How state-sponsored hacking affects trust

From a cryptographer’s perspective, the UK’s demand for access to encrypted iCloud data sets a deeply unsettling precedent. Encryption is founded on the principle that only authorized parties have the ability to transform unreadable ciphertext back into readable information. Once a “special key” or backdoor is introduced—even under the guise of lawful access—the intrinsic security promises offered by strong encryption begin to unravel. In practice, no cryptographic system can differentiate between an “authoritative” user and an attacker who has replicated or stolen that key. Thus, the prospect of compelled backdoors is like an infection spreading through the entire security architecture: once compromised, a carefully built system can crumble. Another subtle but serious risk lies in how this move emboldens authoritarian regimes worldwide. If a mature democracy like the UK can coerce Apple into abandoning its end-to-end encryption guarantees, less scrupulous governments could demand the same. Rather than carefully circumscribing access to specific investigations, there is a risk that blanket mandates become the new normal. For smaller tech companies with fewer resources than Apple, such pressure becomes nearly impossible to resist—leading to a broad erosion of individual privacy and free speech in places where it is most vulnerable. One might argue that national security and law enforcement concerns justify exceptional access, yet practical evidence casts doubt on its effectiveness. In the face of government-imposed backdoors, sophisticated criminals would simply pivot to specialized, offshore encryption tools. Meanwhile, ordinary users—journalists, dissidents, everyday citizens—would be disproportionately harmed. The knowledge that a government can remotely “switch off” one’s privacy fosters a climate of self-censorship and chills open discourse. The technological arms race also escalates; as new secure apps and channels spring up, demands for new backdoors follow in a cycle that undermines trust in all digital platforms. Furthermore, Apple’s strategy of potentially withdrawing its secure offering from the UK highlights the unintended economic and social consequences of such policies. Global tech firms, facing legal mandates that demand they weaken their security products, may conclude it is simpler to remove certain features from entire markets. This erodes consumer access to cutting-edge security tools and sets a dangerous global precedent where the UK’s measures may effectively dictate encryption standards elsewhere. When one jurisdiction’s policies have global reach, it forces a “lowest common denominator” approach to security. Most concerning of all is the broader political narrative. By targeting end-to-end encryption, the UK government effectively challenges the principle of private communication. https://lnkd.in/geSmtPJ7

The Trump administration has initiated the dismantling of crucial federal defenses against foreign interference in U.S. elections, raising significant concerns: - Closure of the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force - Reduction of over 100 positions at the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) - Absence of federal partners at the National Association of Secretaries of State winter meeting States cannot address this issue independently. Pennsylvania's Republican Secretary of the Commonwealth, Al Schmidt, is on record stating: "It is foolish and inefficient to think that states should each pursue this on their own." Why this matters Foreign meddling in U.S. elections is not hypothetical but a documented fact. The Senate Intelligence Committee's bipartisan report revealed that Russian operatives targeted election systems in all 50 states in 2016. The Department of Justice confirmed similar attempts by Iran, China, and Russia in recent elections. There is no reason to believe they will stop. What can we reasonably expect to happen as a consequence? 1. Heightened vulnerability: State election systems will lack federal backing against sophisticated foreign actors 2. Fragmented defenses: States may adopt inconsistent security measures without unified federal support 3. Loss of expertise: Disruption of years of institutional knowledge and security partnerships 4. Public trust: Visible security measures are crucial to maintaining trust in election integrity The crucial question is: What do we stand to gain by weakening these protections, and at what expense to our democratic processes? CISA has played a vital role in providing essential services to states, including vulnerability assessments, security evaluations, and Election Day crisis readiness. These services have bolstered election infrastructure nationwide, irrespective of political affiliations. #ElectionSecurity #CyberSecurity #VoterProtection #DemocracyMatters #NationalSecurity #CISA #CriticalInfrastructure https://lnkd.in/eqiJRn36

You get the call. It’s your source, the same number they always use. You recognize the voice immediately. Calm. Detailed. Credible. They provide you with intel that aligns with your ongoing investigation. You take notes. You move fast. But the call wasn’t real. The number was spoofed. The voice was synthetic. Someone cloned your source using AI, and contact data was leaked in a recent breach. That intel? Planted disinformation. When it publishes, reputations are damaged, markets move, and trust collapses. This scenario mirrors current events. The Washington Post breach exposed the email accounts of national security reporters. CrowdStrike’s 2024 outage demonstrated how quickly infrastructure can fail, providing attackers with an opportunity to harvest communications in bulk. Now, voice cloning tools are being used with real data to fool even the most experienced professionals. This isn’t speculation. It’s a tabletop training scenario based on real tactics. The next voice you trust could be the one that ruins your credibility.  #Deepfake #DisinformationDefense #TabletopExercise #NationalSecurity #SocialEngineering

When transparency becomes a weapon. Microsoft’s decision last week to bar Chinese companies from its security partner program is more than a corporate policy shift. It’s a case study in how authoritarian regimes exploit openness. For years, the Microsoft Active Protections Program (MAPP) gave select security partners early access to information about software vulnerabilities so they could defend clients and build patches. But as Reuters has reported, Beijing-linked operators repeatedly turned that trust into an advantage by using those disclosures in attacks against U.S. agencies and corporations. And even when details aren’t openly shared, adversaries today rely on patch diffing (reverse-engineering software updates) to identify and weaponize flaws before defenders can apply fixes. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) recently noted how this latest SharePoint compromise exposed a deeper dilemma: China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law requires firms to “support and cooperate” with state intelligence. Many Chinese cybersecurity companies go further, reportedly maintaining cyber militia units integrated with state cyber teams (Margin Research, 2024). In other words, information shared for defense becomes a weapon for offense. Microsoft’s move is the right one. But it raises a larger question: How do democracies preserve the benefits of cybersecurity transparency without handing authoritarian adversaries a blueprint for attack? #Cybersecurity #China #Microsoft #NationalSecurity #Trust #DigitalTransformation

Did you know there is a Chinese law requiring tech companies who learn of a hackable flaw in their products to share that flaw with the Communist Party? Consider this: "For state-sponsored hacking operations, unpatched vulnerabilities are valuable ammunition. Intelligence agencies and militaries seize on hackable bugs when they're revealed—exploiting them to carry out their campaigns of espionage or cyberwar—or spend millions to dig up new ones or to buy them in secret from the hacker gray market. But for the past two years, China has added another approach to obtaining information about those vulnerabilities: a law that simply demands that any network technology business operating in the country hand it over. When tech companies learn of a hackable flaw in their products, they’re now required to tell a Chinese government agency—which, in some cases, then shares that information with China's state-sponsored hackers, according to a new investigation. And some evidence suggests foreign firms with China-based operations are complying with the law, indirectly giving Chinese authorities hints about potential new ways to hack their own customers." One doesn't have to be too terribly creative to see all of the problems that this can cause... https://lnkd.in/eHre9K2q

Meta recently shut down a major network of over 4,700 fake accounts based in China. These accounts were pushing polarizing content on U.S. politics and U.S.-China relations, cleverly mimicking real user profiles from around the globe. This isn't new. State actors like China, following Russia's playbook, are intensifying digital and information warfare. Their goal? To deepen divisions in our society, erode trust in our institutions, and make us doubt the integrity of our elections. It's a continuation of Cold War-era 'active measures,' a calculated attempt to warp our understanding of facts, destabilizing Western democracies from within. It's alarming and effective. By spreading disinformation and misinformation, these actors are gradually undermining our sense of reality, challenging our belief in factual information. The threat to our digital landscape is real and present. We need to stay vigilant and informed. It's crucial to recognize these tactics and reinforce our digital defenses to protect the integrity of our democratic values and institutions. Read the reporting here: https://lnkd.in/gyabimDk

UK’s Cashless Future Faces Rising Cyber Threats from Hostile States The Hidden Risk Behind Everyday Transactions As Britain embraces a cashless economy, with contactless payments now the norm, it also opens the door to a profound vulnerability: foreign-state-backed cyber attacks targeting electronic payment systems. Experts warn that a successful attack could cripple the country’s financial infrastructure, grind daily life to a halt, and leave millions without access to essential services. The Growing Risk Landscape • Total Dependence on Digital Payments: With fewer people carrying or using cash, even small disruptions in card or phone-based payment systems could have outsized effects on society and commerce. • State-Sponsored Cyber Threats: Cybersecurity experts cite Russia, China, and North Korea as leading threats. These nations allegedly support well-resourced hacking teams tasked with probing Western infrastructure for weak points. • Smart Tech = Hackable Tech: “If something is ‘smart,’ it’s hackable,” says Prof. Alan Woodward of the University of Surrey. The interconnectedness of financial networks increases exposure to systemic attacks. Potential Consequences of an Attack • Mass Disruption: A large-scale cyberattack on payment systems could prevent purchases, delay salaries, and shut down retail, public transport, and services that rely on digital transactions. • Economic Paralysis: Even short-term outages could have cascading effects, including halted supply chains, loss of consumer confidence, and billions in lost productivity. • Public Trust Undermined: An extended attack might erode trust in the digital economy and spark panic, especially in a society where many are unaccustomed to using cash. Attribution Challenges and Strategic Ambiguity • Plausible Deniability: Professor Kevin Curran of Ulster University notes that state actors often operate through shadowy hacker collectives, allowing them to deny involvement even as they destabilize rival nations. • Persistent Probing: These groups continuously scan for weak links in banking systems, looking for opportunities to deploy ransomware, disrupt transaction flows, or sow confusion. Why It Matters The shift to a digital-first economy has brought convenience but also heightened systemic risk. As geopolitical tensions escalate and cyberwarfare capabilities grow, Britain’s over-reliance on electronic payments may become a strategic liability. Without robust cybersecurity, the tools that drive modern commerce could be weaponized against the public. Policymakers, financial institutions, and tech providers must now treat digital payment infrastructure not just as a commercial tool—but as critical national infrastructure requiring urgent protection. As one expert put it plainly: “People would really suffer.”

CYBER ESPIONAGE AND WARFARE: INSIGHTS FROM THE WEF GLOBAL RISKS REPORT 2025 ℹ️ The WEF Global Risks Report 2025 offers a detailed analysis of global threats, highlighting cyber espionage and warfare as critical concerns shaped by geopolitical and technological challenges. ℹ️ Compared to the 2024 report, “Cyber insecurity” has been redefined as “Cyber espionage and warfare,” reflecting its growing significance. Additionally, cybercrime is now categorized as an economic risk under “Crime and illicit economic activity (including cyber),” previously labeled “Illicit economic activity.” ℹ️ Here's an overview of “Cyber Espionage and Warfare": 📍 GROWING IMPORTANCE 🔘 Ranked as the 5th most critical risk for the short-term (next two years), emphasizing its growing impact on national and corporate security. 📍 GEOPOLITICAL INFLUENCE 🔘 Increasing state-sponsored cyber activities are tied to broader geopolitical rivalries. 🔘 The use of cyber capabilities to undermine adversaries' strategic advantages, conduct espionage, and disrupt critical infrastructure. 📍INTERCONNECTIONS WITH OTHER RISKS 🔘 Strongly linked to misinformation/disinformation campaigns and geoeconomic confrontations, illustrating how cyber operations are part of broader strategic maneuvers. 🔘 Cyber espionage facilitates intelligence collection, influencing military and political decisions, while cyber warfare disrupts critical infrastructure and creates instability in societies and economies. 📍 KEY THREAT VECTORS 🔘 State-sponsored hackers targeting governmental, defense, and corporate systems for intellectual property theft and strategic information. 🔘 Ransomware attacks are increasingly used for both financial gain and operational disruption in geopolitically charged environments. 📍STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS 🔘 Governments and organizations must prioritize resilience against cyber threats through advanced threat intelligence, incident response capabilities, and international collaboration. 🔘 Cyber diplomacy and treaties are critical to establishing norms and reducing the likelihood of escalatory cyber conflicts. 🔘 The report underscores the need for multistakeholder engagement to address the global implications of cyber threats, including risks to critical infrastructure and public trust in digital systems. PDF: https://lnkd.in/dKJbgfcm #globalrisk2025 #risk #cyberoperations #cyberwarfare #threathunting #threatdetection #threatanalysis #threatintelligence #cyberthreatintelligence #cyberintelligence #cybersecurity #cyberprotection #cyberdefense

Very much hoping that the news of the US Treasury being breached--with suspicions pointing toward a state-sponsored Chinese threat actor--isn't setting the tone for how cybersecurity news is going to look this year. From the reports, it appears that fairly sophisticated tactics were employed to gain access. While the FBI investigates, the question we should all be asking ourselves is: Are our organizations equipped to detect and respond to threats of this caliber in real time? As security professionals, we know that breaches like this highlight the gaps in our collective defenses, from securing supply chains to monitoring for lateral movement and exfiltration tactics. It’s a reminder that basic hygiene—like zero-trust principles, robust incident response plans, and continuous monitoring—is non-negotiable. This breach is also a sobering case study in geopolitical tensions spilling over into cyberspace. It’s not just about data; it’s about trust, national security, and economic stability. Stay vigilant. #CyberSecurity #ThreatIntel #IncidentResponse #Infosec #TEN18 https://lnkd.in/gYCudu5p