base model of company's powerhouse desktop tower could set you back a hefty $6,000.

What's not to love?

On Lock and Code this week, we talk to Mac security expert Thomas Reed about why Macs are clearly the best... or are they?

Cyberstalking. Harassment. Stalkerware. Nonconsensual pornography, real and digitally altered. The Internet can be a particularly ugly place for women.

On Lock and Code this week, we ask why. Join a conversation with with Digitunity's Sue Krautbauer about what has gone wrong with the Internet, and what we can do to fix it. 

The cybersecurity basics should be just that—basic. Easy to do, agreed-upon, and adopted at a near 100 percent rate by companies and organizations everywhere, right?

You'd hope. But the reality is that basic cybersecurity blunders have led to easy-to-discover vulnerabilities in companies including John Deere, Clubhouse, and Kaseya VSA (which we've all talked about on this show), and at least for Kaseya VSA, those vulnerabilities led to one of the worst ransomware attacks in recent history.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with security professional and recovering Windows systems administrator Jess Dodson about why we seem to keep getting the cybersecurity basics so wrong, and why getting up to speed—which can take a company more than a year—is so necessary.

What does online privacy mean to you?

Maybe it's securing your online messages away from prying eyes. Maybe it's keeping your browsing behavior hidden from advertisers. Or maybe it's, like for many people today, using a VPN to hide your activity from your Internet Service Provider.

But because online privacy can mean so many things, that also means it includes so much more than just using a VPN.

Today, we speak to The Tor Project Executive Director Isabella Bagueros about what other types of online tracking users are vulnerable to, even if they're using a VPN, how else users can stay private online without becoming overwhelmed, and why users should be careful about trusting any one, single VPN.

On September 14, the US Department of Justice announced that it had resolved an earlier investigation into an international cyber hacking campaign coming from the United Arab Emirates, called Project Raven, that has reportedly impacted hundreds of journalists, activists, and human rights defenders in Yemen, Iran, Turkey, and Qatar. 

But in a bizarre twist, this tale of surveillance abroad tapered inwards into a tale of privacy at home, as one of the three men named by the DOJ is Daniel Gericke, the chief information officer at ExpressVPN.

Which, as it just so happens, is the preferred VPN vendor of our host David Ruiz, who, as it just so happens, has spent much of his career explicitly fighting against government surveillance. And he has some thoughts on the whole thing. 

Internet safety for kids is hard enough as it is, but what about Internet safety for children with special needs?

How do you teach strong password creation for children with learning disabilities? How do you teach children how to separate fact from fiction when they have a different grasp of social cues? And how do you make sure these lessons are not only remembered for years to come, but also rewarding for the children themselves?

Today on Lock and Code, we speak with Alana Robinson, a special education technology and computer science teacher for K – 8, about cybersecurity trainings for children with special needs, and about how, for some lessons, her students are better at remembering the rules of online safety than some adults.

A recent spate of ransomware attacks have derailed major corporations, spurring a fuel shortage on the US East Coast, shuttering grocery stores in Sweden, and sending students home from grade schools. The solution, so many cybersecurity experts say, is to implement backups.

But if backups are so useful, why aren't they visibly working? Companies with backups have found them misconfigured, or they've ended up paying a ransom anyways.

On Lock and Code this week, we speak with VMware technical account manager Matt Crape about backups, a complex defense to ransomware.

No one ever wants a group of hackers to say about their company: “We had the keys to the kingdom.”

But that’s exactly what the hacker Sick Codes said on this week’s episode of Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz, when talking about his and fellow hackers’ efforts to peer into John Deere’s data operations center, where the company receives a near-endless stream of data from its Internet-connected tractors, combines, and other smart farming equipment.

When Luta Security CEO and founder Katie Moussouris analyzed the popular social "listening" app Clubhouse, she found a way to eavesdrop on conversations without notifying other users. This was, Moussouris said, a serious and basic flaw, so, using her years of expertise, she documented the vulnerability and emailed some information to the company.  Her emails went unanswered for weeks.  Today, on Lock and Code with host David Ruiz, we speak to Moussouris about Clubhouse, vulnerability disclosure, and the imperfect implementations of "bug bounty" programs. 

The 2021 attacks on two water treatment facilities in the US—combined with ransomware attacks on an oil and gas supplier and a meat and poultry distributor—could lead most people to believe that a critical infrastructure “big one” is coming.

But, as Lesley Carhart, principal threat hunter with Dragos, tells us, the chances of such an event are remarkably slim. In fact, critical infrastructure’s regular disaster planning often leads to practices that can detect, limit, or prevent any wide-reaching cyberattack.

On April 1, a volunteer researcher for the Dutch Institute for Vulnerability Disclosure (DIVD) began poking around into Kaseya VSA, a popular software tool used to remotely manage and monitor computers. Within minutes, he found a zero-day vulnerability that allowed remote code execution—a serious flaw. Within weeks, his team had found seven or eight more.  In today's episode, DIVD Chair Victor Gevers describes the race to prevent one of the most devastating ransomware attacks in recent history. It's a race that Gevers and his team almost won. Almost.

At 11:37 pm on the night of September 20, 2019, cybercriminals launched a ransomware attack against Northshore School District in Washington state. Early the next morning, Northshore systems administrator Ski Kacoroski arrived on scene. As Kacoroski soon found out, he and his team were on a race against time—the ransomware actively spreading across servers holding data necessary for day-to-day operations. And importantly, in just four days, the school district needed—by law—to pay its staff. That was now at risk.

Today, we speak to Kacoroski about the immediate reaction, the planned response, and the eventual recovery from a ransomware attack. Tune in to hear Kacoroski's story—and any lessons learned—on the latest episode of Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz.

Ransomware attacks are on a different scale this year, with major attacks not just dismantling the business and management of Colonial Pipeline in the US, the Health Service Executive in Ireland, and the meatpacker JBS in Australia, but also disrupting people's access to gasoline, healthcare, COVID-19 vaccinations, and more.

So, what is it going to take to stop these attacks? Brian Honan, CEO of BH Consulting, said that the process will be long and complex, but the end goal in sight should be simple: Put the cybercriminals responsible for these attacks behind bars.

Tune in to learn about how ransomware can dismantle a business, what governments are doing to fight back, and why we need better cooperation within private industry, on the latest episode of Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz.

In 2016, a mid-20s man began an intense, prolonged harassment campaign against his new roommate. He emailed her from spoofed email accounts. He texted her and referenced sensitive information that was only stored in a private, online journal. He created new Instagram accounts, he repeatedly made friend requests through Facebook to her friends and family, he even started making bomb threats. And though he tried to sometimes mask his online activity, two of the VPNs he used while registering a fake account eventually gave his information to the FBI.

This record-keeping practice, known as VPN logging, is frowned upon in the industry. And yet, it helped lead to the capture of a dangerous criminal.

Can two VPN "wrongs" make a right? Find out today on Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz.

This week on Lock and Code, we speak to cybersecurity advocate and author Carey Parker about "dark patterns," which are subtle tricks online to get you to make choices that might actually harm you. Maybe you'll be bilked out a couple dollars, maybe you'll find it nearly impossible to unsubscribe out of that newsletter, or maybe you'll see yourself signing away some of your data privacy controls just so a company can keep making more money off you. 

Tune in to learn about dark patterns—how to spot them, what any future fixes might look like, and what one company is doing to support you—on the latest episode of Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz.

This week on Lock and Code, we speak to cybersecurity and privacy attorney Jake Bernstein about ransomware attacks that don't just derail a company's reputation and productivity, but also throw them into potential legal peril.

These are "double extortion" attacks, in which ransomware operators can hit the same target two times over—encrypting a victim's files and also threatening to publish sensitive data that was stolen in the attack. And in the US, whenever data is stolen and released, there are about 50 state laws that might dictate what a victim does next, and how quickly they do it. 

Tune in to learn about these ransomware attacks, what state laws get triggered, how new privacy laws affect legal compliance, and why Bernstein does not expect any federal legislation to standardize this process, on the latest episode of Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz.

This week on Lock and Code, we speak to Malwarebytes Chief Information Security Officer John Donovan about the flaws in using VirusTotal as the one source of truth when evaluating whether or not a cybersecurity tool actually works. It's a practice that is surprisingly common among small- to medium-sized businesses (SMBs). Tune in to learn about the smartest ways to test and implement endpoint protection into your SMB, and how to finally break free from the VirusTotal silo, on the latest episode of Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz.

This week on Lock and Code, we speak to Malwarebytes senior security researcher JP Taggart about the importance of trusting your VPN.

You've likely heard the benefits of using a VPN: You can watch TV shows restricted to certain countries, you can encrypt your web traffic on public WiFi networks, and, importantly, you can obscure your Internet activity from your Internet Service Provider, which may use that activity for advertising.

But obscuring your Internet activity—including the websites you visit, the searches you make, the files you download—doesn’t mean that a VPN magically disappears those things. It just means that the VPN itself gets to see that information instead.

Tune in to hear about what your VPN can see, why it is important for that information to be secured, and how you can safely transfer your trust to a VPN, on the latest episode of Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz. 

This week on Lock and Code, we tune in to a special presentation from Adam Kujawa about the 2021 State of Malware report, which analyzed the top cybercrime goals of 2020 amidst the global pandemic.

If you just pay attention to the numbers from last year, you might get the wrong idea. After all, malware detections for both consumers and businesses decreased in 2020 compared to 2019. That sounds like good news, but it wasn't. Behind those lowered numbers were more skillful, more precise attacks that derailed major corporations, hospitals, and schools with record-setting ransom demands.

You can read the full 2021 State of Malware report here, and you can follow along with everyday cybersecurity coverage from Malwarebytes Labs here. 

Every few years, after the public learns about an ugly, online harassment campaign, a familiar response shoots forth: Change the way we talk to one another online, either by changing the law, or changing the rules for how we identify ourselves online. But these "solutions" could actually bring more problems, particularly for vulnerable communities. Today, we speak to Electronic Frontier Foundation's Director of Cybersecurity Eva Galperin about how removing online anonymity could harm the safety of domestic abuse survivors, and why one decades-old law protects everyone online, and not just Big Tech.

On today's show, we discuss cybersecurity's public enemy number one: Emotet. This piece of malware started in 2014 as a simple banking Trojan, but it later evolved into a fully functional malware business, as its operators sold access to other threat actors and helped load separate malware for a price. The danger was real, but on January 27, Europol announced they'd taken Emotet down. Today, we talk to Malwarebytes security evangelist Adam Kujawa about Emotet's past, its takedown, and the power vacuum it leaves behind.

For Data Privacy Day this year, Lock and Code returns with a special episode featuring guests from Mozilla, DuckDuckGo, and EFF in a discussion on how to protect your online privacy.

We often learn about cybersecurity issues because of reporting. And as the years have progressed, the stories have only become more intertwined into our everyday lives.

Tune in to hear about the role of journalism in cybersecurity—like what makes a vulnerability newsworthy and what coverage helps readers most—on the latest episode of Lock and Code, with guests Seth Rosenblatt of The Parallax and Alfred Ng of CNET. 

A recent history of hacking shows the importance of experimentation. In 2015, security researchers hacked a Jeep Cherokee and took over its steering, transmission, and brakes. In 2019, researchers accessed medical scanning equipment to alter X-ray images, inserting fraudulent, visual signs of cancer in a hypothetical patient. Today, we're discussing one such experiment—a garage door opener called “Open Sesame.” Join us for a discussion with "Open Sesame"'s developer, who is also the chief security officer and co-founder of Open Path, Samy Kamkar, to hear about how his tool works, and who holds responsibility for protecting against modern attacks.

Last month, cybersecurity experts warned the public about the data collection embedded in the Donald Trump 2020 re-election campaign’s mobile app. Once downloaded, the app requests broad access to user information, including device contacts, rough location, device storage, ID, call information, Bluetooth pairing, and more. On today’s episode, we’re looking at just one of the apps’ requested permissions—Bluetooth. To help us better understand Bluetooth and beacon technology, how they are applied to online advertising, and whether apps that request access to Bluetooth functionality are a big concern, we’re talking today with Chris Boyd, lead malware intelligence analyst for Malwarebytes.

This week, we speak with Pieter Arntz, malware intelligence researcher at Malwarebytes, about web browser privacy. The often neglected subcategory of data privacy deserves a closer look. Without theproper restrictions, browsers can allow web trackers to follow you around the Internet, resulting in that curious ad seeming to find you from website to website. But, there are ways to fight back.

We talk to two representatives from an Atlanta-based managed service provider—a manager of engineering services and a data center architect whose last names we are protecting to avoid a sudden influx of threats to their business—about the daily challenges of managing thousands of nodes and about the future of the industry.

To help us understand RSA Conference’s theme “The Human Element,” and to dive deeper into how the conference itself takes shape, we’re talking today to our guest Britta Glade, Director of Content and Curation for RSA Conference.

Lock and Code is the flagship podcast from the cybersecurity experts at Malwarebytes. Hosted by online privacy advocate and senior threat content writer David Ruiz, Lock and Code not only offers listeners an update on recent cybersecurity news, but it also features in-depth conversations about technology, privacy, cybersecurity, and hacking.  Listen every other week as we talk to a variety of internal and external guests. We've featured Director of Malwarebytes Labs Adam Kujawa, 1Password Chief Operations Optimist Matt Davey, Mozilla Chief Security Officer Marshall Erwin, Open Path co-founder Samy Kamkar, cybersecurity journalists Alfred Ng and Seth Rosenblatt, and far more.  Stay tuned, and stay safe.