A newly discovered vulnerability named WhisperPair can turn Bluetooth headphones and headsets from many well-known brands into personal tracking beacons — regardless of whether the accessories are currently connected to an iPhone, Android smartphone, or even a laptop. Even though the technology behind this flaw was originally developed by Google for Android devices, the tracking risks are actually much higher for those using vulnerable headsets with other operating systems — like iOS, macOS, Windows, or Linux. For iPhone owners, this is especially concerning.

Connecting Bluetooth headphones to Android smartphones became a whole lot faster when Google rolled out Fast Pair, a technology now used by dozens of accessory manufacturers. To pair a new headset, you just turn it on and hold it near your phone. If your device is relatively modern (produced after 2019), a pop-up appears inviting you to connect and download the accompanying app, if it exists. One tap, and you’re good to go.

Unfortunately, it seems quite a few manufacturers didn’t pay attention to the particulars of this tech when implementing it, and now their accessories can be hijacked by a stranger’s smartphone in seconds — even if the headset isn’t actually in pairing mode. This is the core of the WhisperPair vulnerability, recently discovered by researchers at KU Leuven and recorded as CVE-2025-36911.

The attacking device — which can be a standard smartphone, tablet or laptop — broadcasts Google Fast Pair requests to any Bluetooth devices within a 14-meter radius. As it turns out, a long list of headphones from Sony, JBL, Redmi, Anker, Marshall, Jabra, OnePlus, and even Google itself (the Pixel Buds 2) will respond to these pings even when they aren’t looking to pair. On average, the attack takes just 10 seconds.

Once the headphones are paired, the attacker can do pretty much anything the owner can: listen in through the microphone, blast music, or — in some cases — locate the headset on a map if it supports Google Find Hub. That latter feature, designed strictly for finding lost headphones, creates a perfect opening for stealthy remote tracking. And here’s the twist: it’s actually most dangerous for Apple users and anyone else rocking non-Android hardware.

Remote tracking and the risks for iPhones

When headphones or a headset first shake hands with an Android device via the Fast Pair protocol, an owner key tied to that smartphone’s Google account is tucked away in the accessory’s memory. This info allows the headphones to be found later by leveraging data collected from millions of Android devices. If any random smartphone spots the target device nearby via Bluetooth, it reports its location to the Google servers. This feature — Google Find Hub — is essentially the Android version of Apple’s Find My, and it introduces the same unauthorized tracking risks as a rogue AirTag.

When an attacker hijacks the pairing, their key can be saved as the headset owner’s key — but only if the headset targeted via WhisperPair hasn’t previously been linked to an Android device and has only been used with an iPhone, or other hardware like a laptop with a different OS. Once the headphones are paired, the attacker can stalk their location on a map at their leisure — crucially, anywhere at all (not just within the 14-meter range).

Android users who’ve already used Fast Pair to link their vulnerable headsets are safe from this specific move, since they’re already logged in as the official owners. Everyone else, however, should probably double-check their manufacturer’s documentation to see if they’re in the clear — thankfully, not every device vulnerable to the exploit actually supports Google Find Hub.

How to neutralize the WhisperPair threat

The only truly effective way to fix this bug is to update your headphones’ firmware, provided an update is actually available. You can typically check for and install updates through the headset’s official companion app. The researchers have compiled a list of vulnerable devices on their site, but it’s almost certainly not exhaustive.

After updating the firmware, you absolutely must perform a factory reset to wipe the list of paired devices — including any unwanted guests.

If no firmware update is available and you’re using your headset with iOS, macOS, Windows, or Linux, your only remaining option is to track down an Android smartphone (or find a trusted friend who has one) and use it to reserve the role of the original owner. This will prevent anyone else from adding your headphones to Google Find Hub behind your back.

The update from Google

In January 2026, Google pushed an Android update to patch the vulnerability on the OS side. Unfortunately, the specifics haven’t been made public, so we’re left guessing exactly what they tweaked under the hood. Most likely, updated smartphones will no longer report the location of accessories hijacked via WhisperPair to the Google Find Hub network. But given that not everyone is exactly speedy when it comes to installing Android updates, it’s a safe bet that this type of headset tracking will remain viable for at least another couple of years.

Want to find out how else your gadgets might be spying on you? Check out these posts:

• How to protect yourself from Bluetooth stalking and more
• How to track anyone via the Find My network
• How to stop being tracked via Bluetooth beacons like AirTag
• How smartphones build a dossier on you
• Why data brokers build dossiers on you, and how to stop them doing so

Google has settled yet another class-action lawsuit accusing it of collecting children’s data and using it to target them with advertising. The tech giant will pay $8.25 million to address allegations that it tracked data on apps specifically designated for kids.

AdMob’s mobile data collection

This settlement stems from accusations that apps provided under Google’s “Designed for Families” programme, which was meant to help parents find safe apps, tracked children. Under the terms of this programme, developers were supposed to self-certify COPPA compliance and use advertising SDKs that disabled behavioural tracking. However, some did not, instead using software embedded in the apps that was created by a Google-owned mobile advertising company called AdMob.

When kids used these apps, which included games, AdMob collected data from these apps, according to the class action lawsuit. This included IP addresses, device identifiers, usage data, and the child’s location to within five meters, transmitting it to Google without parental consent. The AdMob software could then use that information to display targeted ads to users.

This kind of activity is exactly what the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was created to stop. The law requires operators of child-directed services to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from children under 13. That includes cookies and other identifiers, which are the core tools advertisers use to track and target people.

The families filing the lawsuit alleged that Google knew this was going on:

“Google and AdMob knew at the time that their actions were resulting in the exfiltration data from millions of children under thirteen but engaged in this illicit conduct to earn billions of dollars in advertising revenue.”

Security researchers had alerted Google to the issue in 2018, according to the filing.

YouTube settlement approved

What’s most disappointing is that these privacy issues keep happening. This news arrives at the same time that a judge approved a settlement on another child privacy case involving Google’s use of children’s data on YouTube. This case dates back to October 2019, the same year that Google and YouTube paid a whopping $170m fine for violating COPPA.

Families in this class action suit alleged that YouTube used cookies and persistent identifiers on child-directed channels, collecting data including IP addresses, geolocation data, and device serial numbers. This is the same thing that it does for adults across the web, but COPPA protects kids under 13 from such activities, as do some state laws.

According to the complaint, YouTube collected this information between 2013 and 2020 and used it for behavioural advertising. This form of advertising infers people’s interests from their identifiers, and it is more lucrative than contextual advertising, which focuses only on a channel’s content.

The case said that various channel owners opted into behavioural advertising, prompting Google to collect this personal information. No parental consent was obtained, the plaintiffs alleged. Channel owners named in the suit included Cartoon Network, Hasbro, Mattel, and DreamWorks Animation.

Under the YouTube settlement (which was agreed in August and recently approved by a judge), families can file claims through YouTubePrivacySettlement.com, although the deadline is this Wednesday. Eligible families are likely to get $20–$30 after attorneys’ fees and administration costs, if 1–2% of eligible families submit claims.

COPPA is evolving

Last year, the FTC amended its COPPA Rule to introduce mandatory opt-in consent for targeted advertising to children, separate from general data-collection consent.

The amendments expand the definition of personal information to include biometric data and government-issued ID information. It also lets the FTC use a site operator’s marketing materials to determine whether a site targets children.

Site owners must also now tell parents who they’ll share information with, and the amendments stop operators from keeping children’s personal information forever. If these all sounds like measures that should have been included to protect children online from the get-go, we agree with you. In any case, companies have until this April to comply with the new rules.

Will the COPPA rules make a difference? It’s difficult to say, given the stream of privacy cases involving Google LLC (which owns YouTube and AdMob, among others). When viewed against Alphabet’s overall earnings, an $8.25m penalty risks being seen as a routine business expense rather than a meaningful deterrent.

---

We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.

Google has settled yet another class-action lawsuit accusing it of collecting children’s data and using it to target them with advertising. The tech giant will pay $8.25 million to address allegations that it tracked data on apps specifically designated for kids.

AdMob’s mobile data collection

This settlement stems from accusations that apps provided under Google’s “Designed for Families” programme, which was meant to help parents find safe apps, tracked children. Under the terms of this programme, developers were supposed to self-certify COPPA compliance and use advertising SDKs that disabled behavioural tracking. However, some did not, instead using software embedded in the apps that was created by a Google-owned mobile advertising company called AdMob.

When kids used these apps, which included games, AdMob collected data from these apps, according to the class action lawsuit. This included IP addresses, device identifiers, usage data, and the child’s location to within five meters, transmitting it to Google without parental consent. The AdMob software could then use that information to display targeted ads to users.

This kind of activity is exactly what the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was created to stop. The law requires operators of child-directed services to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from children under 13. That includes cookies and other identifiers, which are the core tools advertisers use to track and target people.

The families filing the lawsuit alleged that Google knew this was going on:

“Google and AdMob knew at the time that their actions were resulting in the exfiltration data from millions of children under thirteen but engaged in this illicit conduct to earn billions of dollars in advertising revenue.”

Security researchers had alerted Google to the issue in 2018, according to the filing.

YouTube settlement approved

What’s most disappointing is that these privacy issues keep happening. This news arrives at the same time that a judge approved a settlement on another child privacy case involving Google’s use of children’s data on YouTube. This case dates back to October 2019, the same year that Google and YouTube paid a whopping $170m fine for violating COPPA.

Families in this class action suit alleged that YouTube used cookies and persistent identifiers on child-directed channels, collecting data including IP addresses, geolocation data, and device serial numbers. This is the same thing that it does for adults across the web, but COPPA protects kids under 13 from such activities, as do some state laws.

According to the complaint, YouTube collected this information between 2013 and 2020 and used it for behavioural advertising. This form of advertising infers people’s interests from their identifiers, and it is more lucrative than contextual advertising, which focuses only on a channel’s content.

The case said that various channel owners opted into behavioural advertising, prompting Google to collect this personal information. No parental consent was obtained, the plaintiffs alleged. Channel owners named in the suit included Cartoon Network, Hasbro, Mattel, and DreamWorks Animation.

Under the YouTube settlement (which was agreed in August and recently approved by a judge), families can file claims through YouTubePrivacySettlement.com, although the deadline is this Wednesday. Eligible families are likely to get $20–$30 after attorneys’ fees and administration costs, if 1–2% of eligible families submit claims.

COPPA is evolving

Last year, the FTC amended its COPPA Rule to introduce mandatory opt-in consent for targeted advertising to children, separate from general data-collection consent.

The amendments expand the definition of personal information to include biometric data and government-issued ID information. It also lets the FTC use a site operator’s marketing materials to determine whether a site targets children.

Site owners must also now tell parents who they’ll share information with, and the amendments stop operators from keeping children’s personal information forever. If these all sounds like measures that should have been included to protect children online from the get-go, we agree with you. In any case, companies have until this April to comply with the new rules.

Will the COPPA rules make a difference? It’s difficult to say, given the stream of privacy cases involving Google LLC (which owns YouTube and AdMob, among others). When viewed against Alphabet’s overall earnings, an $8.25m penalty risks being seen as a routine business expense rather than a meaningful deterrent.

---

We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.

A group of cybercriminals called DarkSpectre is believed to be behind three campaigns spread by malicious browser extensions: ShadyPanda, GhostPoster, and Zoom Stealer.

We wrote about the ShadyPanda campaign in December 2025, warning users that extensions which had behaved normally for years suddenly went rogue. After a malicious update, these extensions were able to track browsing behavior and run malicious code inside the browser.

Also in December, researchers uncovered a new campaign, GhostPoster, and identified 17 compromised Firefox extensions. The campaign was found to hide JavaScript code inside the image logo of malicious Firefox extensions with more than 50,000 downloads, allowing attackers to to monitor browser activity and plant a backdoor.

The use of malicious code in images is a technique called steganography. Earlier GhostPoster extensions hid JavaScript loader code inside PNG icons such as logo.png for Firefox extensions like “Free VPN Forever,” using a marker (for example, three equals signs) in the raw bytes to separate image data from payload.

Newer variants moved to embedding payloads in arbitrary images inside the extension bundle, then decoding and decrypting them at runtime. This makes the malicious code much harder for researchers to detect.

Based on that research, other researchers found an additional 17 extensions associated with the same group, beyond the original Firefox set. These were downloaded more than 840,000 times in total, with some remaining active in the wild for up to five years.

GhostPoster first targeted Microsoft Edge users and later expanded to Chrome and Firefox as the attackers built out their infrastructure. The attackers published the extensions in each browser’s web store as seemingly useful tools with names like “Google Translate in Right Click,” “Ads Block Ultimate,” “Translate Selected Text with Google,” “Instagram Downloader,” and “Youtube Download.”

The extensions can see visited sites, search queries, and shopping behavior, allowing attackers to create detailed profiles of users’ habits and interests.

Combined with other malicious code, this visibility could be extended to credential theft, session hijacking, or attacks targeting online banking workflows, even if those are not the primary goal today.

How to stay safe

Although we always advise people to install extensions only from official web stores, this case proves once again that not all extensions available there are safe. That said, the risk involved in installing an extension from outside the web store is even greater.

Extensions listed in the web store undergo a review process before being approved. This process, which combines automated and manual checks, assesses the extension’s safety, policy compliance, and overall user experience. The goal is to protect users from scams, malware, and other malicious activity.

Mozilla and Microsoft have removed the identified add-ons from their stores, and Google has confirmed their removal from the Chrome Web Store. However, already installed extensions remain active in Chrome and Edge until users manually uninstall them. When Mozilla blocks an add-on it is also disabled, which prevents it from interacting with Firefox and accessing your browser and your data.

If you’re worried that you may have installed one of these extensions, Windows users can run a Malwarebytes Deep Scan with their browsers closed.

• On the Malwarebytes Dashboard click on the three stacked dots to select the Advanced Scan option.
  
• On the Advanced Scan tab, select Deep Scan. Note that this scan uses more system resources than usual.
• After the scan, remove any found items, and then reopen your browser(s).

Manual check:

These are the names of the 17 additional extensions that were discovered:

• AdBlocker
• Ads Block Ultimate
• Amazon Price History
• Color Enhancer
• Convert Everything
• Cool Cursor
• Floating Player – PiP Mode
• Full Page Screenshot
• Google Translate in Right Click
• Instagram Downloader
• One Key Translate
• Page Screenshot Clipper
• RSS Feed
• Save Image to Pinterest on Right Click
• Translate Selected Text with Google
• Translate Selected Text with Right Click
• Youtube Download

Note: There may be extensions with the same names that are not malicious.

---

We don’t just report on threats—we help safeguard your entire digital identity

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your, and your family’s, personal information by using identity protection.

A group of cybercriminals called DarkSpectre is believed to be behind three campaigns spread by malicious browser extensions: ShadyPanda, GhostPoster, and Zoom Stealer.

We wrote about the ShadyPanda campaign in December 2025, warning users that extensions which had behaved normally for years suddenly went rogue. After a malicious update, these extensions were able to track browsing behavior and run malicious code inside the browser.

Also in December, researchers uncovered a new campaign, GhostPoster, and identified 17 compromised Firefox extensions. The campaign was found to hide JavaScript code inside the image logo of malicious Firefox extensions with more than 50,000 downloads, allowing attackers to to monitor browser activity and plant a backdoor.

The use of malicious code in images is a technique called steganography. Earlier GhostPoster extensions hid JavaScript loader code inside PNG icons such as logo.png for Firefox extensions like “Free VPN Forever,” using a marker (for example, three equals signs) in the raw bytes to separate image data from payload.

Newer variants moved to embedding payloads in arbitrary images inside the extension bundle, then decoding and decrypting them at runtime. This makes the malicious code much harder for researchers to detect.

Based on that research, other researchers found an additional 17 extensions associated with the same group, beyond the original Firefox set. These were downloaded more than 840,000 times in total, with some remaining active in the wild for up to five years.

GhostPoster first targeted Microsoft Edge users and later expanded to Chrome and Firefox as the attackers built out their infrastructure. The attackers published the extensions in each browser’s web store as seemingly useful tools with names like “Google Translate in Right Click,” “Ads Block Ultimate,” “Translate Selected Text with Google,” “Instagram Downloader,” and “Youtube Download.”

The extensions can see visited sites, search queries, and shopping behavior, allowing attackers to create detailed profiles of users’ habits and interests.

Combined with other malicious code, this visibility could be extended to credential theft, session hijacking, or attacks targeting online banking workflows, even if those are not the primary goal today.

How to stay safe

Although we always advise people to install extensions only from official web stores, this case proves once again that not all extensions available there are safe. That said, the risk involved in installing an extension from outside the web store is even greater.

Extensions listed in the web store undergo a review process before being approved. This process, which combines automated and manual checks, assesses the extension’s safety, policy compliance, and overall user experience. The goal is to protect users from scams, malware, and other malicious activity.

Mozilla and Microsoft have removed the identified add-ons from their stores, and Google has confirmed their removal from the Chrome Web Store. However, already installed extensions remain active in Chrome and Edge until users manually uninstall them. When Mozilla blocks an add-on it is also disabled, which prevents it from interacting with Firefox and accessing your browser and your data.

If you’re worried that you may have installed one of these extensions, Windows users can run a Malwarebytes Deep Scan with their browsers closed.

• On the Malwarebytes Dashboard click on the three stacked dots to select the Advanced Scan option.
  
• On the Advanced Scan tab, select Deep Scan. Note that this scan uses more system resources than usual.
• After the scan, remove any found items, and then reopen your browser(s).

Manual check:

These are the names of the 17 additional extensions that were discovered:

• AdBlocker
• Ads Block Ultimate
• Amazon Price History
• Color Enhancer
• Convert Everything
• Cool Cursor
• Floating Player – PiP Mode
• Full Page Screenshot
• Google Translate in Right Click
• Instagram Downloader
• One Key Translate
• Page Screenshot Clipper
• RSS Feed
• Save Image to Pinterest on Right Click
• Translate Selected Text with Google
• Translate Selected Text with Right Click
• Youtube Download

Note: There may be extensions with the same names that are not malicious.

---

We don’t just report on threats—we help safeguard your entire digital identity

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your, and your family’s, personal information by using identity protection.

It all sounds pretty dystopian:

Inside a white stucco building in Southern California, video cameras compare faces of passersby against a facial recognition database. Behavioral analysis AI reviews the footage for signs of violent behavior. Behind a bathroom door, a smoke detector-shaped device captures audio, listening for sounds of distress. Outside, drones stand ready to be deployed and provide intel from above, and license plate readers from $8.5 billion surveillance behemoth Flock Safety ensure the cars entering and exiting the parking lot aren’t driven by criminals.

This isn’t a high-security government facility. It’s Beverly Hills High School.

De Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens waarschuwt dat een nieuwe Nederlandse wet tegen witwassen mogelijk privacyschendingen met zich meebrengt. De privacytoezichthouder vindt dat de overheid verschillende waarborgen moet toevoegen aan de wet, voordat die wordt ingevoerd.

Researchers found a method to steal data which bypasses Microsoft Copilot’s built-in safety mechanisms.  

The attack flow, called Reprompt, abuses how Microsoft Copilot handled URL parameters in order to hijack a user’s existing Copilot Personal session.

Copilot is an AI assistant which connects to a personal account and is integrated into Windows, the Edge browser, and various consumer applications.

The issue was fixed in Microsoft’s January Patch Tuesday update, and there is no evidence of in‑the‑wild exploitation so far. Still, it once again shows how risky it can be to trust AI assistants at this point in time.

Reprompt hides a malicious prompt in the q parameter of an otherwise legitimate Copilot URL. When the page loads, Copilot auto‑executes that prompt, allowing an attacker to run actions in the victim’s authenticated session after just a single click on a phishing link.

In other words, attackers can hide secret instructions inside the web address of a Copilot link, in a place most users never look. Copilot then runs those hidden instructions as if the users had typed them themselves.

Because Copilot accepts prompts via a q URL parameter and executes them automatically, a phishing email can lure a user into clicking a legitimate-looking Copilot link while silently injecting attacker-controlled instructions into a live Copilot session.

What makes Reprompt stand out from other, similar prompt injection attacks is that it requires no user-entered prompts, no installed plugins, and no enabled connectors.

The basis of the Reprompt attack is amazingly simple. Although Copilot enforces safeguards to prevent direct data leaks, these protections only apply to the initial request. The attackers were able to bypass these guardrails by simply instructing Copilot to repeat each action twice.

Working from there, the researchers noted:

“Once the first prompt is executed, the attacker’s server issues follow‑up instructions based on prior responses and forms an ongoing chain of requests. This approach hides the real intent from both the user and client-side monitoring tools, making detection extremely difficult.”

How to stay safe

You can stay safe from the Reprompt attack specifically by installing the January 2026 Patch Tuesday updates.

If available, use Microsoft 365 Copilot for work data, as it benefits from Purview auditing, tenant‑level data loss prevention (DLP), and admin restrictions that were not available to Copilot Personal in the research case. DLP rules look for sensitive data such as credit card numbers, ID numbers, health data, and can block, warn, or log when someone tries to send or store it in risky ways (email, OneDrive, Teams, Power Platform connectors, and more).

Don’t click on unsolicited links before verifying with the (trusted) source whether they are safe.

Reportedly, Microsoft is testing a new policy that allows IT administrators to uninstall the AI-powered Copilot digital assistant on managed devices.

Malwarebytes users can disable Copilot for their personal machines under Tools > Privacy, where you can toggle Disable Windows Copilot to on (blue).

In general, be aware that using AI assistants still pose privacy risks. As long as there are ways for assistants to automatically ingest untrusted input—such as URL parameters, page text, metadata, and comments—and merge it into hidden system prompts or instructions without strong separation or filtering, users remain at risk of leaking private information.

So when using any AI assistant that can be driven via links, browser automation, or external content, it is reasonable to assume “Reprompt‑style” issues are at least possible and should be taken into consideration.

---

We don’t just report on threats—we remove them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

Researchers found a method to steal data which bypasses Microsoft Copilot’s built-in safety mechanisms.  

The attack flow, called Reprompt, abuses how Microsoft Copilot handled URL parameters in order to hijack a user’s existing Copilot Personal session.

Copilot is an AI assistant which connects to a personal account and is integrated into Windows, the Edge browser, and various consumer applications.

The issue was fixed in Microsoft’s January Patch Tuesday update, and there is no evidence of in‑the‑wild exploitation so far. Still, it once again shows how risky it can be to trust AI assistants at this point in time.

Reprompt hides a malicious prompt in the q parameter of an otherwise legitimate Copilot URL. When the page loads, Copilot auto‑executes that prompt, allowing an attacker to run actions in the victim’s authenticated session after just a single click on a phishing link.

In other words, attackers can hide secret instructions inside the web address of a Copilot link, in a place most users never look. Copilot then runs those hidden instructions as if the users had typed them themselves.

Because Copilot accepts prompts via a q URL parameter and executes them automatically, a phishing email can lure a user into clicking a legitimate-looking Copilot link while silently injecting attacker-controlled instructions into a live Copilot session.

What makes Reprompt stand out from other, similar prompt injection attacks is that it requires no user-entered prompts, no installed plugins, and no enabled connectors.

The basis of the Reprompt attack is amazingly simple. Although Copilot enforces safeguards to prevent direct data leaks, these protections only apply to the initial request. The attackers were able to bypass these guardrails by simply instructing Copilot to repeat each action twice.

Working from there, the researchers noted:

“Once the first prompt is executed, the attacker’s server issues follow‑up instructions based on prior responses and forms an ongoing chain of requests. This approach hides the real intent from both the user and client-side monitoring tools, making detection extremely difficult.”

How to stay safe

You can stay safe from the Reprompt attack specifically by installing the January 2026 Patch Tuesday updates.

If available, use Microsoft 365 Copilot for work data, as it benefits from Purview auditing, tenant‑level data loss prevention (DLP), and admin restrictions that were not available to Copilot Personal in the research case. DLP rules look for sensitive data such as credit card numbers, ID numbers, health data, and can block, warn, or log when someone tries to send or store it in risky ways (email, OneDrive, Teams, Power Platform connectors, and more).

Don’t click on unsolicited links before verifying with the (trusted) source whether they are safe.

Reportedly, Microsoft is testing a new policy that allows IT administrators to uninstall the AI-powered Copilot digital assistant on managed devices.

Malwarebytes users can disable Copilot for their personal machines under Tools > Privacy, where you can toggle Disable Windows Copilot to on (blue).

In general, be aware that using AI assistants still pose privacy risks. As long as there are ways for assistants to automatically ingest untrusted input—such as URL parameters, page text, metadata, and comments—and merge it into hidden system prompts or instructions without strong separation or filtering, users remain at risk of leaking private information.

So when using any AI assistant that can be driven via links, browser automation, or external content, it is reasonable to assume “Reprompt‑style” issues are at least possible and should be taken into consideration.

---

We don’t just report on threats—we remove them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

In 2025, cybersecurity researchers discovered several open databases belonging to various AI image-generation tools. This fact alone makes you wonder just how much AI startups care about the privacy and security of their users’ data. But the nature of the content in these databases is far more alarming.

A large number of generated pictures in these databases were images of women in lingerie or fully nude. Some were clearly created from children’s photos, or intended to make adult women appear younger (and undressed). Finally, the most disturbing part: some pornographic images were generated from completely innocent photos of real people — likely taken from social media.

In this post, we’re talking about what sextortion is, and why AI tools mean anyone can become a victim. We detail the contents of these open databases, and give you advice on how to avoid becoming a victim of AI-era sextortion.

What is sextortion?

Online sexual extortion has become so common it’s earned its own global name: sextortion (a portmanteau of sex and extortion). We’ve already detailed its various types in our post, Fifty shades of sextortion. To recap, this form of blackmail involves threatening to publish intimate images or videos to coerce the victim into taking certain actions, or to extort money from them.

Previously, victims of sextortion were typically adult industry workers, or individuals who’d shared intimate content with an untrustworthy person.

However, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, particularly text-to-image technology, has fundamentally changed the game. Now, literally anyone who’s posted their most innocent photos publicly can become a victim of sextortion. This is because generative AI makes it possible to quickly, easily, and convincingly undress people in any digital image, or add a generated nude body to someone’s head in a matter of seconds.

Of course, this kind of fakery was possible before AI, but it required long hours of meticulous Photoshop work. Now, all you need is to describe the desired result in words.

To make matters worse, many generative AI services don’t bother much with protecting the content they’ve been used to create. As mentioned earlier, last year saw researchers discover at least three publicly accessible databases belonging to these services. This means the generated nudes within them were available not just to the user who’d created them, but to anyone on the internet.

How the AI image database leak was discovered

In October 2025, cybersecurity researcher Jeremiah Fowler uncovered an open database containing over a million AI-generated images and videos. According to the researcher, the overwhelming majority of this content was pornographic in nature. The database wasn’t encrypted or password-protected — meaning any internet user could access it.

The database’s name and watermarks on some images led Fowler to believe its source was the U.S.-based company SocialBook, which offers services for influencers and digital marketing services. The company’s website also provides access to tools for generating images and content using AI.

However, further analysis revealed that SocialBook itself wasn’t directly generating this content. Links within the service’s interface led to third-party products — the AI services MagicEdit and DreamPal — which were the tools used to create the images. These tools allowed users to generate pictures from text descriptions, edit uploaded photos, and perform various visual manipulations, including creating explicit content and face-swapping.

The leak was linked to these specific tools, and the database contained the product of their work, including AI-generated and AI-edited images. A portion of the images led the researcher to suspect they’d been uploaded to the AI as references for creating provocative imagery.

Fowler states that roughly 10,000 photos were being added to the database every single day. SocialBook denies any connection to the database. After the researcher informed the company of the leak, several pages on the SocialBook website that had previously mentioned MagicEdit and DreamPal became inaccessible and began returning errors.

Which services were the source of the leak?

Both services — MagicEdit and DreamPal — were initially marketed as tools for interactive, user-driven visual experimentation with images and art characters. Unfortunately, a significant portion of these capabilities were directly linked to creating sexualized content.

For example, MagicEdit offered a tool for AI-powered virtual clothing changes, as well as a set of styles that made images of women more revealing after processing — such as replacing everyday clothes with swimwear or lingerie. Its promotional materials promised to turn an ordinary look into a sexy one in seconds.

DreamPal, for its part, was initially positioned as an AI-powered role-playing chat, and was even more explicit about its adult-oriented positioning. The site offered to create an ideal AI girlfriend, with certain pages directly referencing erotic content. The FAQ also noted that filters for explicit content in chats were disabled so as not to limit users’ most intimate fantasies.

Both services have suspended operations. At the time of writing, the DreamPal website returned an error, while MagicEdit seemed available again. Their apps were removed from both the App Store and Google Play.

Jeremiah Fowler says earlier in 2025, he discovered two more open databases containing AI-generated images. One belonged to the South Korean site GenNomis, and contained 95,000 entries — a substantial portion of which being images of “undressed” people. Among other things, the database included images with child versions of celebrities: American singers Ariana Grande and Beyoncé, and reality TV star Kim Kardashian.

How to avoid becoming a victim

In light of incidents like these, it’s clear that the risks associated with sextortion are no longer confined to private messaging or the exchange of intimate content. In the era of generative AI, even ordinary photos, when posted publicly, can be used to create compromising content.

This problem is especially relevant for women, but men shouldn’t get too comfortable either: the popular blackmail scheme of “I hacked your computer and used the webcam to make videos of you browsing adult sites” could reach a whole new level of persuasion thanks to AI tools for generating photos and videos.

Therefore, protecting your privacy on social media and controlling what data about you is publicly available become key measures for safeguarding both your reputation and peace of mind. To prevent your photos from being used to create questionable AI-generated content, we recommend making all your social media profiles as private as possible — after all, they could be the source of images for AI-generated nudes.

We’ve already published multiple detailed guides on how to reduce your digital footprint online or even remove your data from the internet, how to stop data brokers from compiling dossiers on you, and protect yourself from intimate image abuse.

Additionally, we have a dedicated service, Privacy Checker — perfect for anyone who wants a quick but systematic approach to privacy settings everywhere possible. It compiles step-by-step guides for securing accounts on social media and online services across all major platforms.

And to ensure the safety and privacy of your child’s data, Kaspersky Safe Kids can help: it allows parents to monitor which social media their child spends time on. From there, you can help them adjust privacy settings on their accounts so their posted photos aren’t used to create inappropriate content. Explore our guide to children’s online safety together, and if your child dreams of becoming a popular blogger, discuss our step-by-step cybersecurity guide for wannabe bloggers with them.

Cyberveiligheidsexperts claimen door de cyberaanval bij AZ Monica de gegevens van 71.000 patiënten van drie andere Belgische ziekenhuizen te hebben bemachtigd. De data lijkt nog niet beschikbaar op het darkweb of andere platformen.

Recently, fake LinkedIn profiles have started posting comment replies claiming that a user has “engaged in activities that are not in compliance” with LinkedIn’s policies and that their account has been “temporarily restricted” until they submit an appeal through a specified link in the comment.

The comments come in different shapes and sizes, but here’s one example we found.

The accounts posting the comments all try to look like official LinkedIn bots and use various names. It’s likely they create new accounts when LinkedIn removes them. Either way, multiple accounts similar to the “Linked Very” one above were reported in a short period, suggesting automated creation and posting at scale.

The same pattern is true for the links. The shortened link used in the example above has already been disabled, while others point directly to phishing sites. Scammers often use shortened LinkedIn links to build trust, making targets believe the messages are legitimate. Because LinkedIn can quickly disable these links, attackers likely test different approaches to see which last the longest.

Here’s another example:

Malwarebytes blocks this last link based on the IP address:

If users follow these links, they are taken to a phishing page designed to steal their LinkedIn login details:

A LinkedIn spokesperson confirmed to BleepingComputer they are aware of the situation:

“I can confirm that we are aware of this activity and our teams are working to take action.”

Stay safe

In situations like this awareness is key—and now you know what to watch for. Some additional tips:

• Don’t click on unsolicited links in private messages and comments without verifying with the trusted sender that they’re legitimate.
• Always log in directly on the platform that you are trying to access, rather than through a link.
• Use a password manager, which won’t auto-fill in credentials on fake websites.
• Use a real-time, up-to-date anti-malware solution with a web protection module to block malicious sites.

Pro tip: The free Malwarebytes Browser Guard extension blocks known malicious websites and scripts.

---

We don’t just report on scams—we help detect them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. If something looks dodgy to you, check if it’s a scam using Malwarebytes Scam Guard, a feature of our mobile protection products. Submit a screenshot, paste suspicious content, or share a text or phone number, and we’ll tell you if it’s a scam or legit. Download Malwarebytes Mobile Security for iOS or Android and try it today!

Recently, fake LinkedIn profiles have started posting comment replies claiming that a user has “engaged in activities that are not in compliance” with LinkedIn’s policies and that their account has been “temporarily restricted” until they submit an appeal through a specified link in the comment.

The comments come in different shapes and sizes, but here’s one example we found.

The accounts posting the comments all try to look like official LinkedIn bots and use various names. It’s likely they create new accounts when LinkedIn removes them. Either way, multiple accounts similar to the “Linked Very” one above were reported in a short period, suggesting automated creation and posting at scale.

The same pattern is true for the links. The shortened link used in the example above has already been disabled, while others point directly to phishing sites. Scammers often use shortened LinkedIn links to build trust, making targets believe the messages are legitimate. Because LinkedIn can quickly disable these links, attackers likely test different approaches to see which last the longest.

Here’s another example:

Malwarebytes blocks this last link based on the IP address:

If users follow these links, they are taken to a phishing page designed to steal their LinkedIn login details:

A LinkedIn spokesperson confirmed to BleepingComputer they are aware of the situation:

“I can confirm that we are aware of this activity and our teams are working to take action.”

Stay safe

In situations like this awareness is key—and now you know what to watch for. Some additional tips:

• Don’t click on unsolicited links in private messages and comments without verifying with the trusted sender that they’re legitimate.
• Always log in directly on the platform that you are trying to access, rather than through a link.
• Use a password manager, which won’t auto-fill in credentials on fake websites.
• Use a real-time, up-to-date anti-malware solution with a web protection module to block malicious sites.

Pro tip: The free Malwarebytes Browser Guard extension blocks known malicious websites and scripts.

---

We don’t just report on scams—we help detect them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. If something looks dodgy to you, check if it’s a scam using Malwarebytes Scam Guard, a feature of our mobile protection products. Submit a screenshot, paste suspicious content, or share a text or phone number, and we’ll tell you if it’s a scam or legit. Download Malwarebytes Mobile Security for iOS or Android and try it today!

California’s privacy regulator has fined a Texas data broker $45,000 and banned it from selling Californians’ personal information after it sold Alzheimer patients’ data. Texan company Rickenbacher Data LLC, which does business as Datamasters, bought and resold the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of people that suffered from serious health conditions, according to the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA).

The CPPA’s final order against Datamasters says that the company maintained a database containing 435,245 postal addresses for Alzheimer’s patients. But it didn’t stop there. Also up for grabs were records for 2,317,141 blind or visually impaired people, and 133,142 addiction sufferers. It also sold records for 857,449 people with bladder control issues.

Health-related data wasn’t the only category Datamasters trafficked in. The company also sold information tied to ethnicity, including so-called “Hispanic lists” containing more than 20 million names, as well as age-based “senior lists” and indicators of financial vulnerability. For example, it sold records of people holding high-interest mortgages.

And if buyers wanted data on other likely customer characteristics and actions, such as who was likely a liberal vs a right-winger, it could give you that, too, thanks to 3,370 “Consumer Predictor Models” spanning automotive preferences, financial activity, media use, political affiliation, and nonprofit activity.

Datamasters offers outright purchase of records from its national consumer database, which it claims covers 114 million households and 231 million individuals. Customers can also buy subscription-based updates too.

California regulators began investigating Datamasters after discovering the company had failed to register as a data broker in the state, as required under California’s Delete Act. The law has required data brokers to register since January 31, 2025.

The company originally denied that it did business in California or had data on Californians. However, that claim collapsed when regulators found an Excel spreadsheet on the website listing 204,218 California student records.

Datamasters first said it had not screened its national database to remove Californians’ data. After getting a lawyer, it changed its story, asserting that it did in fact filter Californians out of the data set. That didn’t convince the CPPA though.

The regulator acknowledged that Datamasters did try to comply with Californian privacy laws, but that it

“lacked sufficient written policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Delete Act.”

The fine imposed on Datamasters also takes into account that it hadn’t registered on the state’s data broker registry. Data brokers that don’t register are liable for $200 per day in fines, and failing to delete consumer data will incur $200 per consumer per day in fines.

Starting January 1, 2028, data brokers registered in California will also be required to undergo independent third-party compliance audits every three years.

Why selling extra-sensitive customer data is so dangerous

“History teaches us that certain types of lists can be dangerous,”

Michael Macko, the CPPA’s head of enforcement, pointed out.

Research has told us that Alzheimer’s patients are especially vulnerable to financial exploitation. If you think that scammers don’t seek out such lists, think again; criminals were found to have accessed data from at least three data brokers in the past. While there’s no suggestion that Datamasters knowingly sold data to scammers, it seems easy for people to buy data broker lists.

It also doesn’t take a PhD to see why many of these records (which, remember, the company holds about people nationwide) could be especially sensitive in the current US political climate.

There’s a broader privacy issue here, too. While many Americans might assume that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects their health data, it only applies to healthcare providers. Amazingly, data brokers sit outside its purview.

So what can you do to protect yourself?

Your first port of call should be your state’s data protection law. California introduced the Data Request and Opt-out Platform (DROP) system this year under the Delete Act. It’s an opt-out system for California residents to make all data brokers on the registry delete data held about them.

If you don’t live in a state that takes sensitive data seriously, your options are more limited. You could move—maybe to Europe, where privacy protections are considerably stronger.

---

We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.

California’s privacy regulator has fined a Texas data broker $45,000 and banned it from selling Californians’ personal information after it sold Alzheimer patients’ data. Texan company Rickenbacher Data LLC, which does business as Datamasters, bought and resold the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of people that suffered from serious health conditions, according to the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA).

The CPPA’s final order against Datamasters says that the company maintained a database containing 435,245 postal addresses for Alzheimer’s patients. But it didn’t stop there. Also up for grabs were records for 2,317,141 blind or visually impaired people, and 133,142 addiction sufferers. It also sold records for 857,449 people with bladder control issues.

Health-related data wasn’t the only category Datamasters trafficked in. The company also sold information tied to ethnicity, including so-called “Hispanic lists” containing more than 20 million names, as well as age-based “senior lists” and indicators of financial vulnerability. For example, it sold records of people holding high-interest mortgages.

And if buyers wanted data on other likely customer characteristics and actions, such as who was likely a liberal vs a right-winger, it could give you that, too, thanks to 3,370 “Consumer Predictor Models” spanning automotive preferences, financial activity, media use, political affiliation, and nonprofit activity.

Datamasters offers outright purchase of records from its national consumer database, which it claims covers 114 million households and 231 million individuals. Customers can also buy subscription-based updates too.

California regulators began investigating Datamasters after discovering the company had failed to register as a data broker in the state, as required under California’s Delete Act. The law has required data brokers to register since January 31, 2025.

The company originally denied that it did business in California or had data on Californians. However, that claim collapsed when regulators found an Excel spreadsheet on the website listing 204,218 California student records.

Datamasters first said it had not screened its national database to remove Californians’ data. After getting a lawyer, it changed its story, asserting that it did in fact filter Californians out of the data set. That didn’t convince the CPPA though.

The regulator acknowledged that Datamasters did try to comply with Californian privacy laws, but that it

“lacked sufficient written policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Delete Act.”

The fine imposed on Datamasters also takes into account that it hadn’t registered on the state’s data broker registry. Data brokers that don’t register are liable for $200 per day in fines, and failing to delete consumer data will incur $200 per consumer per day in fines.

Starting January 1, 2028, data brokers registered in California will also be required to undergo independent third-party compliance audits every three years.

Why selling extra-sensitive customer data is so dangerous

“History teaches us that certain types of lists can be dangerous,”

Michael Macko, the CPPA’s head of enforcement, pointed out.

Research has told us that Alzheimer’s patients are especially vulnerable to financial exploitation. If you think that scammers don’t seek out such lists, think again; criminals were found to have accessed data from at least three data brokers in the past. While there’s no suggestion that Datamasters knowingly sold data to scammers, it seems easy for people to buy data broker lists.

It also doesn’t take a PhD to see why many of these records (which, remember, the company holds about people nationwide) could be especially sensitive in the current US political climate.

There’s a broader privacy issue here, too. While many Americans might assume that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects their health data, it only applies to healthcare providers. Amazingly, data brokers sit outside its purview.

So what can you do to protect yourself?

Your first port of call should be your state’s data protection law. California introduced the Data Request and Opt-out Platform (DROP) system this year under the Delete Act. It’s an opt-out system for California residents to make all data brokers on the registry delete data held about them.

If you don’t live in a state that takes sensitive data seriously, your options are more limited. You could move—maybe to Europe, where privacy protections are considerably stronger.

---

We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.

Grok’s failure to block sexualized images of minors has turned a single “isolated lapse” into a global regulatory stress test for xAI’s ambitions. The response from lawmakers and regulators suggests this will not be solved with a quick apology and a hotfix.

Last week we reported on Grok’s apology after it generated an image of young girls in “sexualized attire.”

The apology followed the introduction of Grok’s paid “Spicy Mode” in August 2025, which was marketed as edgy and less censored. In practice it enabled users to generate sexual deepfake images, including content that may cross into illegal child sexual abuse material (CSAM) under US and other jurisdictions’ laws.

A report from web-monitoring tool CopyLeaks highlighted “thousands” of incidents of Grok being used to create sexually suggestive images of non-consenting celebrities.

This is starting to backfire. Reportedly, three US senators are asking Google and Apple to remove Elon Musk’s Grok and X apps from their app stores, citing the spread of nonconsensual sexualized AI images of women and minors and arguing it violates the companies’ app store rules.

In their joint letter, the senators state:

“In recent days, X users have used the app’s Grok AI tool to generate nonconsensual sexual imagery of real, private citizens at scale. This trend has included Grok modifying images to depict women being sexually abused, humiliated, hurt, and even killed. In some cases, Grok has reportedly created sexualized images of children—the most heinous type of content imaginable.”

The UK government also threatens to take possible action against the platform. Government officials have said they would fully support any action taken by Ofcom, the independent media regulator, against X. Even if that meant UK regulators could block the platform.

Indonesia and Malaysia already blocked Grok after its “digital undressing” function flooded the internet with suggestive and obscene manipulated images of women and minors.

As it turns out, a user prompted Grok to generate its own “apology,” which it did. After backlash over sexualized images of women and minors, Grok/X announced limits on image generation and editing for paying subscribers only, effectively paywalling those capabilities on main X surfaces.

For lawmakers already worried about disinformation, election interference, deepfakes, and abuse imagery, Grok is fast becoming the textbook case for why “move fast and break things” doesn’t mix with AI that can sexualize real people on demand.

Hopefully, the next wave of rules, ranging from EU AI enforcement to platform-specific safety obligations, will treat this incident as the baseline risk that all large-scale visual models must withstand, not as an outlier.

Keep your children safe

If you ever wondered why parents post images of their children with a smiley across their face, this is the reason.

Don’t make it easy for strangers to copy, reuse, or manipulate your photos.

This incident is yet another compelling reason to reduce your digital footprint. Think carefully before posting photos of yourself, your children, or other sensitive information on public social media accounts.

And treat everything you see online—images, voices, text—as potentially AI-generated unless they can be independently verified. They’re not only used to sway opinions, but also to solicit money, extract personal information, or create abusive material.

---

We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your social media accounts by using Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection.

Grok’s failure to block sexualized images of minors has turned a single “isolated lapse” into a global regulatory stress test for xAI’s ambitions. The response from lawmakers and regulators suggests this will not be solved with a quick apology and a hotfix.

Last week we reported on Grok’s apology after it generated an image of young girls in “sexualized attire.”

The apology followed the introduction of Grok’s paid “Spicy Mode” in August 2025, which was marketed as edgy and less censored. In practice it enabled users to generate sexual deepfake images, including content that may cross into illegal child sexual abuse material (CSAM) under US and other jurisdictions’ laws.

A report from web-monitoring tool CopyLeaks highlighted “thousands” of incidents of Grok being used to create sexually suggestive images of non-consenting celebrities.

This is starting to backfire. Reportedly, three US senators are asking Google and Apple to remove Elon Musk’s Grok and X apps from their app stores, citing the spread of nonconsensual sexualized AI images of women and minors and arguing it violates the companies’ app store rules.

In their joint letter, the senators state:

“In recent days, X users have used the app’s Grok AI tool to generate nonconsensual sexual imagery of real, private citizens at scale. This trend has included Grok modifying images to depict women being sexually abused, humiliated, hurt, and even killed. In some cases, Grok has reportedly created sexualized images of children—the most heinous type of content imaginable.”

The UK government also threatens to take possible action against the platform. Government officials have said they would fully support any action taken by Ofcom, the independent media regulator, against X. Even if that meant UK regulators could block the platform.

Indonesia and Malaysia already blocked Grok after its “digital undressing” function flooded the internet with suggestive and obscene manipulated images of women and minors.

As it turns out, a user prompted Grok to generate its own “apology,” which it did. After backlash over sexualized images of women and minors, Grok/X announced limits on image generation and editing for paying subscribers only, effectively paywalling those capabilities on main X surfaces.

For lawmakers already worried about disinformation, election interference, deepfakes, and abuse imagery, Grok is fast becoming the textbook case for why “move fast and break things” doesn’t mix with AI that can sexualize real people on demand.

Hopefully, the next wave of rules, ranging from EU AI enforcement to platform-specific safety obligations, will treat this incident as the baseline risk that all large-scale visual models must withstand, not as an outlier.

Keep your children safe

If you ever wondered why parents post images of their children with a smiley across their face, this is the reason.

Don’t make it easy for strangers to copy, reuse, or manipulate your photos.

This incident is yet another compelling reason to reduce your digital footprint. Think carefully before posting photos of yourself, your children, or other sensitive information on public social media accounts.

And treat everything you see online—images, voices, text—as potentially AI-generated unless they can be independently verified. They’re not only used to sway opinions, but also to solicit money, extract personal information, or create abusive material.

---

We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your social media accounts by using Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection.

Uit recent onderzoek van SIDN, uitgevoerd in aanloop naar de cybersecuritymaand die in oktober plaatsvindt, blijkt een zorgwekkende trend in het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven. Veel bedrijf zijn namelijk nog steeds slachtoffer van phishing, maar nemen tegelijkertijd weinig maatregelen.

De datalek door de hack op het laboratorium dat onderzoek deed naar baarmoederhalskanker blijkt nog veel groter dan gedacht. Gevoelige persoonlijke informatie van zeker 700.000 vrouwen is gelekt, veel meer dan in eerste instantie werd gemeld.