A 24-year-old British national and senior member of the cybercrime group “Scattered Spider” has pleaded guilty to wire fraud conspiracy and aggravated identity theft. Tyler Robert Buchanan admitted his role in a series of text-message phishing attacks in the summer of 2022 that allowed the group to hack into at least a dozen major technology companies and steal tens of millions of dollars worth of cryptocurrency from investors.

Buchanan’s hacker handle “Tylerb” once graced a leaderboard in the English-language criminal hacking scene that tracked the most accomplished cyber thieves. Now in U.S. custody and awaiting sentencing, the Dundee, Scotland native is facing the possibility of more than 20 years in prison.

Scattered Spider is the name given to a prolific English-speaking cybercrime group known for using social engineering tactics to break into companies and steal data for ransom, often impersonating employees or contractors to deceive IT help desks into granting access.

As part of his guilty plea, Buchanan admitted conspiring with other Scattered Spider members to launch tens of thousands of SMS-based phishing attacks in 2022 that led to intrusions at a number of technology companies, including Twilio, LastPass, DoorDash, and Mailchimp.

The group then used data stolen in those breaches to carry out SIM-swapping attacks that siphoned funds from individual cryptocurrency investors. In an unauthorized SIM-swap, crooks transfer the target’s phone number to a device they control and intercept any text messages or phone calls to the victim’s device — such as one-time passcodes for authentication and password reset links sent via SMS. The U.S. Justice Department said Buchanan admitted to stealing at least $8 million in virtual currency from individual victims throughout the United States.

FBI investigators tied Buchanan to the 2022 SMS phishing attacks after discovering the same username and email address was used to register numerous phishing domains seen in the campaign. The domain registrar NameCheap found that less than a month before the phishing spree, the account that registered those domains logged in from an Internet address in the U.K. FBI investigators said the Scottish police told them the address was leased to Buchanan throughout 2022.

As first reported by KrebsOnSecurity, Buchanan fled the United Kingdom in February 2023, after a rival cybercrime gang hired thugs to invade his home, assault his mother, and threaten to burn him with a blowtorch unless he gave up the keys to his cryptocurrency wallet. That same year, U.K. investigators found a device at Buchanan’s Scotland residence that included data stolen from SMS phishing victims and seed phrases from cryptocurrency theft victims.

Buchanan was arrested by Spanish authorities in June 2024 while trying to board a flight to Italy. He was extradited to the United States and has remained in U.S. federal custody since April 2025.

Buchanan is the second known Scattered Spider member to plead guilty. Noah Michael Urban, 21, of Palm Coast, Fla., was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison last year and ordered to pay $13 million in restitution. Three other alleged co-conspirators — Ahmed Hossam Eldin Elbadawy, 24, a.k.a. “AD,” of College Station, Texas; Evans Onyeaka Osiebo, 21, of Dallas, Texas; and Joel Martin Evans, 26, a.k.a. “joeleoli,” of Jacksonville, North Carolina – still face criminal charges.

Two other alleged Scattered Spider members will soon be tried in the United Kingdom. Owen Flowers, 18, and Thalha Jubair, 20, are facing charges related to the hacking and extortion of several large U.K. retailers, the London transit system, and healthcare providers in the United States. Both have pleaded not guilty, and their trial is slated to begin in June.

Investigators say the Scattered Spider suspects are part of a sprawling cybercriminal community online known as “The Com,” wherein hackers from different cliques boast publicly on Telegram and Discord about high-profile cyber thefts that almost invariably begin with social engineering — tricking people over the phone, email or SMS into giving away credentials that allow remote access to corporate internal networks.

One of the more popular SIM-swapping channels on Telegram has long maintained a leaderboard of the most rapacious SIM-swappers, indexed by their supposed conquests in stealing cryptocurrency. That leaderboard previously listed Buchanan’s hacker alias Tylerb at #65 (out of 100 hackers), with Urban’s moniker “Sosa” coming in at #24.

Buchanan’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for August 21, 2026. According to the Justice Department, he faces a statutory maximum sentence of 22 years in federal prison. However, any sentence the judge hands down in this case may be significantly tempered by a number of mitigating factors in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, including the defendant’s age, criminal history, time already served in U.S. custody, and the degree to which they cooperated with federal authorities.

The idea of a “Great British Firewall” makes for a catchy headline, but it would be riddled with holes and cause huge problems.

The Guardian reports that the GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), a UK intelligence, security, and cyber agency, is exploring the idea of a British firewall offering protection against malicious hackers. It falls within its remit, but one of the measures reportedly discussed—banning VPN software—raises practical and technical questions.

Here’s what you actually need to know, and why you shouldn’t panic about your VPN just yet.

• There are no current plans on the statute books to ban VPNs for everyone. Ministers and regulators explicitly acknowledge VPNs as lawful services with legitimate uses.
• The current political focus is on “online safety”, especially kids accessing porn and harmful content, and how VPNs can undermine the Online Safety Act’s age‑assurance and filtering regime.
• The latest move is an online‑safety consultation that explicitly mentions “options to age-restrict or limit children’s VPN use where it undermines safety protections”, not an outright nationwide ban.

So what may happen is tighter controls around minors, and perhaps pressure on app stores and platforms, rather than a blanket prohibition for adults.

Options

Technically speaking, these are some of the measures available to address VPNs bypassing geo-blocking and local legislation.

• App‑store and download pressure: Require Apple/Google to hide or age‑gate VPN apps for UK accounts, or block listing of some consumer VPNs. This raises friction for non‑technical users but is trivial to route around (sideloading where possible, non‑UK stores, manual configs).
• Commercial provider lists: Buy accounts at popular VPNs, enumerate exit IP ranges, and require ISPs or certain sites (e.g. porn sites) to block those IPs. This can catch a large chunk of mainstream VPN traffic but is high‑maintenance and easy to evade with IP rotation, residential proxies, self‑hosted VPNs, and lesser‑known services.
• Targeted site‑level blocking of VPNs: Require certain categories of sites (e.g. adult sites) to reject traffic that appears to come from VPN IPs, an idea already floated by some experts as more likely than an outright technology ban. That still leaves VPNs usable for everything else, including general browsing and work.
• Age‑based device/network controls: Mandate school networks, child‑oriented devices, or parental control routers to block known VPN endpoints and app traffic, as media regulator Ofcom and others have suggested may be possible at the home‑router level. Again, this targets minors rather than adults and is only as strong as the weakest network they connect to (a friend’s Wi‑Fi, mobile hotspot, etc.).

All of these are “making it harder” tactics rather than a hard technical kill switch.

Why a watertight VPN ban is essentially impossible

To comprehensively block VPNs, the government would need to require internet providers to inspect traffic, restrict apps from app stores, and attempt to cut off access to thousands of VPN servers worldwide. That would be a massive, expensive, and deeply complicated undertaking—and it still wouldn’t work.

Problem 1: VPNs are basically invisible

Modern VPNs are designed to look very similar to normal web browsing. When you load a website over HTTPS (the padlock in your browser) and when you connect to a VPN, the traffic flowing through your internet connection looks almost identical. Reliably telling them apart is a bit like trying to spot which cars on a motorway are taxis versus private vehicles based solely on their tire tread patterns at motorway speed, for every car, in real time. You’d end up accidentally blocking huge amounts of perfectly ordinary internet traffic in the attempt.

Problem 2: Too many legitimate users depend on VPNs

VPNs aren’t just for privacy-conscious consumers. They’re how millions of people securely connect to their workplace from home. The NHS (the UK’s National Health Service) uses them for remote access. Journalists use them to protect sources. Researchers use them to access academic resources. Any serious enforcement effort would have to grapple with the risk of collateral damage to businesses and public services.

Problem 3: The ban would be trivially easy to bypass

Even if the government successfully blocked every major commercial VPN app and service, technically skilled users could simply rent a cheap server anywhere in the world and set up their own private tunnel in under ten minutes. There are also tools designed to evade exactly this kind of blocking, disguising encrypted traffic as ordinary web activity.

We know this because Russia has been trying to block VPNs for years, using the full weight of state enforcement behind it. But VPN usage in Russia has surged, not declined. Blocked services pop up under new names and addresses and new tools emerge overnight. This track record suggests that long-term, comprehensive suppression is difficult, even with aggressive powers of enforcement.

What does this actually mean for UK citizens?

The government can probably make consumer VPN use slightly more inconvenient, removing apps from UK app stores, for instance, or creating legal grey areas for certain uses. But a genuine, technical ban on VPN software and encrypted connections is not realistically achievable without causing serious collateral damage to the UK’s digital economy and the millions of people who depend on this technology for entirely legitimate reasons.

Don’t ditch your VPN. The Great Firewall of Great Britain isn’t coming. And if it tried, it would have more holes than a fishing net.

Hat tip to Stefan Dasic and the Malwarebytes VPN team for their invaluable input.

---

We don’t just report on privacy—we offer you the option to use it.

Privacy risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep your online privacy yours by using Malwarebytes Privacy VPN.

China has more than 5,000 cybersecurity companies and all the top 20 firms are working with the government. 

The post Cybersecurity Firms React to China’s Reported Software Ban appeared first on SecurityWeek.