At Microsoft, we are committed to our customers’ fundamental right to privacy. In a world defined by rapid technological change and geopolitical volatility, this commitment has remained constant. It’s rooted in decades of experience building trusted technologies that our customers rely on every day to manage their data. Many of these organizations depend on the ability to move data across the Atlantic, from the EU to the U.S., in a way that protects their privacy. That’s why we support the European Commission in its defense of the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. And that’s why we have formally intervened in the Latombe v. Commission case before the Court of Justice of the European Union. This case puts at stake two principles that are important for Microsoft – the protection of our customers’ privacy and their ability to do business on both sides of the Atlantic.
To intervene in a case before the Court of Justice, a company must apply for permission. In this case, the Court granted our application, finding that Microsoft has a direct and existing interest in its result. Put simply, the outcome of this case will determine whether Microsoft and its enterprise customers may continue to use the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to transfer data to participating U.S. companies, including vital customers and suppliers. This critical legal bridge promotes stability, beneficial trans-Atlantic ties, economic growth, and prosperity, while upholding strong privacy safeguards. The Latombe case seeks to dismantle it. As an intervener, we can now file legal briefs in support of the European Commission, participate in oral hearings, and share our perspective on the importance of upholding a framework that directly benefits the European economy.
Supporting the European Commission’s adequacy decision on the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework before the Court of Justice of the European Union
Companies across the globe rely on data flows to manage their people, produce their goods and services, and distribute products to their customers. We understand that data flows trigger questions about differences in legal traditions. They should. And for that reason, the European Commission and the U.S. administration worked diligently, in the decade since the Safe Harbour ruling, to harmonize EU and U.S. law. As a result of that hard work, and as required under the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the U.S. has now created an independent review court for any complaints regarding U.S. surveillance and implemented other required measures to provide an “adequate” level of data protection that is essentially equivalent to that in the EU.
This equivalence is a key point. The law entitles our customers to privacy on both sides of the Atlantic. This is the principle on which the Data Privacy Framework rests. And our intervention in the Latombe case is just one part of a long history in which we have stood up for that principle in Europe, as well as in the U.S. As far back as 2014, Microsoft challenged the FBI’s secret attempt to use its national security authorities to obtain information about an account that belonged to one of our enterprise customers. After we filed the case, the FBI withdrew its request. In 2016, we sued the U.S. government to challenge its practice of seeking indefinite secrecy orders—i.e., orders that prevented Microsoft from ever notifying its enterprise customers when the government sought their data. As a result of that case, the U.S. Department of Justice changed its policy to place strict limits on the duration of secrecy orders. In the decade since that first constitutional challenge, we’ve launched a series of successful court challenges to ensure that secrecy orders, of any duration, are the exception, not the rule. As a result of our litigation, numerous secrecy orders have been vacated or modified to allow notification to our customers.
We don’t confine our advocacy to courts. We are a steadfast proponent of strong privacy regulation on both sides of the Atlantic. That’s why we are specifically pushing Congress to update the U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act to place stricter limits on the use of secrecy orders and ensuring they are subject to meaningful judicial review. This legislative reform is gaining momentum in Congress and will greatly enhance our continued ability to protect our customers’ data.
Stable and trusted data transfers are not an end in themselves. They are a means to enable innovation, economic opportunity, and public services—while upholding the fundamental rights that are at the core of EU and U.S. law. Our intervention in the Latombe case reflects that principled balance and follows a long line of legal actions we have taken to protect our customers.
Looking ahead
At Microsoft, we have long recognized that trust is not a given—it is earned through sustained action, thoughtful design, and a willingness to engage openly with governments, customers, and individuals. Microsoft has consistently advocated for strong, clear, and globally interoperable privacy frameworks, recognizing that trust in technology depends on the strength of the rules that govern it.
Our customers in Europe can rely on us to continuously improve and update our privacy practices as technology and legal standards evolve. In 2018, we were the first major technology company to extend GDPR subject matter rights to all our customers around the world. And recent positive assessments of our privacy compliance by the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Hessian DPA in Germany underscore our continuous commitment to our customers’ fundamental right to privacy.
In support of this work, we’ve updated the Microsoft Privacy Statement to use clearer structure, simplified language, and more precise explanations of our data practices—making it easier to understand what data we collect and how it’s used, without changing our underlying privacy protections or commitments.
The future of technology will be shaped not only by what we build, but by the principles that guide us. By grounding innovation in respect for people and organizations, and strong legal protections, we can help ensure that technology continues to be a force for good.
Meta’s smart glasses are once again at the center of a privacy debate due to face recognition.
WIRED reports that Meta had quietly embedded unreleased face-recognition code, internally called “NameTag,” into its Meta AI companion app, which powers the company’s smart glasses. The code was not active, but its presence in an app installed on more than 50 million devices raised immediate concerns about how quickly using smart glasses could slide into biometric surveillance.
Face recognition in glasses, even if disabled or unreleased, is especially sensitive because it can identify people at a distance, in real time, and without their consent. Many organizations have warned that this technology could be misused by stalkers, abusers, and others who want to identify people in public without drawing attention.
Gizmodo reports on a proposed Pennsylvania bill that would require smart glasses and similar wearable recording devices to include a visible indicator light when they are capturing audio or video. The bill would also prohibit users from disabling that indicator, a move clearly aimed at reducing covert recording in public spaces.
Most smart glasses already include such an indicator, but reporters noted that some users have been paying others to have them removed or disabled. The proposal is interesting because it tries to solve a hardware-level trust problem with a visible signal. But a visible light only helps if it is both mandatory and difficult to bypass, and history suggests that any visible privacy safeguard becomes a target for tampering when the incentives are high enough.
These two stories are really about the same issue: smart glasses are normalizing the use of always-on cameras, microphones, and AI features in a form that is much easier to conceal than a phone. That creates an unwanted privacy problem for people around the wearer.
Smart glasses are supposed to make computing more seamless. Instead, they are becoming a test case for what happens when cameras, microphones, AI, and biometric features are squeezed into everyday wearables before the privacy rules catch up.
From our point of view, smart glasses sit at the intersection of consumer privacy, surveillance tech, and potential abuse. The risk is not just that a device records audio or video. AI-enabled wearables can process what they see, deduce identities, and potentially store biometric data in ways that ordinary users and bystanders can’t easily detect.
We’d rather err on the side of caution and use an app that can detect when smart glasses are nearby. Unfortunately, it only detects some devices, and we don’t yet know how well it will perform if smart glasses become more common.
As noted by 404 Media, the app is an imperfect, tech-based response to a social and legal problem: it can misfire, it can’t tell you who is being recorded, and it risks giving a false sense of safety. The developer frames it not as a solution but as a small, user-controlled countermeasure in an environment where surveillance devices are becoming less visible and more AI-enabled.
Don’t get recognized
If facial recognition features ever become common in smart glasses, much of their effectiveness will depend on how much information about you is already available online. There are a few steps you can take today to reduce your visibility in facial recognition systems and people-search databases.
A major factor is limiting who can see the photographs you post on social media and other online platforms. But there is more you can do:
Remove yourself from reverse face search engines
The major, most accurate reverse face search engines, Pimeyes and Facecheck.id, offer opt-out and removal processes that can help reduce your visibility in search results:
Most people don’t realize how much information can be found from a name alone. People-search sites often aggregate home addresses, phone numbers, ages, and relatives from public records and commercial databases.
The New York Times has compiled a useful guide to many of the major people-search sites, along with instructions for opting out and removing your information.
Scrub your data
If you’re in the US, you can also use Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover to help find and remove personal information that data broker sites have collected about you.
Pavel Durov and his “private” messaging app have a brand new rival, and it’s — drumroll, please — Elon Musk and his XChat. On our blog, we’ve discussed more than once why Durov’s claims about Telegram privacy and security are exaggerated, to put it mildly. Here, I’ll just remind the reader that standard (non-secret) chats on Telegram aren’t protected by end-to-end encryption — the bare minimum required for user data to stay private.
But let’s get back to Musk. In late April 2026, the XChat app launched for iOS users. The tech mogul had been touting his messaging app for a long time, pitching it from day one as an incredibly private and secure way to communicate, and as a direct threat to Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, and iMessage. Today, we look at whether we should actually trust Musk’s promises this new service, break down its core features, and stack it up against the competition.
Bitcoin-style encryption
Musk initially teased XChat on June 1, 2025, naturally via his X (formerly Twitter) account. Responding to another user’s question about when to expect the new service, Musk wrote: “This week if there are no scaling issues.”
Apparently, scaling issues there were: the app’s beta didn’t drop until September 2025, and iOS users didn’t get full access until April 2026. As for Android, there is zero info on when that version would launch at the time of this writing. That said, an XChat page is already live on Google Play where users can queue up “pre-register”, whatever that means.
But let’s go back to Musk’s post announcing XChat. That specific post turned a lot of heads in the privacy and cybersecurity community, and here’s why: the tech mogul wrote that the service would be built on an “entirely new architecture”, written in Rust, and featuring “Bitcoin-style encryption”.
Elon Musk announces the launch of XChat, claiming the new messaging app is written in Rust and uses “Bitcoin-style encryption”. Source
The expert community spent a long time scratching their heads and trying to figure out what Musk actually meant. After all, Bitcoin isn’t an anonymous, encrypted data exchange system. The blockchain does use public and private cryptographic keys, but for something entirely different: signing transactions. Meanwhile, these transactions aren’t hidden from prying eyes; they’re out in the open for anyone to see, forever. Simply put, Bitcoin protects its users not by ensuring privacy, but quite the opposite — through ultimate transparency.
Most likely, Musk used “Bitcoin-style encryption” as a marketing gimmick. Bitcoin was trading near all-time highs at the time of his announcement, and cryptocurrency was the talk of the town. Technically, the XChat beta that dropped in September 2025 protected user chats with a “kind of” end-to-end encryption, but this was implemented in a way that raised serious doubts among cryptography experts.
And not without a reason. Normally, setting up an end-to-end encrypted chat automatically generates a public and private key pair. The public key is used to encrypt messages, while the private key decrypts them. Because other users need your public key to start a secure chat with you, these keys are usually stored on the app’s servers.
The private key, however, should ideally live only on the user’s device — which is exactly how Signal does it. This serves as a simple, ironclad guarantee that neither the company itself nor any third party breaching its infrastructure can access user chats, even if they really want to.
But Elon Musk’s projects always march to the beat of their own drum: the XChat developers decided it would be a great idea to store users’ private keys on XChat servers. X claims they’ll use hardware security modules (HSMs) to store these private keys — specialized appliances designed to prevent even the system owner from easily accessing the data inside. However, experts are also questioning the reliability of this setup, and coming to a grim conclusion: if X really wants to get a user’s private key, they will most likely be able to do so.
How encrypted messaging in XChat works in practice
Finally, once the scaling issues were ironed out nearly a year after the announcement, X officially rolled out the XChat app for iOS in April 2026. Now anyone can use it, but from a practical standpoint, the situation with encrypted chats seems even more convoluted than in Telegram.
According to the social network’s help center, to use end-to-end chat encryption in XChat, both users must have an X account, set up XChat, and have some sort of connection between them:
Follow, or be subscribed to each other
Have exchanged messages before
Have previously accepted a direct message request
Be a member of the same Premium Business / Premium Organization subscription on X
If users don’t follow each other and haven’t interacted before, XChat might still let them send a message request. However, that initial request goes out without end-to-end encryption.
Again, this is how the process is described in the messaging app’s official help documentation. Sound overly complicated? Let me reassure you: in practice, it works — or rather, doesn’t — completely differently. I personally managed to send a message to another user who had NOT set up XChat. The app itself, of course, gave me absolutely no warning about this.
The app allows you to start a chat with a user who hasn’t even set up XChat yet, without giving the sender any heads-up.
It gets even better. The user I messaged saw a notification for it on the web version of X, but couldn’t actually access the message. Here’s the catch: to start using XChat, the user first has to create a four-digit PIN. Yet, the app asks for this PIN the very first time the user tries to open it — meaning, before they even get a chance to create one. Along with this prompt, the user also sees a warning stating that without the PIN, they won’t be able to view past encrypted chats.
The user is prompted to enter a PIN to decrypt past messages before even completing the initial XChat setup.
The only workaround I found to actually start using XChat is to tap “Forgot PIN?” — even though that PIN never existed in the first place — confirm your identity, and create a new (well, your first) PIN. Naturally, you lose access to your chat history this way, so you won’t be able to read any messages sent to you in XChat before you officially set up the app.
XChat: the new Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal… or Facebook Messenger?
All these PIN hurdles actually exist for a reason. Remember, unlike WhatsApp and Signal, the XChat developers decided to store users’ private keys on their own servers. Consequently, the app uses these four-digit PINs to encrypt those keys.
According to the XChat help documentation, this mechanism was designed to ensure a “seamless” multi-device experience. It’s impossible not to point out that both WhatsApp and Signal managed to pull this off without sketchy workarounds like PIN requirements or server-side private key storage.
The problem is, workarounds like these undermine any claims of app privacy and security. First and chief among them, a PIN isn’t exactly the most secure way to protect sensitive data. We’ve mentioned time and again that four-digit combinations are easy to crack via brute force — especially since XChat gives you a generous 20 attempts to guess the right code.
The app allows up to 20 attempts to enter the four-digit PIN. Once the limit is reached, XChat warns that access to messages will be permanently lost.
Stepping away from the bizarre implementation of end-to-end encryption compared to other messaging apps, it’s hard to ignore the overall sense of pointlessness that comes with trying to use XChat. As a Wired journalist rightly pointed out, the app feels less like a relative of WhatsApp, Signal, or Telegram, and much more like Facebook Messenger. Except people usually open Messenger to read a text from their mom or grandma, whereas XChat seems meant for anyone wanting to check in on that weird nephew who spends all his free time on X, still believes John McAfee’s promise of $500 000 Bitcoin, and fanboys over Elon Musk.
So, what’s the bottom line on XChat?
The best way to wrap up this post is with a quote from a cybersecurity expert: “If what you want is good security, use Signal. If what you want is to be able to talk to pretty much anybody using encrypted messages, use WhatsApp. If your whole life is based around X, I guess this is better than nothing.”
If you do use XChat, rule number one is to avoid a predictable PIN — absolutely don’t use your birth year or, worse, 1234. It’s also crucial not to forget this code, because if you do, your entire chat history is gone for good. Finally, just like your other passwords, you shouldn’t keep it in your notes app, but rather in a secure password manager. This won’t only save you from having to memorize dozens of character combinations, but will also reduce the risk of losing access to your vital data and conversations.
To learn more about secure messaging in other apps, check out our other posts:
Customer service chatbots have one job: get the user what they’re asking for without bothering a human. Meta’s new AI support assistant took that brief a little too seriously. Over the past few months, attackers have been opening support chats, telling the bot they were locked out of Instagram accounts they didn’t own, and walking away with the keys.
Over the weekend, Meta pushed an emergency patch after Instagram accounts belonging to the Obama White House (now dormant), beauty retailer Sephora, and a senior US Space Force official were taken over and briefly defaced with pro-Iranian imagery. Security researcher and former Meta employee Jane Manchun Wong was also hit.
How the trick worked
The attack was simple. Attackers worked out where the account owner lived (there are lists of account owners’ home cities online, or they could just research the target). Then they used a VPN to match the target account’s geographic region, which avoided raising flags with Instagram’s security systems.
Then they started a normal password reset and opened the support chat. They asked the AI bot providing support to change the email address on the account, and it did exactly that, sending a one-time code straight to the attacker’s inbox.
To do this, the chatbot appears to have been wired into Meta’s account management systems with permission to make account changes, but without being taught how to verify it was talking to the real account owner. Security people have a name for that: “confused deputy.” The term has been around since the 1980s.
In fairness to the confused bot, attackers were successful even if the enhanced security was triggered. They would apparently create video deepfakes of their targets using images that were harvested from—you guessed it—Instagram.
Meta hoisted on its own AI petard
Meta has been shedding headcount and pouring money into AI, and rolled out its AI-powered support assistant earlier this year to help handle account recovery and other support requests.
The downside is that the AI appears to have been given the ability to perform actions such as email changes and password resets without applying enough safeguards to confirm the user’s identity first.
Meta communications executive Andy Stone said on X that the issue was resolved and impacted accounts were being secured. The company has not disclosed how many accounts were affected.
What actually worked
Why would anyone want to hack an Instagram account anyway? Revenge can be a driver, but more often than not, financial gain is the goal. Hijackers have blackmailed businesses that rely on those accounts for marketing.
Attackers using this technique have also been spotted targeting “OG” accounts with short or highly desirable usernames. If you joined Instagram early and registered a memorable handle, it can be worth thousands of dollars on underground markets.
What can you do to protect yourself?
A perennial piece of advice still holds: turn on multi-factor authentication (MFA). According to veteran cybersecurity reporter Brian Krebs, the attack failed against accounts that had MFA enabled, including those using SMS codes.
That doesn’t make MFA perfect, but it adds an important layer of protection.
So the practical advice is unglamorous:
Open Instagram’s Settings
Navigate to your Meta Accounts Center
Turn on Two-factor authentication. An authenticator app is better than SMS, but either is better than nothing.
Do it now, because this might not yet be over. TheCyberSecGuru reports that another attack is circulating, this time using an Android emulator called BlueStacks running a modified version of Instagram to send new prompts with hidden characters designed to manipulate the AI.
Expect more snafus from “helpful” bots
This won’t be the last attack against AI chatbots. As more companies use AI to reduce customer support costs, their attack surface will grow, and they’ll make plenty of mistakes as they try to balance security and functionality.
The Meta exploit is patched, but the confused deputy concept is not. And there’s nothing quite as damaging as a confused AI with the keys to your digital life.
Scammers don’t need to hack you. They just need you to click once.
One of the biggest football (soccer) events of this summer is the World Cup 2026. The tournament is co-hosted by three countries: the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Unfortunately, events of this scale attract not just fans, but also scammers from all over the globe. We’ve already covered how cybercriminals are prepping for the World Cup online, and today we’re talking about digital security for fans on the ground in Mexico.
The country will host 13 matches and welcome millions of tourists. They’ll be staying in hotels, heading to games, checking out restaurants, navigating airports, and visiting popular tourist spots — and everywhere they go, the temptation to connect to public Wi-Fi will be high.
We’ve surveyed more than 84 500 (!) public Wi-Fi access points in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey — and we have a lot to share about their security. Spoiler alert: many networks are still using outdated security standards, so you really shouldn’t go on vacation without reliable protection and an eSIM.
What and how we tested
Walking across Mexico looking for public Wi-Fi access points would have been a bit tough, though that’s exactly what we did for a similar Wi-Fi security survey in Paris. You can check out the results of that in our post, How safe is Wi-Fi in Paris?
This time the mission was far more demanding: mapping the wireless landscape of three major metropolises. That’s why we went wardriving — scanning for and logging wireless networks from a moving vehicle while equipped with a smartphone or laptop. It’s similar to searching for Wi-Fi on your phone, where the device constantly listens for nearby networks. Except instead of connecting to them, we just collect data about them.
All information was used strictly for passive observation and infrastructure analysis. Beyond receiving publicly broadcast service information, the experts of Kaspersky’s Global Research and Analysis Team (GReAT) didn’t attempt to authenticate, intercept traffic, exploit systems, or otherwise interact with the wireless networks they discovered. Mobile access points deployed in cars and on mobile devices were excluded from the sample.
Our main target was Mexico City — the capital and one of the most densely populated cities in Latin America. We took a drive through popular tourist spots: Mexico City Stadium, Mexico City International Airport, Zócalo, Paseo de la Reforma, Colonia Roma, La Condesa, Polanco, Coyoacán.
In Guadalajara and Monterrey, we drove similar routes: stadiums, main avenues, airports, and popular neighborhoods. Below you can see a heatmap of the areas we covered, ranging from red for areas with the highest density of public access points, through yellow and green, to blue for the lowest concentration.
Heatmap showing the locations of all Wi-Fi access points we covered in Mexico City
Heatmap showing the locations of all Wi-Fi access points we covered in Guadalajara
Heatmap showing the locations of all Wi-Fi access points we covered in Monterrey
We used passive radio reconnaissance to log 84 500 signals and 69 500 unique network identifiers across these three cities. The majority of the signals were caught in Mexico City (61.4%), followed by Guadalajara (23.6%) and Monterrey (14.8%).
What we analyzed:
Wireless network identifiers (SSIDs): the names that show up in your list of available Wi-Fi networks
Information that can be gleaned from these identifiers
Default router configurations and how ISPs deploy their networks
Frequencies used and signal characteristics
Channel load and radio frequency spectrum usage
Wireless network security configurations:
Open and insecure networks
Networks with WPS enabled
Secure networks (WPA2/WPA3) with WPS activated
You can find the full version of the study on the Securelist blog.
Telltale public Wi-Fi access point names
Network names (SSIDs) can tell you a lot by unintentionally revealing information about hardware manufacturers, ISPs, deployment methods, and whether an access point belongs to a business or a private user.
About 34% of the public Wi-Fi networks we logged didn’t bother changing their names at all, either sticking with the factory SSIDs from the router manufacturers or using standard naming conventions from their ISPs. For attackers, this can be a pretty solid hint, since this kind of network name lets them know which provider owns a given access point, what hardware is being used, and how it’s likely configured by default.
Another troubling nuance is the large number of Wi-Fi networks (over 30%) that use the access point’s MAC address (BSSID) as the visible network name. The first few bytes of a BSSID contain an Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI), which gives away the router’s manufacturer. This is a useful lead for bad actors: they can find out who made the hardware and test for vulnerabilities specific to that brand’s models.
Is Mexican Wi-Fi well-protected?
An access point secured with WPA2/WPA3 can be considered more or less safe. All other authentication mechanisms yield much weaker results. We grouped the public Wi-Fi networks into four categories:
Secure (WPA2/WPA3)
Unsecured (open/WEP)
Weak (WPA)
Undetermined
The results are roughly the same across all three cities: about 82% of all analyzed access points are protected by secure standards. The outdated and insecure WPA protocol was practically nonexistent. However, more than 10% of the access points turned out to be completely unsecured. Connecting to these networks carries the risk of traffic interception and hidden surveillance.
But security isn’t evaluated by WPA protocols alone. We also checked for the presence of WPS, the infamous feature for quickly connecting to a network without entering a password, which is highly vulnerable to attacks. It turned out that WPS is enabled on nearly half (47%) of the access points in Mexico City, 43% in Guadalajara, and 41% in Monterrey. On average, 45% of the access points are potentially vulnerable to WPS-related attacks — sacrificing security for the sake of convenience.
What’s more, this feature frequently remained active even on seemingly secure WPA2/WPA3 networks — about half of them utilized WPS. This shows that having WPA2/WPA3 is still not enough to consider a Wi-Fi access point safe, as additional features like WPS can still leave the door open to attacks.
What else every tourist needs to know
Digital risks on a trip aren’t limited to public Wi-Fi alone, especially now that many are shifting away from public Wi-Fi to an eSIM. There are still plenty of threats in crowded places: public USB chargers, QR codes with swapped links, NFC and Bluetooth attacks, and, of course, social engineering tactics. Let’s break it all down.
Charging stations. Public USB chargers can also be dangerous: bad actors could potentially gain access to the data on your device or try to install malware. We covered these attacks in detail in our post, Data theft during smartphone charging.
Dangerous QR codes. Criminals can plant phishing QR codes in popular tourist spots. The pretexts can vary wildly; for instance, ads for team-specific fan “events”, or links supposedly offering discounts or restaurant menus. In reality, any QR code posted on the street can be considered insecure by default, and you shouldn’t scan them with your smartphone unless you have a QR code threat analyzer installed.
Fake broadcasts, tickets, and betting pools. Earlier, we described cases where bad actors were distributing malware via fake IPTV apps to capitalize on the WC26 hype. Remember, even if you plan to watch the tournament from home, you still need to stay alert and not trust the first sites that pop up advertising free broadcasts, offering betting pools, or promising unbelievably generous payouts.
Despite the prevalence of secure WPA2/WPA3 public Wi-Fi access points in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey, our study shows that public Wi-Fi networks remain vulnerable. It’s also important to remember that attackers can create fake networks — so-called evil twins — disguised as legitimate public Wi-Fi in airports, hotels, cafés, and tourist spots.
For the average user, it’s practically impossible to tell how safe a specific access point is when trying to connect. That’s why the safest option is to use cellular data to access the internet — completely eliminating the need for Wi-Fi. Besides, there’s no need to research the nuances of local laws, rates, and other cellular details for every country you plan to visit; you can just buy a global eSIM online in two clicks. We explained how to make the entire process hassle-free in our post, Internet on the go with Kaspersky eSIM Store.
If you still plan on connecting to public Wi-Fi, always use a VPN to secure your device and data when connecting to unfamiliar — especially unsecured — Wi-Fi networks. This creates an encrypted tunnel between your device and the VPN server, making it impossible to intercept your data along the way. Haven’t picked a VPN yet? Try Kaspersky VPN Secure Connection, which is included with both Kaspersky Premium and Kaspersky Plus subscriptions.
Now, if you still plan to attend the World Cup without any cybersecurity solution, at least follow these basic rules of digital hygiene:
Don’t use public USB chargers
Don’t send sensitive information over connections that aren’t secure
Don’t log in to banking, email, or social media accounts over unsecured Wi-Fi
Turn off Bluetooth and NFC while walking around in crowded places
Don’t trust QR codes posted on the street
Connect to public Wi-Fi only when absolutely necessary
What else to read to make sure cheering for your favorite team isn’t only exciting, but also safe:
California has sued the former shell of DNA testing company 23andMe over alleged security failures and misleading statements surrounding its 2023 data breach.
On May 27, 2026, Attorney General Rob Bonta filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court against Chrome Holding Co., the company now handling 23andMe’s remaining assets following its bankruptcy.
California’s complaint accuses 23andMe of failing to implement reasonable security measures to protect sensitive data and alleges violations of several state privacy and consumer protection laws. It also accuses the company of making misleading statements about its security practices.
The 2023 breach used old-school credential-stuffing tactics against 23andMe’s login page. Attackers operated inside the systems for roughly five months without anyone noticing. The direct compromise was modest, affecting about 14,000 accounts, but that was all the attackers needed to steal the data of just under seven million customers.
The intruders pivoted from those accounts through DNA Relatives, the platform’s headline feature, which enabled people to determine who they were connected with through DNA similarity. The lawsuit alleges a critical coding error in that feature enabled the perpetrators to scrape data from millions of other users connected by biological kinship.
The victim-blaming defense became evidence
After the breach went public, 23andMe sent victims’ legal representatives a letter blaming users for reusing passwords from sites that had been compromised earlier. The exposed data, the company suggested, had been shared of the users’ own free will and would not cause “pecuniary harm.”
The harms stemming from genetic data theft extend far beyond financial losses, however. The genetic information that was stolen enabled thieves to determine an individual’s genetic origins.
The data was reportedly offered for sale on the dark web with this information as a selling point, enabling sellers to offer records on Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) or Jewish customers, for example. Bonta’s office pointed out that antisemitic violence was on the rise at the time.
In spite of the letter’s attempt to blame users, only about 14,000 accounts were directly compromised through password reuse. The rest of the data was allegedly exposed through 23andMe’s own product. According to the complaint, the coding error in DNA Relatives exposed the data of anyone who had opted into the service, not just those linked to the 14,000 compromised accounts.
Can the state recover damages?
California is seeking statutory penalties ranging from $1,000 to $7,500 per violation. With 855,541 Californians among the affected users, the costs could mount up quickly.
The question is how much of it the state will collect if it wins its case. 23andMe filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March 2025, then sold most of its assets, including the genomic data of more than 15 million customers, to TTAM Research Institute, a nonprofit founded by former 23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki. California and several other states opposed the sale on Genetic Information Privacy Act grounds, but a federal bankruptcy judge approved it. The states are now appealing that decision.
Chrome Holding Co., the corporate shell that remains of 23andMe, received $305 million from that sale. But others have already been picking over what’s left.
Other regulators have already had their turn. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office fined 23andMe £2.31 million in June last year following a joint investigation with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. A federal court initially approved a $30 million class-action settlement covering most US customer claims. That settlement later grew to $50 million and received final approval in January 2026.
What customers can do
If you tested with 23andMe, the standard breach hygiene still applies. Reset any password you reused on other sites and turn on multi-factor authentication wherever it’s offered. Credential stuffing only works on usernames and passwords that have already been exposed elsewhere. Also watch for phishing attacks that name-drop 23andMe or the breach itself. And maybe weigh the benefits of using DNA testing services against the security risks.
Because there’s one part of this that no fine and no settlement can solve: stolen genetic data sold on the dark web cannot be taken back. Passwords can be changed. DNA can’t.
Browse like no one’s watching.
Malwarebytes Privacy VPN encrypts your connection and never logs what you do, so the next story you read doesn’t have to feel personal. Try it free →
A fake website impersonating BlueWallet (a real Bitcoin wallet) is targeting Mac users with a simple but effective attack. BlueWallet itself has not been compromised. Instead, cybercriminals have stolen the name and branding of the legitimate Bitcoin wallet to make a malicious download appear trustworthy.
If you went looking for a cryptocurrency wallet and landed on one of these fake BlueWallet download pages, the site tried to trick you into opening a downloaded file in a built-in macOS tool and pressing “Run.” If you followed those instructions, the malware could steal saved passwords, browser logins, cryptocurrency wallets, documents, and other sensitive data. It also watches the clipboard for cryptocurrency wallet addresses and can replace them with attacker-controlled addresses..
That last feature is particularly dangerous. If you copy a wallet address before sending funds, the malware can silently replace it with the attacker’s address. Everything looks normal on screen, but the money goes somewhere else.
Should you worry? Only if you downloaded and ran the file. Simply visiting the page and closing it does nothing on its own. The attack depends entirely on the user opening the script and pressing play.
If you did run it, treat the machine as compromised and follow the steps below.
What to do if you may have run it
If you opened the file and pressed play, assume your device was compromised and work through these steps:
Disconnect the machine from the network to cut the control channel
The most interesting part of this campaign isn’t technical. The attackers didn’t break into the Mac or bypass Apple’s security protections. They persuaded victims to run the malware themselves.
The fake website walks users through the process with a convincing download page, simple instructions, and even a keyboard shortcut. The attack succeeds because the victim trusts what they are seeing.
As operating systems get better at blocking malicious software, attackers are increasingly investing in social engineering. Instead of finding ways around security controls, they convince people to click through them.
That’s why one habit is becoming increasingly important: Be suspicious of any download that arrives with instructions to open it in a scripting tool, developer utility, or Terminal window and press “Run.”
In this campaign, a single press of ⌘R was enough to turn a Mac into a password stealer, cryptocurrency wallet thief, clipboard hijacker, and remote access tool.
Technical analysis
Stage one: The AppleScript downloader
The page lives at update-bluewallet[.]com, a domain name close enough to the real wallet (bluewallet.io) to pass a quick glance. The first thing the page does is not wait for consent. Its script calls a download routine on a two-second timer the moment the page loads, and again if the visitor clicks either of two buttons.
The file that lands in the Downloads folder is named BlueWallet Installer.applescript, an extension most people have never seen and have no instinct to distrust.
Then the page does something quietly clever. After a short delay, it rewrites its own status text to read like setup instructions: open the installer, then press the play button or ⌘R. It even draws a small blue play triangle in the text so the wording matches the real Script Editor interface the victim is about to see.
The page walks the victim through the exact motions needed to run the file.
On modern macOS, an unsigned application downloaded from the web gets quarantined and checked before it can run. A plain script opened in Script Editor and executed by the user sidesteps that flow. The person is manually instructing a trusted Apple tool to run code, so there is no notarization gate to fail.
This is why the attacker chose an AppleScript instead of a packaged app: it moves the risky action out of the operating system’s hands and into the victim’s.
The AppleScript itself is remarkably short. Stripped of its decorative comments, including a fake version number and a line claiming to be a “Brew Install Upgrade,” it runs a single base64-encoded shell command and then tells Script Editor to quit without saving, removing the evidence from view.
It fetches a second script from a remote host, saves it to a hidden file in the temp directory, makes it executable, and runs it in the background with all output suppressed.
The victim sees nothing. The filename .sysupd.sh is dressed up to look like a system update. This is a textbook staged dropper: stage one is tiny and disposable, and its only job is to fetch the real payload.
Stage two: Payload analysis
The first lines establish how the malware intends to operate. It sets umask 077 so everything it creates is readable only by the compromised user, then builds a hidden, randomly named working directory under /tmp seeded from /dev/urandom.
Its configuration is obfuscated, but weakly. A small function named _xd walks a hex string two characters at a time and XORs each byte against a hardcoded repeating key: swckR9JCD2Uu.
That function decodes the script’s Telegram bot token, chat identifier, secondary command token, and staging URL at runtime. It is enough to defeat tools that only search for plaintext strings, but not much more. Because the key and algorithm are both sitting in the file, every encoded value is fully recoverable.
One detail stands out: The decoded Telegram chat value and decoded command-and-control chat value are identical. The attacker is using a single Telegram channel as both the exfiltration drop and the control channel. It is cheap, scalable, encrypted, and blends into ordinary HTTPS traffic.
Not everything is obfuscated. The clipboard-hijacking addresses are sitting in the file in plain text: a Bitcoin address, an Ethereum address, and a Solana address. These are the addresses the implant swaps in when it catches you copying a wallet address. Because they are public on their respective blockchains, they are also among the most useful artifacts in the whole sample.
What the malware steals
The second stage’s collection routines are sweeping. They pull from six broad categories.
1. Web browsers
The script extracts history, cookies, login data, and bookmarks from a wide range of browsers, including:
Chromium-based browsers: Google Chrome Stable, Beta, Canary, and Dev; Brave; Microsoft Edge; Vivaldi; Opera; Opera GX; Arc; Chromium; Coccoc; and Yandex
Firefox-based browsers: Firefox, Waterfox, Pale Moon, Zen, and LibreWolf
macOS native browser data: Safari cookies, history, and form values
Other ecosystems: Yoroi, Lace, Petra, Martian, Suiet, Talisman, SubWallet, Braavos, and Temple
3. Password managers and security tools
The malware targets local storage and settings for several password managers, including LastPass, 1Password, Dashlane, Bitwarden, Keeper, RoboForm, NordPass, Enpass, StickyPassword, TrueKey, Passbolt, and Buttercup.
It also looks for data associated with 2FA and authenticator tools, including Google Authenticator, Authy, Duo, Microsoft Authenticator, 2FAS, and FreeOTP.
4. Communication and social apps
The script attempts to copy session data and local storage for Telegram Desktop and Discord, including Discord Canary and Discord PTB.
5. Developer and cloud tools
It looks for credentials and configuration files in the user’s home directory, including:
AWS CLI configurations in .aws
SSH keys in .ssh
GnuPG keys in .gnupg
Kubernetes configs in .kube
Shell and Git files including .zshrc, .zsh_history, .bash_history, and .gitconfig
6. Productivity apps and general files
The script copies the local Apple Notes database, NoteStore.sqlite.
It also looks for browser-extension data related to shopping and productivity tools, including Honey, CapitalOne Shopping, Rakuten, CamelCamelCamel, Grammarly, Evernote, Notion Clipper, Todoist, and Google Keep.
Finally, it scans Desktop, Documents, and Downloads for files with extensions including .txt, .pdf, .docx, .doc, .rtf, .wallet, .key, .keys, .seed, .kdbx, .pem, and .env, under a size cap.
What it does with the stolen data
The malware tries to capture the user’s account password directly. An osascript dialog titled “System Preferences” asks the user to re-enter their password “to continue.” The script validates each attempt against dscl . authonly before saving it, so it only stops once it has a working credential.
For exfiltration, it archives the staged data with macOS’s own ditto, likely because it is always present, unlike zip. To stay under Telegram’s 50 MB upload limit, it breaks larger archives into 49 MB chunks with split before sending each part.
It establishes persistence by writing a LaunchAgent plist into the user’s ~/Library/LaunchAgents, backed by a hidden support directory, and loading it with launchctl so the implant runs again at every login.
The clipboard hijack is a live background loop. A clip_watch function continuously inspects the clipboard, matches Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana address formats by regex, reports the original address to the command-and-control channel, and overwrites the clipboard with the attacker’s address via pbcopy.
That means the substitution happens silently between copy and paste.
Finally, the malware can be controlled interactively. A c2_loop polls the Telegram bot for commands and supports a full operator toolkit:
/info for system details
/exec for arbitrary shell commands
/clipboard to read current clipboard contents
/download to pull specific files
/exfil to rerun the theft module
/selfdestruct to wipe traces
This makes the Telegram channel a real-time remote-control link, not just a one-way drop.
Living off the land, and off Telegram
The pattern here is familiar and getting more common: lean on tools that are already trusted.
The delivery abuses Apple’s own Script Editor. The configuration hides behind a trivial XOR rather than packed binaries. The command channel rides Telegram’s Bot API, which can pass through egress filters that would flag an unknown server.
None of these pieces is novel on its own. The effectiveness comes from stacking legitimate-looking components so no single step trips an alarm.
Detection opportunities
The lessons here are less about the lure and more about the technique itself.
Script Editor executing a one-line base64 do shell script that immediately quits is a strong behavioral signal, and a far better detection target than the disposable stage-one file. So is a hidden /tmp/.sysupd.sh downloaded by curl and launched in the background.
Browsers and download surfaces could treat .applescript files arriving from the web with the same suspicion as executables. And Telegram remains an under-addressed command-and-control medium that bot-token abuse reporting could disrupt at the source.
It starts with the familiar: a short message, a trusted name, a routine tone. Delivery updates, work pings, brand alerts hum in the background, rarely attracting scrutiny. You check, you answer… — until minutes later you’ve slipped into a trap built to lower your guard and hijack your trust.
That’s why messaging scams cut deep: they exploit everyday habits where instinct, not caution, leads. Communication once moved slowly, leaving room for doubt. Now it’s instant — and that speed is a weapon in criminal hands.
On our blog, we’ve already examined numerous scam schemes in messaging apps — from pig butchering, where the victim is groomed for a very long time, or catfishing, where the scammer creates a fake identity, to phishing via chatbots or through gift-giving campaigns in messaging apps.
Now, for the first time, Kaspersky has set out to capture the full end-to-end reality of messaging-based scams to understand how quickly harm occurs, how they impact trust and what remains after the interaction ends. What emerges is a highly organized and industrialized scam ecosystem embedded within everyday messaging channels such as SMS, WhatsApp, and email.
Kaspersky experts have prepared a report on targeted scams in messaging apps, detailing not only the financial but also the emotional damage caused by such attacks, as well as providing tips on how to protect yourself and avoid them. In this post, we explore the most interesting facts, but you can find more details in the full report.
The damage is underestimated
How much do you think a single successful attack via a messaging app costs the average victim? Ten dollars? Or maybe 50? You’re underestimating the scammers. Although more than a third (36%) of victims incur losses of less than $135, on average a victim loses… $733!
Country
Average loss per victim
Senegal
$392.94
Serbia
$493.32
Morocco
$504.28
Greece
$609.32
United Kingdom
$617.38
Côte d’Ivoire
$654.11
Spain
$672.67
United States
$724.73
Portugal
$868.20
Italy
$896.02
France
$1,193.58
Germany
$1,369.35
The average amount lost by a victim in a successful attack via a messaging app
On the one hand, the financial hit doesn’t look catastrophic in isolation. These are micro-losses by design. Small enough that some never report them to the police. Small enough that banks don’t always investigate. Small enough to be dismissed as bad luck rather than organized crime.
But $733 is not nothing. It’s enough to cover a month’s worth of groceries, school or daycare fees, or utility bills. Against the backdrop of the global cost-of-living crisis, a single such loss can seriously dent a family’s budget.
In 11% of cases, losses exceed $1,350, and more than a quarter of victims (28%) report having been scammed three or more times in the past six months. Once scammers discover that a phone number responds, that contact becomes an asset, circulating from one database to another.
Now imagine the scale of the problem: if just 10% of the three billion messaging‑app users worldwide fell victim with the average loss, the total damage would amount to… nearly $220 billion! This is comparable to the GDP of Greece, and exceeds that of Morocco, Serbia, or Côte d’Ivoire.
It becomes clear that behind the daily flood of fraudulent schemes lie large scam cartels operating on an industrial scale, using AI to personalize messages that mimic those of family members, friends, and familiar brands. This, in essence, forms the basis of a full-fledged economy built on digital identity theft.
Speed beats scrutiny
More than half of successful messaging scams (52%) unfold in under 30 minutes — from first contact to the moment money or personal data changes hands — or even faster, before the victim begins to doubt the legitimacy of the sender. In fact, one in seven scams takes less than five minutes — quicker than boiling an egg!
The speed isn’t accidental. It’s the method. Scammers structure their schemes to deny the victim a chance to come to their senses. Every element is engineered to compress the decision-making window: the urgency of the scenario, the familiarity of the format, the plausibility of the request.
They rush you — faster, faster, don’t tell anyone, you only have a few minutes, solve the problem, don’t ask questions. Click the link, fill in the details, approve the transaction, or else… Or else what? The scammers’ imagination knows no bounds here, but if you don’t do something right now, you’ll definitely regret it.
Alas, the realization of what has happened usually comes when the damage is already irreversible. More than half of victims (51%) lose money; another 43% hand over their personal data — most commonly phone numbers, names, and email addresses — to scammers, and often the victim loses both.
Where and how attacks occur
A delivery notification, a bank alert, a message from a merchant you ordered from last week — messaging apps permeate every aspect of everyday life, making such interactions completely normal. An attack shouldn’t feel like an attack. It should feel like the same message you’ve received hundreds of times.
It’s no surprise that scammers focus their attention on this method of communication first and foremost. The most popular platforms for scams are predictable: WhatsApp (43%), SMS/iMessage (40%), Facebook (27%), Telegram (22%), and Instagram (19%) — these are the ones that people trust most.
A wide variety of schemes is used. Brand impersonation is now one of the three most common types of messaging scam worldwide — accounting for 31% of cases. Fake delivery notifications top the list at 38%, followed by investment scams at 37%.
At the same time, nearly two-thirds (63%) of fraudulent schemes span multiple platforms, moving from SMS to WhatsApp, from WhatsApp to Telegram, etc. In this way, scammers achieve two goals: they mimic organic messaging and evade moderation algorithms.
AI has taken scams to a new level
Just a couple of years ago, fraudulent messages gave themselves away with bad grammar, awkward phrasing, illogical requests, and an obsessive sense of urgency. Today, a phishing message looks, sounds, and reads just like the real thing.
Scam cartels want to catch people in motion — between meetings, on a commute, or during everyday tasks — when your attention is already fragmented. They mimic your mother’s turn of phrase. They match your bank’s tone of voice. They copy your courier’s format exactly. They mirror the rhythm, structure, and style of authentic brand communications across messaging platforms. And AI is accelerating all of it.
What this creates is overlap. Legitimate and fraudulent messages appear in the same environment, using the same formats, language, and triggers. The difference between them is no longer obvious.
The data shows that two-thirds of victims (66%) believe AI was used in the scam against them, 42% cite messages written by AI, 31% report generated or cloned voices, and 25% encountered deepfake images or videos.
That’s why mere awareness and “tech-savviness” may no longer be enough to protect oneself. From Gen Z to Gen X, messaging scams cut across every generation.
And what about the emotional toll?
But money is far from the only problem a victim is left with after an attack. After what they’ve been through, people develop distrust toward incoming messages, unfamiliar numbers, and any requests for action. As a result, 99% of fraud victims say they no longer trust incoming notifications in messaging apps.
This creates a crisis of trust in all digital channels in general. Every legitimate message can now be perceived as a scam. Brands, banks, and delivery services are forced to operate in an environment where the customer is, by default, in a state of distrust.
Dr. Elizabeth Carter, a forensic linguist and criminologist at Kingston University in London, notes that scammers use familiar contexts, common social settings and embedded linguistic norms to create the illusion for the victim that their decision-making is rational and reasonable in the moment. However, what is actually happening is that they construct false realities in which those decisions end up causing financial and psychological harm. She also notes that it is very hard to identify a false reality while you are in it.
After realizing they had been deceived, more than half of victims felt anger — the kind that comes from having trusted something and discovering it was used against you. 42% of victims report frustration, 38% — feeling upset. Moreover, several months later, these feelings haven’t gone away: nearly half of all victims (48%) are still angry, a third (33%) remain frustrated, and 30% are upset.
And nearly one in 10 victims don’t tell anyone what happened. They feel shame, a sense of having fallen for something so obvious. This leaves a significant portion of the actual damage unreported: only 24% of victims contact the police, and only 23% report it to their bank.
So what can be done?
The crisis of trust — and even a touch of paranoia — that has arisen due to widespread attacks on users can linger in victims’ minds for a long time, affecting their quality of life. To prevent this, follow these guidelines:
Pause before you act. The sense of urgency you feel is almost always artificial. A legitimate bank, retailer, or delivery service won’t penalize you for taking 30 seconds to verify before clicking a link or confirming details. It’s precisely this instinct to resolve the situation quickly that scammers are counting on.
Verify through another channel. If a message appears to be from a relative, colleague, or company you trust — contact them through another channel before taking any action. Use secure verification methods, and cross-check identities when something doesn’t feel right. For families, agreeing on a “safe word” in advance can defeat even the most convincing voice clones.
Use a password manager. It will not only help you generate strong, unique passwords for all your accounts and store them securely, syncing them across all your devices, but also protect you from spoofed sites. Even if you click a phishing link and land on such a site, our password manager will notify you about the domain mismatch and refuse to autofill your username and password.
Use protection that works in real time. Modern security solutions, such as Kaspersky Premium, provide real-time protection against malicious links and phishing attempts in the apps and websites you use every day. On Android devices, a dedicated layer of anti-phishing security scans and neutralizes suspicious links as they appear, even within notifications, before you even have a chance to click them.
We’ve covered other threats in messaging apps in similar articles:
You’re working hard late at night, replying to emails and planning the week ahead. Then suddenly, a PDF file requests access to your camera. Why would a PDF need camera access?
Cybercriminals often disguise spyware inside seemingly harmless files and programs. An unexpected request for access to your webcam can be a red flag that something is amiss.
Malwarebytes Windows Webcam Monitoring alerts you if a program tries to access your camera, so you can allow trusted programs to continue or block suspicious ones instantly.
Spyware doesn’t just steal passwords. Some malicious apps try to access webcams to secretly spy on victims or capture sensitive information.
What does Windows Webcam Monitoring do?
Sends you an instant alert when a program tries to access your webcam.
Allows only the programs you trust to access your camera, blocking everything else.
Lets you manage notification preferences in Privacy Controls. A dedicated “Webcam Monitoring” table shows recognized programs and gives you control over which apps trigger alerts, and which don’t.
With the benefit of real-time alerts, Windows Webcam Monitoring gives you visibility into which programs are trying to access your devices. And when it’s something you don’t recognize, it may even help you stop spyware before it can spy on you.
At Malwarebytes, we believe security shouldn’t be complicated. Windows Webcam Monitoring is another step toward giving you simple, proactive protection that works automatically, so you can stay focused on pretty much anything else.
Ready to take control?
Update Malwarebytes for Windows, go to Privacy Controls and enable Webcam Monitoring.
Mozilla has published release notes for Firefox browser version 151.0, and this update includes several genuinely meaningful privacy and security improvements.
Three changes stand out in particular:
Stronger anti‑fingerprinting
Broader protection for local network access
More control over private sessions and permissions
Note that Mozilla says several Firefox 151 features are “part of a progressive roll out,” meaning they will appear for some users first and be expanded over time. So, you may not see all of them immediately.
Privacy
One of the more visible additions is a new “end private session” control in Private Browsing Mode. Instead of closing every private window to clear your traces, you now get a dedicated fire‑icon button next to the address bar that wipes the current private session’s data and immediately starts a fresh one.
End private session button
Under the hood, this clears the usual private browsing artifacts for that session, including history, cookies, cached files, and other site data that would normally disappear only when the last private window closes.
For people who routinely mix normal and private windows, this is safer and less error‑prone than hunting down every private tab before you walk away from the machine.
Firefox 151 also tightens its defenses against browser fingerprinting in the default “Standard” Enhanced Tracking Protection (ETP) mode. Mozilla says Firefox now limits the amount of device and browser information exposed to websites in a way that reduces the number of uniquely identifiable users by about 14% overall, and by roughly 49% on macOS.
This makes it harder for trackers to pick you out of the crowd, especially on platforms with fewer users to begin with (like certain macOS configurations). This reduces the privacy risk surface by default, which makes it harder for phishing and landing pages that redirect visitors to “categorize” you.
Another important change is Firefox’s “local network access restrictions,” which are now rolling out to all users, not just those who turned Enhanced Tracking Protection to Strict.
This means that when a website wants to communicate with devices on your local network, or with apps and services running on your machine, Firefox now asks for permission first. Chrome and Edge have been rolling out similar permission prompts.
The most notable example is CVE‑2026‑8953, a sandbox escape due to a use‑after‑free in the Disability Access APIs component. While there are currently no reports of in‑the‑wild exploitation for this specific bug at the time of writing, this is the kind of bug cybercriminals love.
A use-after-free (UAF) is a software memory vulnerability where a program attempts to access a memory location after it has been freed. If the program fails to clear the pointer to that freed memory, attackers can manipulate the error to crash the system or execute arbitrary code. A memory corruption leading to a sandbox escape is exactly the kind of link attackers want to complete a browser exploit chain.
How to update
If you’re running Firefox in a home or small‑office environment, we recommend updating to Firefox 151 as soon as possible to get the fingerprinting protections, local network access prompts, and security patches.
To update Firefox:
Open Firefox
Click the menu (three stacked lines) in the upper-right corner
Go to Help > About Firefox
Firefox will automatically check for updates and begin downloading them
Restart the browser when prompted to complete the update
Once your Firefox browser has been updated, it will show a green checkmark along with the message: “Firefox is up to date.”
Let’s face it, an incognito window can only do so much.
Breaches, dark web trading, credit fraud. Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection monitors for all of it, alerts you fast, and comes with identity theft insurance.
If you’re worried about deepfake likenesses of yourself showing up online, you’re not alone; YouTube is worried for you. It wants to protect you by having you upload a selfie video and government ID to its site.
The idea is that the video giant will use its own AI to patrol the service for fake videos using your likeness. In exchange, you get the chance to have them taken down.
This isn’t available for everyone, though. It’s for celebs, those in vulnerable jobs, and now, most YouTube creators.
YouTube has been working on this concept, which it calls its “likeness detection” system, since it first floated the idea publicly in September 2024. That December, it launched a partnership with the Creative Artists Agency that saw it using the technology with sporting and entertainment figures.
In October last year, it expanded likeness detection to cover more creators, and then in March it expanded it again to cover politicians and journalists. And last month, it widened the net again, offering the service to Hollywood celebs. They can use it regardless of whether they have a YouTube account, it added.
Now, in its latest move, anyone 18 or older with a selfie and ID can sign up. At least in theory, as it hasn’t rolled out to everyone yet. It’s also for faces only; AI-generated voice clones are another problem entirely.
The privacy risk
Privacy advocates warned that YouTube’s likeness detection system could normalize handing biometric data to large tech platforms, even if YouTube says the data is only used to improve likeness detection models with creator permission.
On the help page for the likeness detection service, YouTube says creators can separately choose whether their face and voice templates are used to improve its likeness detection models.
“When you sign up for Likeness detection, you also have the option to allow YouTube to use your face and voice templates to develop and improve likeness detection models. This helps us build better, more accurate likeness detection technologies.”
Adding:
“You can opt out of YouTube’s use of this data for development and improvement of likeness models at any time.”
YouTube supports legislation intended to tackle deepfakes, such as the NO FAKES and TAKE IT DOWN acts. These are designed to help stop the misappropriation of someone’s image online. TAKE IT DOWN, which became law a year ago, focuses purely on “nonconsensual intimate imagery.” But that doesn’t cover other kinds of deepfakes, such as fake politicians or celebrity endorsements. Those are becoming increasingly common. NO FAKES, which hasn’t yet become law, is far broader in scope, assigning people federal rights over their own image.
So is it worth the trade?
Deepfakes, intimate and otherwise, are definitely a threat, especially for YouTubers who become popular. And the barrier to entry is lowering all the time. Google’s own DeepMind researchers found most generative AI misuse isn’t sophisticated; it’s mundane likeness manipulation by anyone with a browser.
So do you hand over your face and government ID for your protection, to a company whose broader data collection practices have faced years of scrutiny, and hope its policies don’t change? Or do you skip it and hope that the deepfake merchants don’t decide to target you?
Creators commenting on YouTube’s video revealing the service six months ago were less than impressed. One commenter said:
“I was 100% on board, up until the ID upload. That makes me very uncomfortable.”
Echoing several others who complained that it’s difficult to get takedown requests actioned, another added:
“If YouTube actually acted upon these kinds of reports, then I’d be more in favour of this.”
Whether you decide to sign up for the service or not, just be sure to do it with your eyes open.
Someone’s watching your accounts. Make sure it’s us.
Microsoft said it will change Edge’s password handling as a “defense‑in‑depth” measure.
Originally, Edge decrypted the entire saved‑password store on startup and kept all credentials resident in process memory in clear text for the whole browser session, regardless of whether a given credential was ever used or not.
A short while ago, Microsoft said this plaintext password behavior was by design. Now, Microsoft has changed course, and the new password-handling behavior is already present in Canary (the experimental preview version of Microsoft Edge), with rollout prioritized across all channels.
The researcher who originally flagged the issue said:
“Edge is the only Chromium‑based browser I’ve tested that behaves this way. By contrast, Chrome uses a design that makes it far harder for attackers to extract saved passwords by simply reading process memory.”
Microsoft Edge Security Lead Gareth Evans said Microsoft is now taking a broader view and has committed to changing Edge so that saved passwords are no longer loaded into memory on startup as clear text. As a result, exposure will be reduced as a defense‑in‑depth improvement. That means even if an attacker has administrative control of a device, it becomes harder to harvest all the passwords.
According to Microsoft:
“Going forward, Microsoft Edge will no longer load all saved passwords into memory at browser startup. Instead, passwords will be decrypted only when needed for autofill or password management operations.”
The change is already live in the Edge Canary channel and will be included in the next update for all supported Edge releases (build 148 and newer across Stable, Beta, Dev, Canary, and Extended Stable).
The reason for this change is probably more reputational and strategic rather than an acknowledgment of an exploitable vulnerability. Microsoft seems to want to align reality with its “secure by design” messaging and reduce a very visible, easy‑to‑demo weakness, even if it still doesn’t treat it as a classic memory‑disclosure bug.
Passwords in your browser
Please note that this change just means Edge will become roughly as secure an option to store passwords as every other Chromium-based browser.
Your browser password manager gives you ease of use, but that comes with some security tradeoffs. Of course, password managers aren’t foolproof either, so it’s important to decide for yourself where you store your passwords.
If you’re confident a website is safe, and anyone who can access it under your account wouldn’t learn anything sensitive, feel free to store the password in your browser, but disable autofill so you stay in control.
Use MFA where possible. It enormously reduces the risk if someone gets hold of your password. And avoid using the browser password manager to store your credit card details or other sensitive personally identifiable information, such as medical information.
Let’s face it, an incognito window can only do so much.
Breaches, dark web trading, credit fraud. Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection monitors for all of it, alerts you fast, and comes with identity theft insurance.
Recent news had us wondering whether Meta actually knows what it wants.
On one platform, Meta is promoting AI chats that it says even it cannot read. On another, it has removed one of the few features that genuinely prevented Meta from accessing private conversations.
At the moment, Meta is heavily promoting a new Incognito Chat mode for its Meta AI assistant in WhatsApp, built on top of a system it calls Private Processing. According to WhatsApp’s own announcement, Incognito Chat is:
“Truly private — no one can read your conversation, not even us.”
When you start an Incognito chat with Meta AI, you get a temporary conversation where messages aren’t saved and disappear by default, which Meta pitches as “a space to think and explore ideas without anyone watching.”
BBC News and others report that these AI chats are text‑only for now, run in a sandboxed environment, and are separate from your regular end‑to‑end encrypted (E2EE) messaging with other people on WhatsApp.
Meta is also preparing “Side Chat,” which will let you invoke Meta AI inside other WhatsApp chats, again using this Private Processing infrastructure to claim AI assistance without breaking the underlying encryption.
On paper, that’s an impressive technical and marketing story: powerful AI, wrapped in layers of privacy‑preserving infrastructure, added to an app that already has a strong reputation for end‑to‑end encryption by default.
Meanwhile, on Instagram…
Now contrast that with what’s happening on Instagram. On 8 May 2026, Meta removed optional end‑to‑end encryption for Instagram Direct Messages (DMs) entirely. Users who had previously turned the feature on were shown notices that “end‑to‑end encrypted messaging on Instagram is no longer supported as of 8 May 2026,” and were urged to download backups of their encrypted conversations before the cutoff.
End‑to‑end encryption ensures that only the sender and recipient can read their conversations. Instagram offered this as an opt‑in feature since late 2023, but it was buried several taps deep inside individual conversation settings and never turned on by default. Meta’s explanation for shutting it down is that “very few people” used encrypted DMs and that maintaining a separate encrypted system added complexity. Critics have pointed out the circular logic. The company hid the feature, did not advertise it, and is now using low adoption as the reason to kill it rather than, say, making it easier to find or turning it on by default.
What all this means
From a user’s perspective, the result is confusing: one Meta product introduces stronger privacy than ever for AI chats, while another removes the one feature that truly stopped Meta from reading your conversations.
The key point to remember here is that “incognito” and “private” are marketing words, while end‑to‑end encryption is a technical guarantee.
For security‑conscious users, this split personality means you can no longer treat all Meta chats the same. WhatsApp remains end‑to‑end encrypted for person‑to‑person messages and adds optional privacy features around its AI, while Instagram DMs should now be assumed readable by Meta and potentially accessible to law enforcement, advertisers, or attackers who gain access to Meta’s systems.
We also know there have been lawsuits against chatbot providers in cases where the outcome of an AI conversation led to very undesirable results. But how would you be able to provide evidence when messages auto-disappear?
How to proceed
Meta’s recent moves show that strong privacy features can be added where they support a strategic narrative and removed where they conflict with business or regulatory priorities. Users can’t control those decisions, but they can respond by choosing where they hold their most sensitive conversations and by assuming that if a chat isn’t end‑to‑end encrypted by default, it is ultimately readable by someone other than the people in it.
So, what’s a safe way to move forward?
Treat Instagram DMs as postcard-level privacy. Now that E2EE is gone, assume Meta can read and scan your messages and that content could be accessed under legal orders or in a breach. Do not send passwords, recovery codes, banking details, or compromising photos over Instagram.
When someone asks you to move a conversation to Signal, WhatsApp, or another E2EE messenger, ask them why. It does make sense when you’re sharing financial details, personal images, health information, or anything you would not want a platform provider to read. But sometimes scammers prefer encrypted platforms too, because they’re harder to monitor.
Do not confuse “incognito” AI chats with full encryption. WhatsApp’s Incognito mode for Meta AI may be a privacy improvement over standard cloud AI chats, but it is still a conversation with a large language model owned by the same company that runs the platform. Share only what you’re comfortable entrusting to Meta.
Regularly review your privacy and security settings. Check which devices are logged in, enable two‑factor authentication, and verify which of your chat apps are actually end‑to‑end encrypted by default.
Scammers know more about you than you think.
Malwarebytes Mobile Security protects you from phishing, scam texts, malicious sites, and more. With real-time AI-powered Scam Guard built right in.
Some Malwarebytes users have recently noticed frequent web protection alerts while reading email in Yahoo Mail’s web interface. These alerts are caused by background connections from the Yahoo Mail page to a set of third‑party domains that our products and other security tools currently classify as risky.
What we are seeing under the hood
When you open Yahoo Mail in a browser, the page loads various embedded components for navigation, features, and metrics. As part of this, the interface makes calls to domains such as cook.howduhtable.com and related subdomains, sometimes in the context of URLs that include /ybar/mail.yahoo.com/ and a long encoded parameter. That encoded string often resolves to a URL like:
This suggests the traffic is being routed through what appears to be a sandboxed web component that Yahoo can use for things like telemetry, testing infrastructure, or mail features. It may also be part of an advertising or tracking flow, but at this time we cannot say with certainty exactly what purpose Yahoo is using it for.
Regardless of intent, multiple security systems have observed these redirect domains and assigned them poor reputations. Characteristics include:
Frequently changing, opaque subdomains that do not resemble normal consumer‑facing Yahoo addresses
Use of encoded parameters and chained redirects that make it difficult for users, and sometimes defenders, to see the final destination at a glance
Existing detections and blocklists from other vendors that classify the infrastructure as suspicious or potentially malicious
Because of these signals, Malwarebytes Web Protection and Browser Guard have been blocking a growing list of related subdomains to protect users, which is why some people see repeated alerts while using Yahoo Mail.
What we are not saying
It is important to be clear about what we do and do not know.
We have not established that Yahoo Mail itself is compromised or that Yahoo is deliberately distributing malware through its mail platform. What we can say is that third‑party or internal components invoked from within the Yahoo Mail web interface are making connections through domains that behave very similarly to infrastructure commonly associated with malicious or deceptive advertising and tracking.
From a security standpoint, this creates unnecessary risk. Any mechanism that injects content or runs sandboxed components via opaque redirect chains could, if misused or subverted in the future, expose users to harmful content without them ever clicking a suspicious link.
Blocking these domains is a precautionary step in line with our normal protection standards.
Why Malwarebytes blocks these redirects
Our decision to block these connections is based on a combination of technical behavior and third‑party reputation data:
The redirects are triggered by embedded components in the Yahoo Mail interface, not by users intentionally browsing to those domains
The infrastructure relies on frequently changing, non‑descriptive domains and subdomains, a pattern we often see in malicious or evasive advertising and tracking systems
Multiple security vendors and automated reputation feeds already flag these domains as risky or malicious, and some have seen them associated with unwanted or harmful activity
Because of this, Malwarebytes products currently block connections to these third‑party domains when they are invoked as part of Yahoo Mail’s web experience. This does not mean that all of Yahoo Mail is considered malicious. It means we are specifically interrupting a narrow set of background calls that present elevated risk.
What this means for users
If you use Yahoo Mail in a browser with Malwarebytes enabled, you may see:
Web protection or MWAC alerts referencing domains like cook.howduhtable.com or similar names while you are reading or composing email
Multiple alerts in a short period, because the mail interface may retry or rotate through different subdomains or IP addresses in the same family
In most cases, your email content itself still loads, though certain embedded elements, metrics, or ad‑related content may fail to load or behave differently.
How to stay safe and reduce interruptions
You should not need to lower your protection to continue using Yahoo Mail. Here are some practical steps you can take:
Keep Malwarebytes protection enabled Leaving Web Protection and Browser Guard on ensures blocks remain in place if these redirects change behavior or begin serving harmful content in the future.
Avoid allowlisting the suspicious domains While it’s technically possible to add exclusions for individual domains, doing so would allow their traffic to load unfiltered in your browser. We don’t recommend this unless you fully understand and accept the risk.
Use private/incognito windows for Yahoo Mail Accessing Yahoo Mail in a private/incognito session can help reduce persistence of certain tracking and advertising data because the browser discards cookies and local storage when you close the window.
Clear cookies and site data periodically If you see repeated alerts, clearing Yahoo‑related cookies and cached data may reduce some of the underlying tracking behavior that triggers these redirects.
Consider fewer‑ads options Yahoo offers paid plans that reduce or remove ads, and users can also use reputable content‑blocking extensions alongside Malwarebytes to cut down on ad‑driven behavior in webmail interfaces.
Our ongoing monitoring
The domains and infrastructure involved in these redirects are operated outside Malwarebytes, and their configuration or behavior may change over time. We are actively monitoring telemetry, sandbox reports, and reputation data for these domains and related infrastructure, and we will adjust our detections if new information emerges.
Our priority is to keep users safe while being transparent about why protection events occur, especially in widely used services such as webmail. If we learn more about the exact role of this component within Yahoo Mail, or if Yahoo provides additional clarity, we will update this article accordingly.
Stop threats before they can do any harm.
Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocks phishing pages and malicious sites automatically. Free, one click to install. Add it to your browser →
Schools love a good photo, whether it’s from a trip to a castle, a science prize ceremony, or sports day shot from three angles. For two decades, celebratory images like these have gone straight onto school websites, captioned with a name and a grade. But those days are gone, because it’s the internet in 2026 and we can’t have nice things.
As first reported by the Guardian, experts are now urging schools to take those pictures down. According to the UK’s National Crime Agency, the Internet Watch Foundation, and an advisory body called the Early Warning Working Group (EWWG), blackmailers have been scraping ordinary school photos, feeding them through AI deepfake tools to manufacture child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and demanding payment to keep the images offline.
One school, 150 images
Late last year, cybercriminals contacted an unnamed UK secondary school with that demand. The IWF classified 150 of the resulting images as CSAM under UK law and generated digital fingerprints for each image so major platforms could block reuploads.
The IWF isn’t naming the school or the police force, and it doesn’t believe this was an isolated case. The EWWG says it’s “only a matter of time” before more schools face similar demands.
UK safeguarding minister Jess Phillips called it a “deeply worrying emerging threat.” In February 2025, the UK became the first country to ban AI tools designed specifically to generate CSAM.
How we got here
This threat didn’t appear overnight, and it isn’t limited to the UK. It’s an evolution of a long-time threat: sextortion, when someone uses intimate images to blackmail you. Traditionally, sextortion relied on real intimate images that were stolen or shared, but deepfake AI has changed everything.
The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) logged more than 16,000 sextortion complaints in the first half of 2021, with losses exceeding $8 million. By June 2023, the bureau warned the playbook had shifted: attackers were using ordinary social media photos to create fake explicit images and extort minors.
UK children’s counseling helpline Childline has seen similar shifts as deepfake tools become more accessible. It already logs many sextortion cases each year, many from kids who were manipulated into sharing intimate images of themselves. Now, the organization is getting calls from children who are being sent deepfake CSAM images of themselves without any prior contact.
One 15-year-old girl, for example, was sent a “really convincing” fake nude built from her Instagram photos.
By November 2025, IWF reports of AI-generated CSAM had more than doubled year over year, rising from 199 to 426. Girls accounted for 94% of the victims. Reported cases included children ranging from newborns to two-year-olds, according to the organization.
The ecosystem around these tools is industrial. In April 2025, a researcher found an exposed AWS S3 bucket belonging to South Korean “nudify” app GenNomis containing 93,485 AI-generated images alongside the prompts that produced them.
What the schools are being told
The EWWG’s advice is to replace close-up, identifiable photos with images taken from a distance, blurred images, or photos shot from behind. It also advises schools to remove full names from captions, audit existing images, and ask parents to re-sign consent forms.
In fact, it advises schools to rethink whether they need to publish children’s photos online at all.
Some schools have already acted. According to the Guardian, Loughborough Schools Foundation, a group of three private schools sharing a website, removed recognizable pupil images entirely last year.
The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) says that it “would still generally expect you to offer an opt-out to parents” when publishing an identifiable photo of a child, but says this isn’t legally the same as consent, which has a higher bar.
Things get murkier in the US, where states often have their own student privacy statutes. Broadly, though, under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), schools typically include identifiable photos of students under the category of directory information. This category also covers name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, and dates of attendance.
Under FERPA, schools can publish this type of information unless the child’s guardian specifically opts out. They have to notify a guardian when they want to publish it, but that process may not apply indefinitely after a student leaves the school.
That means student photos and information can remain online long after families assume they have disappeared.
What happens next
Back in the UK, Childline’s Report Remove service allows children to flag explicit images or videos of themselves that have been posted online. The service took 394 blackmail reports from under-18s last year, up by one-third compared to 2024.
Meanwhile, the UK government is amending the Crime and Policing Bill, forcing platforms to take flagged intimate images down within 48 hours or face fines of 10% of global revenue.
We anticipate a race between regulators and AI-enabled cybercriminals. Right now, attackers still have to manually find the photos themselves. The concern is that this process could soon become automated, allowing criminals to scrape names and photos from school websites and social media platforms at scale.
Attorney General (AG) of Texas Ken Paxton announced that he sued Netflix for spying on Texans, including children, and collecting users’ data without their knowledge or consent.
The suit alleges Netflix secretly tracks and monetizes detailed viewing behavior of users, including children, while misleading users about its data practices. The case could reshape how Netflix collects data, targets ads, and designs “addictive” features, especially for minors.
According to the complaint, Netflix allegedly ran what the AG’s office calls a “surveillance program,” turning every click, pause, and binge session into data that could be sold to advertisers and data brokers.
Netflix firmly denies the accusations, calling the lawsuit “inaccurate” and claiming it complies with privacy laws wherever it operates. Spokesperson Jamil Walker said:
“The suit lacks merit and is based on inaccurate and distorted information.”
But regardless of how this specific case plays out, the lawsuit raises a bigger question for all subscribers: Just how much does your streaming service really know about you, and what does it do with that information?
The Texas complaint paints a picture of Netflix as a data company first and a streaming service second. Paxton’s office even describes Netflix as:
“A logging company that records and monetizes billions of behavioral events—and occasionally streams movies.”
The complaint also references a 2024 ruling by the Dutch Data Protection Authority, which said Netflix does not disclose the true scale or granularity of this data collection. The lawsuit claims Netflix did not just use this data internally for recommendations but also sold it to commercial data brokers and ad tech companies, generating “billions of dollars” annually.
The AG wants to stop the unlawful collection and disclosure of user data, require Netflix to disable autoplay by default on kid’s profiles, and impose other injunctive relief and civil penalties.
For customers, the main consequences could include potential changes to data collection, targeted advertising, autoplay defaults, and clearer consent and privacy controls. For subscribers on Netflix’s ad‑supported plans, this could slightly change how “personal” ads feel, at least in jurisdictions where regulators clamp down.
Plus, the lawsuit serves as a reminder that streaming habits may be far more trackable than users assumed. Even if Netflix ultimately wins or settles without admitting wrongdoing, the lawsuit puts a spotlight on what the company collects and why.
Netflix privacy and account settings
It will probably take a while before this lawsuit leads to any changes. But there are a few things you can do to protect your privacy:
Where available, turn off non‑essential marketing emails or in‑app promotions that rely on behavioral profiling.
Use the parental controls Netflix offers you and turn off autoplay previews.
Basically, treat your Netflix account like any other online account: Review every profile, remove old ones, and take five minutes to walk through the privacy- and playback‑related options.
Scammers don’t need to hack you. They just need you to click once.
A researcher found that Yarbo yard robots came with a host of vulnerabilities which, among others, allowed an attacker to harvest WiFi passwords.
Security researcher Andreas Makris found he could remotely hijack thousands of Yarbo yard robots worldwide, and proved it by having his mower run him over. The root cause was a cluster of “legacy” design choices: every robot shared the same hardcoded root password, remote tunnels were left open, and Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) messaging was so weakly protected that once you had one device, you effectively had the worldwide fleet.
An attacker could pull GPS coordinates, email addresses, and Wi‑Fi passwords, turn cameras into remote spying tools, and even re‑arm the mower after someone hit the emergency stop.
All of this was enabled by a persistent backdoor tunnel that users could neither see nor meaningfully control. The risks fell into three very different buckets:
A heavy mower with remotely controllable blades and an emergency stop that can be bypassed is a real-world safety hazard.
Exposed telemetry meant attackers could map where devices were, see who owned them, and in some reports even view camera feeds.
Network abuse through shared root credentials meant compromised robots could scan local networks, steal more data, or be folded into a botnet.
Yarbo’s public response is unusually detailed for a consumer Internet of Things (IoT) vendor. It’s also refreshingly blunt in admitting that the researcher’s core findings were accurate. The company temporarily disabled the remote diagnostic tunnels, reset root passwords, locked down unauthenticated endpoints, and began ripping out unnecessary legacy access paths.
More importantly, Yarbo promises structural changes:
Unique per‑device credentials.
Over-the-Air (OTA) credential rotation.
Audited, allowlist‑based remote diagnostics.
Dedicated security contact, with a possible bug bounty to follow.
That is the sort of long‑term security hygiene we rarely see spelled out this clearly after an IoT fiasco.
From a disclosure and remediation standpoint, Yarbo is doing many things right: crediting the researcher, apologizing, prioritizing fixes, and explaining both short‑term patches and long‑term architectural changes in human language. For buyers of connected devices with blades, that level of transparency is a positive precedent.
But Yarbo has explicitly chosen to keep a remote access tunnel, although wrapped in better controls and logs, instead of offering users the option to remove or fully opt out of it.
How to secure IoT devices
The vulnerabilities uncovered in the Yarbo case present an almost a live-action demo of what the IoT CybersecurityImprovement Act is trying to prevent in US government deployments. While the Act doesn’t apply to Yarbo directly, its National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-driven requirements map neatly onto what went wrong here.
So, it’s still up to users to make sure you:
Change the default credentials.
Check if the vendor will make updates available and how easy it is to install them before buying an IoT product. And then install the updates when available.
If you can, put your IoT devices on a separate network. Use a guest Wi‑Fi or separate VLAN when available.
Disable what you don’t need. Turn off UPnP, remote access, cloud control, and unnecessary services if you’re not actively using them.
If your router or security suite logs connections from IoT devices, skim those logs for odd spikes or unknown destinations.
Let’s face it, an incognito window can only do so much.
Breaches, dark web trading, credit fraud. Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection monitors for all of it, alerts you fast, and comes with identity theft insurance.
In that article we mentioned the importance of encryption.
“With a browser password manager, someone with access to your browser could see your passwords in clear text, although Windows can be set to ask for authentication (the same you use at startup of your device).”
The typical behavior of browser password managers is to store passwords encrypted on disk, tied to your user account, and protected by the operating system.
But recently, a security researcher systematically tested every major Chromium-based browser for how they handle credentials in memory. The researcher found that Edge was the only one loading the entire password vault into plaintext process memory at startup, where it remains for the duration of the session.
Chrome and other Chromium browsers were observed to only decrypt a password when needed (autofill or “show password”), not the whole vault, and to use mechanisms like app‑bound encryption for keys. Edge does not use those protections in this context.
So, the researcher decided to write a proof-of-concept (PoC) demonstrating that accessing that vault doesn’t rely on zero-days or complex exploitation. It relies on the relatively simple ability to read process memory, which does require elevated privileges.
But when the researcher reported the issue to Microsoft, the response was underwhelming. The company’s official response was that the behavior is “by design.” The reasoning most likely is that this behavior speeds up sign‑in and autofill, and attackers would already need a compromised machine or elevated access to read RAM, which Microsoft treats as out of scope for this design decision.
Which is basically true. An attacker already needs significant foothold: for example, code execution on the box and the ability to read Edge’s process memory, often requiring elevated privileges. This is not a remote, unauthenticated bug in the browser, but the design makes post‑compromise credential harvesting easier. And it’s a capability many infostealers already have.
It’s just another thing an attacker can do once they’ve compromised your machine. Combined with this academic study from 2024, which found many password managers leak plaintext passwords into memory under some conditions, it leads us to repeat our advice.
Should you allow your browser to remember your passwords?
Your browser password manager gives you ease of use, but that costs you some security. Of course, password managers aren’t foolproof either, so it’s important to decide for yourself where you store your passwords.
If you’re confident the website is safe, and anyone that can access it under your account won’t learn anything new, feel free to store the password in your browser, but disable autofill so you stay in control.
Use MFA where possible. It enormously reduces the risk should someone get hold of your password. And refrain from using the browser password manager to store your credit card details or other sensitive personally identifiable information, such as medical information.
But we’d add that, among the major browsers, Edge appears to be the weakest option if you still choose to use a built‑in password manager.
Stop threats before they can do any harm.
Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocks phishing pages and malicious sites automatically. Free, one click to install. Add it to your browser →
The Online Safety Act came into effect in July, 2025, and the report explores what has changed in the online lives of UK families since then.
We discussed in December 2025 whether the privacy risks of age verification outweighed the enhanced child protection. While the report shows some progress, it mostly provides “an early view of how the online landscape is changing, and crucially, where it is not.”
Around half of children say they now see more age-appropriate content, and roughly four in ten parents and children feel the online world has become somewhat safer.
The online world is as much a part of a child’s environment as the physical world is. And blocking the view to parts of that world is not taken lightly. Almost half of children think age checks are easy to bypass. About a third admit to doing so recently, using tactics from fake birthdates and borrowed logins to spoofed faces and, less commonly, VPNs.
“I did catch my son [12] using an eyebrow pencil to draw a moustache on his face, and it verified him as 15 years old.”
Yet 90% of children who noticed improved blocking and reporting saw this as a good thing. Their support for these safety features is pragmatic. They point to:
clearer rules
restricted contact with strangers
limits on high-risk functions
They also rate these features as helpful in reducing exposure to harmful content and interactions.
But the system is not perfect. In the month after the child protection codes came into force, almost half of children reported some online harm, including violent, hateful, and body image-related content that should be covered by the Act’s protections.
The survey also revealed that age checks are now commonplace. Over half of children said they were asked to verify their age within a recent two-month window, often on major platforms like TikTok, YouTube/Google, and Roblox, on both new and existing accounts.
The technology is improving. Platforms use facial age estimation, government ID, and third-party age assurance apps, and these are usually easy for children to complete.
However, gains in protection come with unresolved and, in some cases, growing concerns around privacy and data use, especially around age verification and AI.
Parents are worried not just about what data is collected for age checks, but whether it will be stored or reused by government or industry. This has fueled calls for central, privacy-protective solutions rather than fragmented data collection across platforms.
Because age assurance systems are both intrusive (in terms of data) and often ineffective (easy workarounds, weak enforcement), the report suggests they may not yet provide a good safety-to-privacy trade-off from a family perspective.
Obviously, the survey also didn’t capture input from adults pretending to be children to gain access to child-only spaces, a risk that parents link directly to predatory behavior.
The authors conclude that the Online Safety Act has started to reshape children’s online environments, making safety features more visible and enabling more age‑appropriate experiences in some areas.
However, the Act has not yet produced a “step change.” Harmful content remains widespread, age‑assurance is patchy and easy to circumvent, and key concerns such as time spent online, AI risks, and persuasive design remain under‑regulated.
Browse like no one’s watching.
Malwarebytes Privacy VPN encrypts your connection and never logs what you do, so the next story you read doesn’t have to feel personal. Try it free →
Every year, hundreds of millions of real user passwords leak onto the dark web. We analyzed 231 million unique passwords from dark-web leaks between 2023 and 2026, and the conclusions are bleak: the vast majority are extremely weak. To crack 60% of these passwords, a hacker needs only an hour and a few dollars in their pocket. Furthermore, password cracking is accelerating by the year; in our similar 2024 study, the percentage of vulnerable passwords was lower.
Today we’re looking at just how reliable the average password is (spoiler: not really), and how you can secure your data and accounts using more robust methods. At the same time, we’ll highlight the patterns most commonly found in actual user passwords.
These days, passwords are almost never stored in plain text. For instance, if you create an account with the password “Password123!”, the server won’t store it as-is. Instead, the password is hashed using specific algorithms, turning it into a fixed-length string of letters and numbers (a hash) which is what actually stays on the server. For example, here’s what the MD5 hash for “Password123!” looks like:
2c103f2c4ed1e59c0b4e2e01821770fa.
Every time the user enters their password, it’s converted into a hash and compared against the one stored on the server; if the hashes match, the password is correct. If an attacker gets their hands on this hash, they have to decrypt it to recover the original password — this is what’s known as “password cracking”. This is typically done using owned or rented GPUs, and several methods can be employed for the crack:
Exhaustive enumeration (brute force). The computer tries every possible combination of characters, calculating the hash for each one. This method is the easiest way to crack short passwords, or those consisting of a single character set (such as digits only).
Rainbow tables. A total nightmare for anyone with a simple password, this is essentially a “phone book” for passwords whose hashes have already been cracked via brute force or smart algorithms. All an attacker has to do is find a matching hash and see which password corresponds to it.
Smart cracking. These algorithms are trained on databases of leaked passwords. They understand the frequency of different character combinations, and run their checks from the most likely to the least popular sequences. They account for dictionary words, character substitutions (a → @ or s → $), and consider common password structures like “dictionary word + number + special character”, while checking hashes against rainbow tables. Combining these methods significantly accelerates the cracking process.
Beyond that, attackers can also intercept passwords in plain text. There are numerous ways to do this, ranging from phishing (where a victim is lured to a fake web page and enters their password voluntarily) and keyloggers that capture keystrokes, to stealers or Trojans that swipe documents, cookies, clipboard data, and more. Unfortunately, many users keep their passwords as plain text in notes, messaging apps, and documents, or save them in browsers where attackers can extract them in seconds.
Every year, we track around a hundred million plain-text password leaks. We use these databases to warn Kaspersky Password Manager users if their data has been compromised. To address the most frequent question we get on this: no, we don’t know our users’ passwords. We’ve explained in non-techie language exactly how we compare your passwords to leaked ones without actually knowing them — and why neither your passwords stored in Kaspersky Password Managernor even their hashes ever leave your device — in our overviews of our leak analysis technology and our password manager’s internal architecture. Give them a read; you’ll be surprised by just how elegant the design is.
60% of passwords are cracked in under an hour
We expanded the database from our previous study by an additional 38 million real passwords posted by attackers on dark-web forums and compared the results. Testing was conducted using a single RTX 5090 GPU for passwords hashed with the MD5 algorithm. The data for the analysis was obtained from our Digital Footprint Intelligence service. You can review the algorithm we used to assess password strength in our article on Securelist.
Unfortunately, passwords remain as weak as ever, while cracking them becomes faster and easier with every year. Today, 60% of passwords can be cracked in less than an hour; two years ago, that figure was 59%. But the truly frightening part is something else: nearly half of all passwords (48%) are cracked in less than a minute!
Cracking time
Percentage of passwords crackable within this time in 2024
Percentage of passwords crackable within this time today
Less than a minute
45%
48%
Less than an hour
59% (+14%)
60% (+12%)
Less than 24 hours
67% (+8%)
68% (+8%)
Less than a month
73% (+6%)
74% (+6%)
Less than a year
77% (+4%)
77% (+3%)
More than a year
23%
23%
Password cracking time: two years ago and today
Attackers owe this boost in speed to graphics processors, which grow more powerful every year. While an RTX 4090 in 2024 could brute-force MD5 hashes at a rate of 164 gigahashes (billion hashes) per second, the new RTX 5090 has increased that speed by 34% — reaching 220 gigahashes per second.
And although a high-end video card like that currently retails for several thousand dollars, the price tag isn’t much of a barrier: there are plenty of cheap cloud services available for renting GPU computing power. Depending on the configuration and the model, rental costs range from a few cents to a few dollars per hour. As we’ve seen, one hour is all an attacker needs to crack three out of every five passwords they’ve found in a leak. Plus, depending on the scale of the task, they can always rent ten or even a hundred GPUs instead of just one…
It’s worth noting that cracking every password in a dataset doesn’t take much longer than cracking a single one. During each iteration, once the attacker calculates a hash for a specific character combination, they check if that same hash exists anywhere in the dataset — and the larger the dataset, the easier it is to find a match. If a match is found, the corresponding password is flagged as “cracked”, and the algorithm moves along to the next one.
Which passwords are vulnerable?
The strength of any password depends on its length, content variety, and the randomness of that content. Passwords created by humans turn out to be the least resilient — unfortunately, humans are quite predictable. We use dictionary words and character combinations that smart algorithms have long since mastered, we avoid long random strings, and patterns can be found even in keystrokes we believe are random. Interestingly enough, passwords generated by AI still carry the fingerprints of a human approach; we covered this in a separate post on how to create a strong yet memorable password.
Password length is the primary factor affecting cracking time. As you can see from the table below, it takes less than 24 hours to crack almost any eight-character password.
Percentage of varying password lengths crackable within a given timeframe
But the predictability of your password is just as important. Think you’re boosting security by adding a number or a special character to a memorable word? You are, but only slightly. The patterns people use to create passwords are easily predictable and, at times, pretty amusing — though this is no laughing matter.
What we learned about password patterns
Analysis of over 200 million passwords revealed characteristic patterns that allow smart algorithms to crack user passwords with ease.
Pick a number
More than half of all passwords (53%) end with one or more digits, while nearly one in six (17%) starts with a number. Every eighth password (12%) contains sequences that look a lot like years — ranging from 1950 to 2030 — and one in ten (10%) specifically falls between 1990 and 2026. This most likely happens because folks add their birth year (or that of someone close), some other significant year, or the year they created the password or account. Fun fact: based on the distribution of these dates, it suggests that the most active internet users were born between 2000 and 2012.
However, among all numeric combinations, the most popular turned out to be… you guessed it: “1234”. Overall, patterns involving sequential keyboard presses (“qwerty, ,”ytrewq”, and the like) appear in 3% of passwords.
Special characters aren’t a silver bullet
Most password policies in recent years require at least one special character. The absolute winner in this category is the @ symbol: it appears in one out of every 10 passwords. The period (.) comes in second, followed by the exclamation point (!) in third.
Love rules the world… and Skibidi Toilet does too
Emotionally charged words often form the foundation of a password, and despite everything, positive words are more common. Frequently occurring examples include “love”, “angel”, “team”, “mate”, “life”, and “star”. That said, negativity pops up too — mostly in the form of common English swear words.
Interestingly, viral memes are reflected in passwords as well. Between 2023 and 2026, the use of the word Skibidi in passwords skyrocketed 36-fold! Naturally (see the link if it doesn’t seem natural), “toilet” saw a boost too, though to a lesser extent.
Users tend to keep their passwords unchanged for years
More than half of the passwords (54%) we identified in recent leaks have surfaced before. Part of this can be explained by the same data migrating from one dataset to another. However, there’s a much more troubling reason too: many users simply haven’t changed their passwords in years.
Analyzing the dates found within passwords shows that combinations containing the years from 2020 through 2024 remain popular. It seems people add the current year to their password when they create it — and then forget about it for several years. This actually allows us to calculate the average lifespan of a password: about three to five years.
This is a dangerous trend. For one, smart algorithms can crack much more complex passwords over that kind of timeframe. Secondly, the longer your password remains unchanged, the higher the probability it will leak — whether through a breach, malware infection, or a phishing attack.
The situation gets even worse when the same password is used across multiple accounts. In this case, attackers don’t even need to crack anything; they just need to find your password in a single leak and plug it into other sites.
How to protect your passwords and accounts
If you’ve realized while reading this post that your own passwords are among those easily crackable — don’t panic. We’ve put together a list of simple but essential tips for you.
Use a password manager
The weakest passwords are the ones people come up with themselves. Creating and memorizing hundreds of sequences of 16–20 random characters (since every site requires a unique, long password) is a daunting, unrealistic task.
That’s why you should delegate password generation and storage to our password manager. It doesn’t just create and store complex, randomized passwords in an encrypted format; it also syncs them across all your devices. To decrypt your vault, you only need to remember one main password that no one knows but you — our guide on mnemonic passwords can help you with that.
Don’t store passwords as plain text
Whatever you do, never write down passwords in files, messages, or documents. They lack the robust encryption provided by a password manager. Furthermore, these kinds of notes fall into the hands of attackers instantly if you happen to pick up a Trojan or an infostealer.
Don’t store passwords in your browser
Many users save their passwords in their browsers — especially since they conveniently offer to do it automatically. Unfortunately, research shows that malware has evolved to extract these passwords from all popular browsers almost instantly. Kaspersky Password Manager can help you import saved passwords from your favorite browser — just follow our simple, three-step guide. Most importantly, don’t forget to clear the browser’s password storage once the import is complete.
Switch to passkeys
Wherever possible, use passkeys — a cryptographic replacement for passwords. In this setup, the service stores a public key, while the private key remains on your device and is never transmitted. During login, the device simply signs a one-time request. Additionally, passkeys are tied to a specific domain, meaning phishing attacks using spoofed addresses won’t work. Kaspersky Password Manager allows you to store both passwords and passkeys, solving the problem of syncing them across different ecosystems, including Windows, Android, macOS, and iOS.
Set up two-factor authentication
Enable two-factor authentication wherever possible. Even if your password is compromised, a properly configured 2FA setup makes it extremely difficult for the attacker to access your account. For maximum security, skip the one-time codes sent via SMS and use authenticator apps instead — and yes, Kaspersky Password Manager comes in handy here, too.
Practice good digital hygiene
Remember, storing your passwords correctly is only half the battle. It’s crucial to follow the rules of digital hygiene: avoid downloading unverified files, pirated software, cheats, or cracks, and don’t click on random links. The number of infostealer attacks has been steadily rising in recent years, which means you need a robust security solution for full protection. We recommend Kaspersky Premium — it protects all your devices from Trojans, phishing, and other threats. Besides, the subscription includes our password manager.
For those serious about account security, check out our collection of posts on passwords, passkeys, and two-factor authentication:
Login
