The ‎nine-year‏ ‎campaign by ‎Israel ‎against ‎the ‎International‏ ‎Criminal ‎Court‏ ‎(ICC)‏ ‎involved ‎a ‎series‏ ‎of ‎covert‏ ‎operations ‎and ‎diplomatic ‎maneuvers‏ ‎aimed‏ ‎at ‎obstructing‏ ‎the ‎court’s‏ ‎investigations ‎into ‎alleged ‎war ‎crimes‏ ‎committed‏ ‎by ‎Israeli‏ ‎leaders.

Timeline ‎and‏ ‎Initiation

📌Start ‎of ‎the ‎Campaign: ‎The‏ ‎campaign‏ ‎began‏ ‎in ‎2015,‏ ‎shortly ‎after‏ ‎Palestine ‎was‏ ‎recognized‏ ‎as ‎a‏ ‎state ‎by ‎the ‎UN ‎General‏ ‎Assembly ‎and‏ ‎joined‏ ‎the ‎ICC. ‎This‏ ‎move ‎was‏ ‎seen ‎by ‎Israeli ‎officials‏ ‎as‏ ‎a ‎significant‏ ‎threat, ‎prompting‏ ‎a ‎coordinated ‎response ‎to ‎protect‏ ‎Israeli‏ ‎leaders ‎from‏ ‎potential ‎prosecutions.

Key‏ ‎Players ‎and ‎Agencies

📌Involved ‎Agencies: The ‎campaign‏ ‎involved‏ ‎multiple‏ ‎Israeli ‎intelligence‏ ‎agencies, ‎including‏ ‎Mossad, ‎Shin‏ ‎Bet‏ ‎(domestic ‎security‏ ‎service), ‎the ‎IDF’s ‎Military ‎Intelligence‏ ‎Directorate, ‎and‏ ‎Unit‏ ‎8200 ‎(cyber-intelligence ‎division).

📌Leadership: The‏ ‎operations ‎were‏ ‎reportedly ‎led ‎by ‎high-ranking‏ ‎officials,‏ ‎including ‎then-Mossad‏ ‎chief ‎Yossi‏ ‎Cohen, ‎who ‎played ‎a ‎central‏ ‎role‏ ‎in ‎the‏ ‎intimidation ‎and‏ ‎espionage ‎efforts ‎against ‎ICC ‎officials.

Tactics‏ ‎and‏ ‎Methods

📌Espionage‏ ‎and ‎Surveillance: Israeli‏ ‎intelligence ‎agencies‏ ‎conducted ‎extensive‏ ‎surveillance‏ ‎on ‎ICC‏ ‎officials, ‎intercepting ‎their ‎communications, ‎including‏ ‎phone ‎calls,‏ ‎emails,‏ ‎and ‎messages. ‎This‏ ‎provided ‎Israel‏ ‎with ‎advance ‎knowledge ‎of‏ ‎the‏ ‎ICC’s ‎plans‏ ‎and ‎allowed‏ ‎them ‎to ‎strategize ‎accordingly.

📌Intimidation ‎and‏ ‎Threats: Cohen‏ ‎and ‎other‏ ‎officials ‎allegedly‏ ‎used ‎threats ‎and ‎intimidation ‎tactics‏ ‎against‏ ‎ICC‏ ‎prosecutors, ‎particularly‏ ‎Fatou ‎Bensouda.‏ ‎These ‎included‏ ‎veiled‏ ‎threats ‎to‏ ‎her ‎and ‎her ‎family’s ‎safety,‏ ‎as ‎well‏ ‎as‏ ‎attempts ‎to ‎discredit‏ ‎her ‎using‏ ‎compromising ‎information.

📌Diplomatic ‎Pressure: Israel ‎also‏ ‎exerted‏ ‎significant ‎diplomatic‏ ‎pressure ‎on‏ ‎other ‎countries ‎and ‎international ‎organizations‏ ‎to‏ ‎isolate ‎the‏ ‎ICC ‎and‏ ‎discourage ‎it ‎from ‎pursuing ‎investigations‏ ‎against‏ ‎Israeli‏ ‎leaders.

Specific ‎Incidents

📌Threats‏ ‎to ‎Bensouda: Cohen‏ ‎reportedly ‎threatened‏ ‎Bensouda‏ ‎in ‎a‏ ‎series ‎of ‎clandestine ‎meetings, ‎suggesting‏ ‎that ‎her‏ ‎security‏ ‎and ‎that ‎of‏ ‎her ‎family‏ ‎could ‎be ‎compromised ‎if‏ ‎she‏ ‎continued ‎with‏ ‎the ‎investigation.‏ ‎These ‎threats ‎were ‎part ‎of‏ ‎a‏ ‎broader ‎effort‏ ‎to ‎intimidate‏ ‎her ‎into ‎abandoning ‎the ‎probe.

📌Intercepted‏ ‎Communications: Israeli‏ ‎intelligence‏ ‎intercepted ‎communications‏ ‎between ‎ICC‏ ‎officials ‎and‏ ‎Palestinian‏ ‎contacts, ‎gaining‏ ‎insights ‎into ‎the ‎court’s ‎investigative‏ ‎steps ‎and‏ ‎using‏ ‎this ‎information ‎to‏ ‎preemptively ‎counteract‏ ‎the ‎ICC’s ‎actions.

Impact ‎and‏ ‎Response

📌Effectiveness:‏ ‎Despite ‎these‏ ‎efforts, ‎the‏ ‎campaign ‎ultimately ‎failed ‎to ‎prevent‏ ‎the‏ ‎ICC ‎from‏ ‎pursuing ‎its‏ ‎investigations. ‎In ‎March ‎2021, ‎Bensouda‏ ‎announced‏ ‎the‏ ‎opening ‎of‏ ‎a ‎formal‏ ‎investigation ‎into‏ ‎alleged‏ ‎war ‎crimes‏ ‎in ‎the ‎Palestinian ‎territories.

📌Continued ‎Efforts: The‏ ‎campaign ‎continued‏ ‎under‏ ‎Bensouda’s ‎successor, ‎Karim‏ ‎Khan, ‎who‏ ‎has ‎also ‎faced ‎similar‏ ‎pressures‏ ‎and ‎threats.‏ ‎Khan ‎recently‏ ‎sought ‎arrest ‎warrants ‎for ‎Israeli‏ ‎leaders,‏ ‎including ‎Prime‏ ‎Minister ‎Benjamin‏ ‎Netanyahu, ‎marking ‎a ‎significant ‎escalation‏ ‎in‏ ‎the‏ ‎ICC’s ‎efforts.

International‏ ‎Reaction

📌Condemnation ‎and‏ ‎Support: The ‎international‏ ‎community,‏ ‎including ‎human‏ ‎rights ‎organizations, ‎has ‎condemned ‎Israel’s‏ ‎actions ‎against‏ ‎the‏ ‎ICC. ‎The ‎ICC‏ ‎has ‎implemented‏ ‎countermeasures ‎to ‎protect ‎its‏ ‎staff‏ ‎and ‎ensure‏ ‎the ‎integrity‏ ‎of ‎its ‎investigations.

IntelBroker ‎claims‏ ‎to ‎have ‎breached ‎Zscaler ‎and‏ ‎sold ‎access‏ ‎to‏ ‎its ‎systems, ‎Zscaler‏ ‎maintains ‎that‏ ‎there ‎has ‎been ‎no‏ ‎compromise‏ ‎of ‎its‏ ‎main ‎environments‏ ‎and ‎that ‎only ‎an ‎isolated‏ ‎test‏ ‎environment ‎was‏ ‎affected. ‎The‏ ‎situation ‎continues ‎to ‎develop ‎as‏ ‎investigations‏ ‎proceed.

IntelBroker’s‏ ‎Claims:

📌IntelBroker, ‎a‏ ‎known ‎threat‏ ‎actor, ‎claimed‏ ‎to‏ ‎have ‎breached‏ ‎Zscaler’s ‎systems.

📌The ‎actor ‎allegedly ‎accessed‏ ‎confidential ‎logs‏ ‎packed‏ ‎with ‎credentials, ‎including‏ ‎SMTP ‎access,‏ ‎PAuth ‎access, ‎and ‎SSL‏ ‎passkeys‏ ‎and ‎certificates.

📌IntelBroker‏ ‎offered ‎to‏ ‎sell ‎this ‎access ‎for ‎$20,000‏ ‎in‏ ‎cryptocurrency.

Zscaler’s ‎Response‏ ‎and ‎Findings:

📌Zscaler‏ ‎has ‎consistently ‎denied ‎any ‎impact‏ ‎or‏ ‎compromise‏ ‎to ‎its‏ ‎customer, ‎production,‏ ‎and ‎corporate‏ ‎environments.

📌The‏ ‎company ‎acknowledged‏ ‎the ‎exposure ‎of ‎an ‎isolated‏ ‎test ‎environment‏ ‎on‏ ‎a ‎single ‎server,‏ ‎which ‎was‏ ‎not ‎connected ‎to ‎Zscaler’s‏ ‎infrastructure‏ ‎or ‎hosting‏ ‎any ‎customer‏ ‎data.

📌This ‎test ‎environment ‎was ‎exposed‏ ‎to‏ ‎the ‎internet‏ ‎and ‎subsequently‏ ‎taken ‎offline ‎for ‎forensic ‎analysis.

Investigative‏ ‎Measures:

📌Zscaler‏ ‎engaged‏ ‎a ‎reputable‏ ‎incident ‎response‏ ‎firm ‎to‏ ‎conduct‏ ‎an ‎independent‏ ‎investigation.

📌The ‎company ‎has ‎been ‎providing‏ ‎regular ‎updates,‏ ‎asserting‏ ‎the ‎security ‎of‏ ‎its ‎main‏ ‎operational ‎environments.

📌Zscaler ‎emphasized ‎that‏ ‎the‏ ‎exposure ‎of‏ ‎the ‎test‏ ‎environment ‎does ‎not ‎affect ‎the‏ ‎security‏ ‎of ‎its‏ ‎primary ‎systems‏ ‎and ‎data.

IntelBroker’s ‎Background ‎and ‎Credibility:

📌IntelBroker‏ ‎has‏ ‎a‏ ‎history ‎of‏ ‎making ‎bold‏ ‎claims ‎about‏ ‎breaches,‏ ‎including ‎previous‏ ‎allegations ‎against ‎high-profile ‎targets ‎like‏ ‎the ‎US‏ ‎State‏ ‎Department ‎and ‎various‏ ‎corporate ‎entities.

📌The‏ ‎threat ‎actor ‎is ‎also‏ ‎known‏ ‎for ‎previous‏ ‎breaches ‎involving‏ ‎companies ‎like ‎PandaBuy ‎and ‎HomeDepot,‏ ‎and‏ ‎claims ‎of‏ ‎stealing ‎data‏ ‎from ‎General ‎Electric.

Root ‎Cause ‎of‏ ‎the‏ ‎Alleged‏ ‎Hack:

📌The ‎root‏ ‎cause, ‎as‏ ‎claimed ‎by‏ ‎IntelBroker,‏ ‎centers ‎on‏ ‎the ‎exploitation ‎of ‎the ‎isolated‏ ‎test ‎environment‏ ‎that‏ ‎was ‎inadvertently ‎exposed‏ ‎to ‎the‏ ‎internet.

📌Zscaler’s ‎investigation ‎discovered ‎only‏ ‎this‏ ‎exposure, ‎which‏ ‎did ‎not‏ ‎involve ‎any ‎customer ‎data ‎or‏ ‎connection‏ ‎to ‎its‏ ‎main ‎infrastructure.

Contradictions‏ ‎and ‎Ongoing ‎Developments:

📌IntelBroker’s ‎assertion ‎that‏ ‎the‏ ‎access‏ ‎sold ‎was‏ ‎not ‎to‏ ‎a ‎testing‏ ‎environment‏ ‎contradicts ‎Zscaler’s‏ ‎findings.

📌Zscaler ‎maintains ‎that ‎there ‎has‏ ‎been ‎no‏ ‎compromise‏ ‎of ‎its ‎main‏ ‎systems ‎and‏ ‎has ‎taken ‎steps ‎to‏ ‎ensure‏ ‎the ‎continued‏ ‎security ‎of‏ ‎its ‎environments.

The ‎breach‏ ‎at ‎Europol ‎by ‎the ‎hacker‏ ‎known ‎as‏ ‎IntelBroker,‏ ‎which ‎occurred ‎on‏ ‎May ‎10,‏ ‎2024, ‎has ‎resulted ‎in‏ ‎a‏ ‎significant ‎data‏ ‎breach ‎exposing‏ ‎highly ‎sensitive ‎and ‎classified ‎information.‏ ‎This‏ ‎incident ‎has‏ ‎raised ‎serious‏ ‎concerns ‎about ‎the ‎security ‎measures‏ ‎at‏ ‎Europol‏ ‎and ‎the‏ ‎potential ‎exploitation‏ ‎of ‎the‏ ‎exposed‏ ‎data ‎by‏ ‎other ‎malicious ‎actors.

📌Details ‎of ‎the‏ ‎Breach

IntelBroker, ‎a‏ ‎key‏ ‎member ‎of ‎the‏ ‎CyberNiggers ‎threat‏ ‎group, ‎has ‎been ‎involved‏ ‎in‏ ‎various ‎high-profile‏ ‎cyber ‎incidents,‏ ‎including ‎earlier ‎breaches ‎at ‎HSBC‏ ‎and‏ ‎Zscaler. ‎The‏ ‎compromised ‎data‏ ‎from ‎the ‎Europol ‎breach ‎includes‏ ‎sensitive‏ ‎materials‏ ‎such ‎as‏ ‎alliance ‎employee‏ ‎information, ‎For‏ ‎Official‏ ‎Use ‎Only‏ ‎(FOUO) ‎source ‎code, ‎PDFs, ‎documents‏ ‎for ‎reconnaissance,‏ ‎and‏ ‎operational ‎guidelines. ‎This‏ ‎breach ‎poses‏ ‎immediate ‎security ‎risks ‎to‏ ‎Europol’s‏ ‎operations ‎and‏ ‎highlights ‎the‏ ‎vulnerabilities ‎within ‎Europol’s ‎cybersecurity ‎infrastructure.

📌Affected‏ ‎Europol‏ ‎Entities

The ‎breach‏ ‎has ‎impacted‏ ‎several ‎entities ‎within ‎Europol, ‎including‏ ‎the‏ ‎CCSE,‏ ‎EC3, ‎Europol‏ ‎Platform ‎for‏ ‎Experts, ‎Law‏ ‎Enforcement‏ ‎Forum, ‎and‏ ‎SIRIUS. ‎The ‎infiltration ‎of ‎these‏ ‎entities ‎could‏ ‎disrupt‏ ‎ongoing ‎investigations ‎and‏ ‎compromise ‎sensitive‏ ‎intelligence ‎shared ‎among ‎international‏ ‎law‏ ‎enforcement ‎agencies.

📌Europol’s‏ ‎Response

As ‎of‏ ‎the ‎latest ‎updates, ‎Europol ‎has‏ ‎not‏ ‎made ‎any‏ ‎public ‎announcements‏ ‎regarding ‎the ‎breach. ‎However, ‎they‏ ‎have‏ ‎confirmed‏ ‎a ‎separate‏ ‎incident ‎involving‏ ‎their ‎Europol‏ ‎Platform‏ ‎for ‎Experts‏ ‎(EPE) ‎portal, ‎stating ‎that ‎no‏ ‎operational ‎data‏ ‎was‏ ‎stolen ‎in ‎that‏ ‎specific ‎incident.

📌Broader‏ ‎Implications

This ‎incident ‎underscores ‎the‏ ‎need‏ ‎for ‎enhanced‏ ‎security ‎measures‏ ‎to ‎safeguard ‎against ‎future ‎incidents.‏ ‎The‏ ‎breach ‎not‏ ‎only ‎threatens‏ ‎the ‎integrity ‎of ‎Europol’s ‎operations‏ ‎but‏ ‎also‏ ‎has ‎broader‏ ‎implications ‎for‏ ‎international ‎law‏ ‎enforcement‏ ‎cooperation ‎and‏ ‎data ‎security.

📌Monitoring ‎and ‎Future ‎Actions

To‏ ‎track ‎activities‏ ‎of‏ ‎threat ‎actors ‎like‏ ‎IntelBroker, ‎monitoring‏ ‎dark ‎web ‎sources ‎such‏ ‎as‏ ‎hacker ‎forums‏ ‎and ‎private‏ ‎Telegram ‎channels ‎is ‎crucial. ‎These‏ ‎platforms‏ ‎often ‎serve‏ ‎as ‎venues‏ ‎for ‎cyber ‎threats ‎to ‎originate‏ ‎and‏ ‎proliferate.

📌Root‏ ‎of ‎Cause

The‏ ‎breach ‎of‏ ‎Europol’s ‎Europol‏ ‎Platform‏ ‎for ‎Experts‏ ‎(EPE) ‎portal ‎by ‎IntelBroker ‎was‏ ‎primarily ‎facilitated‏ ‎through‏ ‎the ‎exploitation ‎of‏ ‎vulnerabilities ‎within‏ ‎the ‎system. ‎IntelBroker’s ‎method‏ ‎typically‏ ‎involves ‎identifying‏ ‎and ‎exploiting‏ ‎these ‎vulnerabilities ‎to ‎gain ‎unauthorized‏ ‎access‏ ‎to ‎systems.‏ ‎In ‎the‏ ‎case ‎of ‎the ‎EPE ‎breach,‏ ‎the‏ ‎hacker‏ ‎managed ‎to‏ ‎access ‎sensitive‏ ‎data, ‎including‏ ‎For‏ ‎Official ‎Use‏ ‎Only ‎(FOUO) ‎documents ‎and ‎classified‏ ‎data, ‎which‏ ‎were‏ ‎then ‎claimed ‎to‏ ‎be ‎up‏ ‎for ‎sale. ‎This ‎incident‏ ‎highlights‏ ‎the ‎critical‏ ‎need ‎for‏ ‎robust ‎cybersecurity ‎measures ‎and ‎regular‏ ‎system‏ ‎updates ‎to‏ ‎patch ‎any‏ ‎vulnerabilities ‎that ‎could ‎be ‎exploited‏ ‎by‏ ‎malicious‏ ‎actors

📌Dell ‎Announces‏ ‎Security ‎Breach: Dell ‎Technologies ‎has ‎confirmed‏ ‎a ‎significant‏ ‎data‏ ‎breach ‎involving ‎a‏ ‎database ‎used‏ ‎to ‎store ‎information ‎about‏ ‎customer‏ ‎purchases. ‎The‏ ‎breach, ‎which‏ ‎was ‎disclosed ‎on ‎May ‎10,‏ ‎2024,‏ ‎affected ‎approximately‏ ‎49 ‎million‏ ‎customers. ‎The ‎stolen ‎data ‎includes‏ ‎customer‏ ‎names,‏ ‎physical ‎addresses,‏ ‎and ‎details‏ ‎about ‎Dell‏ ‎equipment‏ ‎but ‎does‏ ‎not ‎include ‎sensitive ‎information ‎like‏ ‎payment ‎details.‏ ‎Dell‏ ‎has ‎initiated ‎an‏ ‎investigation, ‎notified‏ ‎law ‎enforcement, ‎and ‎hired‏ ‎a‏ ‎third-party ‎forensic‏ ‎firm ‎to‏ ‎further ‎investigate ‎the ‎incident.

📌Details ‎of‏ ‎the‏ ‎Breach: The ‎breach‏ ‎was ‎executed‏ ‎by ‎exploiting ‎an ‎unsecured ‎API‏ ‎attached‏ ‎to‏ ‎a ‎partner‏ ‎portal. ‎The‏ ‎threat ‎actor,‏ ‎known‏ ‎as ‎Menelik,‏ ‎claimed ‎to ‎have ‎scraped ‎information‏ ‎of ‎49‏ ‎million‏ ‎customer ‎records ‎using‏ ‎this ‎method.‏ ‎The ‎data ‎includes ‎a‏ ‎wide‏ ‎range ‎of‏ ‎hardware ‎details,‏ ‎such ‎as ‎service ‎tags, ‎item‏ ‎descriptions,‏ ‎order ‎dates,‏ ‎and ‎warranty‏ ‎details. ‎Dell ‎was ‎reportedly ‎notified‏ ‎about‏ ‎the‏ ‎vulnerability ‎by‏ ‎the ‎threat‏ ‎actor ‎before‏ ‎the‏ ‎data ‎was‏ ‎put ‎up ‎for ‎sale ‎on‏ ‎a ‎hacking‏ ‎forum,‏ ‎but ‎the ‎breach‏ ‎was ‎not‏ ‎contained ‎until ‎approximately ‎two‏ ‎weeks‏ ‎later.

📌Customer ‎Notification‏ ‎and ‎Response: Dell‏ ‎has ‎sent ‎out ‎notifications ‎to‏ ‎its‏ ‎customers ‎warning‏ ‎them ‎about‏ ‎the ‎breach. ‎The ‎company ‎has‏ ‎downplayed‏ ‎the‏ ‎significance ‎of‏ ‎the ‎stolen‏ ‎data, ‎stating‏ ‎that‏ ‎it ‎does‏ ‎not ‎include ‎financial ‎or ‎highly‏ ‎sensitive ‎customer‏ ‎information.‏ ‎However, ‎Dell ‎has‏ ‎advised ‎customers‏ ‎to ‎be ‎vigilant ‎against‏ ‎potential‏ ‎tech ‎support‏ ‎scams ‎that‏ ‎could ‎use ‎the ‎stolen ‎hardware‏ ‎details‏ ‎to ‎impersonate‏ ‎Dell ‎support‏ ‎technicians.

📌Legal ‎and ‎Regulatory ‎Implications: This ‎incident‏ ‎adds‏ ‎to‏ ‎a ‎series‏ ‎of ‎data‏ ‎breaches ‎that‏ ‎Dell‏ ‎has ‎experienced‏ ‎over ‎the ‎years, ‎raising ‎concerns‏ ‎about ‎the‏ ‎company’s‏ ‎data ‎protection ‎measures‏ ‎and ‎cybersecurity‏ ‎practices. ‎Previous ‎breaches ‎have‏ ‎led‏ ‎to ‎class-action‏ ‎lawsuits ‎and‏ ‎investigations ‎by ‎privacy ‎commissioners, ‎highlighting‏ ‎the‏ ‎legal ‎and‏ ‎regulatory ‎implications‏ ‎for ‎Dell.

📌Cybersecurity ‎Measures ‎and ‎Recommendations: In‏ ‎response‏ ‎to‏ ‎the ‎breach,‏ ‎Dell ‎has‏ ‎emphasized ‎its‏ ‎commitment‏ ‎to ‎cybersecurity,‏ ‎offering ‎various ‎services ‎and ‎solutions‏ ‎aimed ‎at‏ ‎enhancing‏ ‎IT ‎security ‎and‏ ‎cyber ‎resiliency.‏ ‎The ‎company ‎provides ‎a‏ ‎range‏ ‎of ‎products‏ ‎and ‎advisory‏ ‎services ‎designed ‎to ‎improve ‎threat‏ ‎detection,‏ ‎threat ‎response,‏ ‎and ‎cyber‏ ‎recovery ‎capabilities

In ‎a‏ ‎world ‎where ‎we ‎expect ‎military‏ ‎and ‎government‏ ‎communications‏ ‎to ‎be ‎as‏ ‎secure ‎as‏ ‎Fort ‎Knox, ‎it ‎turns‏ ‎out‏ ‎that ‎the‏ ‎Bundeswehr ‎and‏ ‎the ‎Federal ‎Government ‎were ‎more‏ ‎akin‏ ‎to ‎an‏ ‎open ‎book‏ ‎at ‎a ‎yard ‎sale ‎(thanks‏ ‎to‏ ‎Webex):‏ ‎thousands ‎of‏ ‎links ‎to‏ ‎what ‎were‏ ‎supposed‏ ‎to ‎be‏ ‎confidential ‎video ‎meetings ‎were ‎just‏ ‎hanging ‎out‏ ‎in‏ ‎the ‎digital ‎ether,‏ ‎accessible ‎to‏ ‎anyone ‎who ‎could ‎muster‏ ‎the‏ ‎Herculean ‎effort‏ ‎of ‎clicking‏ ‎a ‎mouse.

And ‎the ‎response? ‎The‏ ‎Bundeswehr‏ ‎assured ‎that‏ ‎«unnoticed ‎or‏ ‎unauthorized ‎participation ‎in ‎video ‎conferences»‏ ‎was‏ ‎as‏ ‎unlikely ‎as‏ ‎finding ‎a‏ ‎unicorn ‎in‏ ‎your‏ ‎backyard, ‎thus‏ ‎ensuring ‎that ‎no ‎confidential ‎content‏ ‎could ‎have‏ ‎possibly‏ ‎leaked. ‎Because, ‎as‏ ‎we ‎all‏ ‎know, ‎if ‎you ‎can’t‏ ‎see‏ ‎the ‎problem,‏ ‎it ‎doesn’t‏ ‎exist.

Not ‎forget ‎the ‎previous ‎incidents‏ ‎that‏ ‎set ‎the‏ ‎stage ‎for‏ ‎this ‎masterpiece ‎of ‎security ‎theater.‏ ‎The‏ ‎Bundeswehr‏ ‎had ‎already‏ ‎dazzled ‎us‏ ‎with ‎an‏ ‎eavesdropping‏ ‎scandal ‎involving‏ ‎the ‎Air ‎Force, ‎proving ‎that‏ ‎when ‎it‏ ‎comes‏ ‎to ‎securing ‎German‏ ‎military ‎secrets,‏ ‎they’re ‎as ‎reliable ‎as‏ ‎a‏ ‎chocolate ‎teapot.

Quick‏ ‎facts:

📌Public ‎Accessibility‏ ‎of ‎Video ‎Call ‎Links: Thousands ‎of‏ ‎links‏ ‎to ‎confidential‏ ‎video ‎meetings‏ ‎were ‎publicly ‎accessible ‎for ‎months.‏ ‎This‏ ‎vulnerability‏ ‎allowed ‎anyone‏ ‎to ‎see‏ ‎who ‎invited‏ ‎whom‏ ‎to ‎a‏ ‎video ‎call ‎and ‎when.

📌Platform ‎Involved: The‏ ‎video ‎conferencing‏ ‎platform‏ ‎implicated ‎in ‎this‏ ‎security ‎breach‏ ‎is ‎Webex, ‎a ‎cloud‏ ‎service‏ ‎provided ‎by‏ ‎Cisco. ‎This‏ ‎platform ‎was ‎used ‎not ‎only‏ ‎by‏ ‎the ‎Bundeswehr‏ ‎but ‎also‏ ‎by ‎all ‎federal ‎authorities, ‎including‏ ‎for‏ ‎the‏ ‎first ‎completely‏ ‎digital ‎committee‏ ‎meeting ‎of‏ ‎the‏ ‎Bundestag ‎due‏ ‎to ‎COVID-19 ‎restrictions.

📌Response ‎and ‎Measures:‏ ‎Upon ‎discovery,‏ ‎the‏ ‎Bundeswehr ‎disconnected ‎its‏ ‎video ‎conferencing‏ ‎system ‎from ‎the ‎internet.‏ ‎A‏ ‎spokesperson ‎from‏ ‎the ‎Cyber‏ ‎and ‎Information ‎Space ‎Command ‎confirmed‏ ‎that‏ ‎the ‎vulnerability‏ ‎had ‎been‏ ‎closed ‎within ‎24 ‎hours ‎after‏ ‎it‏ ‎was‏ ‎reported. ‎However,‏ ‎the ‎Bundeswehr‏ ‎emphasized ‎that‏ ‎«unnoticed‏ ‎or ‎unauthorized‏ ‎participation ‎in ‎video ‎conferences» ‎was‏ ‎not ‎possible‏ ‎due‏ ‎to ‎this ‎vulnerability,‏ ‎suggesting ‎that‏ ‎no ‎confidential ‎content ‎from‏ ‎the‏ ‎conferences ‎could‏ ‎have ‎leaked.

📌Criticism‏ ‎and ‎Concerns: ‎The ‎incident ‎has‏ ‎drawn‏ ‎criticism ‎regarding‏ ‎the ‎handling‏ ‎of ‎IT ‎security ‎within ‎the‏ ‎Bundeswehr‏ ‎and‏ ‎the ‎Federal‏ ‎Government. ‎The‏ ‎Green ‎Party’s‏ ‎Konstantin‏ ‎von ‎Notz‏ ‎criticized ‎the ‎«great ‎carelessness» ‎in‏ ‎the ‎Federal‏ ‎Ministry‏ ‎of ‎Defense, ‎highlighting‏ ‎the ‎importance‏ ‎of ‎IT ‎security ‎checks,‏ ‎especially‏ ‎in ‎handling‏ ‎sensitive ‎security-political‏ ‎files ‎and ‎information.

📌Previous ‎Incidents: ‎This‏ ‎is‏ ‎not ‎the‏ ‎first ‎time‏ ‎the ‎Bundeswehr ‎has ‎faced ‎security‏ ‎issues.‏ ‎In‏ ‎March ‎of‏ ‎the ‎same‏ ‎year, ‎an‏ ‎eavesdropping‏ ‎scandal ‎involving‏ ‎the ‎Air ‎Force ‎was ‎reported,‏ ‎where ‎a‏ ‎conference‏ ‎call ‎discussing ‎the‏ ‎potential ‎delivery‏ ‎of ‎Taurus ‎cruise ‎missiles‏ ‎to‏ ‎Ukraine ‎was‏ ‎leaked ‎by‏ ‎Russia. ‎This ‎incident ‎raised ‎questions‏ ‎about‏ ‎the ‎security‏ ‎of ‎German‏ ‎military ‎secrets ‎and ‎the ‎effectiveness‏ ‎of‏ ‎the‏ ‎Bundeswehr’s ‎operational‏ ‎security ‎(OPSEC).

📌Public‏ ‎and ‎Political‏ ‎Reaction:‏ ‎The ‎security‏ ‎breach ‎has ‎sparked ‎discussions ‎on‏ ‎digital ‎security‏ ‎and‏ ‎the ‎need ‎for‏ ‎stringent ‎measures‏ ‎to ‎protect ‎sensitive ‎information.‏ ‎It‏ ‎also ‎reflects‏ ‎the ‎ongoing‏ ‎challenges ‎faced ‎by ‎government ‎and‏ ‎military‏ ‎institutions ‎in‏ ‎safeguarding ‎their‏ ‎communications ‎in ‎the ‎digital ‎age

📌Malware ‎Identification‏ ‎and ‎Activity: ‎The ‎malware, ‎identified‏ ‎as ‎Cuttlefish,‏ ‎has‏ ‎been ‎active ‎since‏ ‎at ‎least‏ ‎July ‎27, ‎2023, ‎with‏ ‎the‏ ‎latest ‎campaign‏ ‎running ‎from‏ ‎October ‎2023 ‎to ‎April ‎2024.‏ ‎It‏ ‎is ‎designed‏ ‎to ‎infiltrate‏ ‎routers ‎and ‎other ‎networking ‎hardware‏ ‎to‏ ‎steal‏ ‎information ‎quietly.

📌Geographical‏ ‎Focus ‎and‏ ‎Victims: ‎The‏ ‎campaign‏ ‎has ‎predominantly‏ ‎affected ‎Turkey, ‎with ‎99% ‎of‏ ‎the ‎infections‏ ‎occurring‏ ‎within ‎the ‎country.‏ ‎The ‎remaining‏ ‎victims ‎include ‎global ‎satellite‏ ‎phone‏ ‎providers ‎and‏ ‎potentially ‎a‏ ‎U.S.-based ‎data ‎center.

📌Connection ‎to ‎Chinese‏ ‎Operations:‏ ‎Researchers ‎at‏ ‎Black ‎Lotus‏ ‎Labs ‎suggest ‎a ‎link ‎between‏ ‎Cuttlefish‏ ‎and‏ ‎the ‎Chinese‏ ‎government ‎due‏ ‎to ‎significant‏ ‎overlaps‏ ‎with ‎another‏ ‎malware ‎called ‎HiatusRat, ‎which ‎has‏ ‎been ‎used‏ ‎in‏ ‎operations ‎that ‎align‏ ‎with ‎Chinese‏ ‎interests.

📌Method ‎of ‎Operation: ‎Cuttlefish‏ ‎operates‏ ‎by ‎capturing‏ ‎data ‎from‏ ‎users ‎and ‎devices ‎behind ‎the‏ ‎targeted‏ ‎network’s ‎edge,‏ ‎allowing ‎hackers‏ ‎to ‎monitor ‎all ‎traffic ‎through‏ ‎the‏ ‎compromised‏ ‎devices. ‎It‏ ‎targets ‎enterprise-grade‏ ‎small ‎office/home‏ ‎office‏ ‎(SOHO) ‎routers.

📌Data‏ ‎Theft: ‎The ‎malware ‎has ‎been‏ ‎configured ‎to‏ ‎steal‏ ‎keys ‎for ‎cloud-based‏ ‎services ‎such‏ ‎as ‎Alicloud, ‎AWS, ‎Digital‏ ‎Ocean,‏ ‎CloudFlare, ‎and‏ ‎BitBucket. ‎This‏ ‎enables ‎the ‎attackers ‎to ‎access‏ ‎data‏ ‎from ‎cloud‏ ‎resources, ‎which‏ ‎are ‎typically ‎less ‎protected ‎than‏ ‎traditional‏ ‎network‏ ‎perimeters.

📌Detection ‎Challenges:‏ ‎The ‎nature‏ ‎of ‎the‏ ‎attack,‏ ‎occurring ‎over‏ ‎a ‎trusted ‎internal ‎network, ‎makes‏ ‎it ‎particularly‏ ‎difficult‏ ‎to ‎detect. ‎Many‏ ‎security ‎tools‏ ‎focus ‎on ‎external ‎threats,‏ ‎thereby‏ ‎potentially ‎overlooking‏ ‎such ‎internally‏ ‎originated ‎activities.

📌Broader ‎Implications: ‎It ‎highlights‏ ‎the‏ ‎evolving ‎threat‏ ‎landscape ‎where‏ ‎passive ‎eavesdropping ‎and ‎data ‎hijacking‏ ‎techniques‏ ‎are‏ ‎becoming ‎more‏ ‎sophisticated. ‎The‏ ‎specific ‎targeting‏ ‎of‏ ‎cloud-based ‎authentication‏ ‎material ‎is ‎a ‎growing ‎concern‏ ‎that ‎requires‏ ‎enhanced‏ ‎security ‎measures.

📌Impersonation ‎Tactics:‏ ‎APT42 ‎has ‎been ‎impersonating ‎well-known‏ ‎news ‎outlets‏ ‎and‏ ‎think ‎tanks, ‎such‏ ‎as ‎The‏ ‎Washington ‎Post, ‎The ‎Economist,‏ ‎and‏ ‎The ‎Jerusalem‏ ‎Post, ‎to‏ ‎target ‎journalists, ‎researchers, ‎and ‎activists‏ ‎in‏ ‎Western ‎countries‏ ‎and ‎the‏ ‎Middle ‎East. ‎This ‎campaign, ‎which‏ ‎began‏ ‎in‏ ‎2021 ‎and‏ ‎is ‎still‏ ‎ongoing, ‎involves‏ ‎creating‏ ‎fake ‎website‏ ‎links ‎to ‎harvest ‎login ‎credentials‏ ‎from ‎victims.

📌Minimal‏ ‎Footprint:‏ ‎The ‎methods ‎deployed‏ ‎by ‎APT42‏ ‎are ‎designed ‎to ‎leave‏ ‎a‏ ‎minimal ‎footprint,‏ ‎making ‎the‏ ‎detection ‎and ‎mitigation ‎of ‎their‏ ‎activities‏ ‎more ‎challenging‏ ‎for ‎network‏ ‎defenders. ‎This ‎stealthiness ‎is ‎achieved‏ ‎through‏ ‎the‏ ‎use ‎of‏ ‎typosquatting ‎and‏ ‎social ‎engineering‏ ‎techniques.

📌Typosquatting‏ ‎and ‎Social‏ ‎Engineering: ‎APT42 ‎often ‎uses ‎typosquatting,‏ ‎acquiring ‎web‏ ‎domains‏ ‎that ‎look ‎real‏ ‎but ‎contain‏ ‎small ‎errors ‎or ‎alterations,‏ ‎to‏ ‎create ‎malicious‏ ‎links. ‎These‏ ‎links ‎redirect ‎recipients ‎to ‎fake‏ ‎Google‏ ‎login ‎pages.‏ ‎An ‎example‏ ‎provided ‎is ‎«washinqtonpost[.]press, ‎” ‎where‏ ‎a‏ ‎„q“‏ ‎replaces ‎the‏ ‎„g“ ‎in‏ ‎„Washington“.

📌Targeting ‎Specific‏ ‎Individuals:‏ ‎In ‎2023,‏ ‎APT42 ‎reportedly ‎impersonated ‎a ‎senior‏ ‎fellow ‎with‏ ‎the‏ ‎U.K. ‎think ‎tank‏ ‎the ‎Royal‏ ‎United ‎Services ‎Institute ‎(RUSI)‏ ‎while‏ ‎attempting ‎to‏ ‎spread ‎malware‏ ‎to ‎a ‎nuclear ‎security ‎expert‏ ‎at‏ ‎a ‎U.S.-based‏ ‎think ‎tank‏ ‎focused ‎on ‎foreign ‎affairs.

📌Cloud ‎Environment‏ ‎Attacks: Between‏ ‎2022‏ ‎and ‎2023,‏ ‎APT42 ‎was‏ ‎observed ‎exfiltrating‏ ‎documents‏ ‎and ‎sensitive‏ ‎information ‎from ‎victims’ ‎public ‎cloud‏ ‎infrastructure, ‎such‏ ‎as‏ ‎the ‎Microsoft ‎365‏ ‎environment. ‎These‏ ‎attacks ‎targeted ‎legal ‎services‏ ‎companies‏ ‎and ‎nonprofits‏ ‎in ‎the‏ ‎U.S. ‎and ‎the ‎U.K.

📌Overlap ‎with‏ ‎Other‏ ‎Operations: APT42's ‎activities‏ ‎overlap ‎with‏ ‎other ‎Iran-linked ‎operations ‎labeled ‎TA453,‏ ‎Charming‏ ‎Kitten,‏ ‎and ‎Mint‏ ‎Sandstorm. ‎This‏ ‎indicates ‎a‏ ‎broader‏ ‎pattern ‎of‏ ‎cyber ‎espionage ‎activities ‎linked ‎to‏ ‎Iranian ‎state‏ ‎interests

In ‎a‏ ‎previous ‎publication, ‎we ‎delved ‎into‏ ‎the ‎activities of‏ ‎the‏ ‎hacktivist ‎group ‎Anonymous‏ ‎Sudan, ‎covering‏ ‎their ‎origins, ‎motivations, ‎methods,‏ ‎and‏ ‎the ‎implications‏ ‎of ‎their‏ ‎actions. ‎

Now, ‎we ‎will ‎provide‏ ‎some‏ ‎updates ‎to‏ ‎that ‎document.

📌New‏ ‎Attacks: The ‎group ‎has ‎targeted ‎IGAD‏ ‎countries,‏ ‎UK‏ ‎universities, ‎UAE,‏ ‎and ‎Alabama‏ ‎government ‎sites.

📌Tactics: Increased‏ ‎use‏ ‎of ‎public‏ ‎cloud ‎infrastructure ‎for ‎anonymity.

📌Public ‎Demands: High-profile‏ ‎demands ‎such‏ ‎as‏ ‎the ‎launch ‎of‏ ‎Starlink ‎in‏ ‎Sudan.

📌Impact: Rising ‎economic ‎costs ‎and‏ ‎exacerbated‏ ‎political ‎tensions.

Recent‏ ‎Attacks ‎and‏ ‎Campaigns

📌Targeting ‎Intergovernmental ‎Authority ‎on ‎Development‏ ‎(IGAD)‏ ‎Countries: Anonymous ‎Sudan‏ ‎claimed ‎to‏ ‎have ‎disabled ‎all ‎internet ‎services‏ ‎in‏ ‎Chad‏ ‎and ‎Djibouti‏ ‎as ‎part‏ ‎of ‎a‏ ‎cyberattack‏ ‎to ‎protest‏ ‎the ‎countries' ‎relations ‎with ‎the‏ ‎Rapid ‎Support‏ ‎Forces‏ ‎(RSF) ‎in ‎Sudan.‏ ‎They ‎also‏ ‎attacked ‎Uganda ‎due ‎to‏ ‎its‏ ‎backing ‎of‏ ‎the ‎RSF.

📌University‏ ‎Attacks ‎in ‎the ‎UK: ‎Anonymous‏ ‎Sudan‏ ‎targeted ‎systems‏ ‎at ‎the‏ ‎University ‎of ‎Cambridge ‎and ‎the‏ ‎University‏ ‎of‏ ‎Manchester, ‎citing‏ ‎the ‎UK's‏ ‎support ‎for‏ ‎Israel‏ ‎in ‎the‏ ‎Israel–Hamas ‎War. ‎The ‎disruption ‎was‏ ‎largely ‎over‏ ‎though‏ ‎some ‎systems ‎were‏ ‎still ‎affected.

📌Cyberattacks‏ ‎on ‎UAE: The ‎group ‎continued‏ ‎its‏ ‎attacks ‎on‏ ‎the ‎United‏ ‎Arab ‎Emirates, ‎a ‎major ‎supporter‏ ‎of‏ ‎the ‎RSF

📌Alabama‏ ‎Government ‎Sites:‏ ‎Several ‎Alabama ‎government ‎agencies ‎had‏ ‎their‏ ‎websites‏ ‎disrupted ‎by‏ ‎DDoS ‎attacks‏ ‎claimed ‎by‏ ‎Anonymous‏ ‎Sudan. ‎The‏ ‎attacks ‎spanned ‎between ‎five ‎and‏ ‎ten ‎minutes‏ ‎and‏ ‎did ‎not ‎result‏ ‎in ‎any‏ ‎network ‎compromise ‎or ‎data‏ ‎exfiltration.

Operational‏ ‎Tactics

📌Increased ‎Use‏ ‎of ‎Public‏ ‎Cloud ‎Infrastructure: Anonymous ‎Sudan ‎has ‎been‏ ‎leveraging‏ ‎public ‎cloud‏ ‎server ‎infrastructure‏ ‎to ‎generate ‎traffic ‎and ‎attack‏ ‎floods,‏ ‎which‏ ‎provides ‎them‏ ‎with ‎a‏ ‎layer ‎of‏ ‎anonymity‏ ‎and ‎makes‏ ‎it ‎difficult ‎to ‎pinpoint ‎the‏ ‎source ‎of‏ ‎the‏ ‎attacks. ‎This ‎tactic‏ ‎has ‎been‏ ‎consistent ‎with ‎their ‎operations‏ ‎but‏ ‎has ‎seen‏ ‎increased ‎use‏ ‎in ‎recent ‎months.

Economic ‎and ‎Political‏ ‎Impact

📌Increased‏ ‎Economic ‎Costs:‏ ‎The ‎cost‏ ‎of ‎mitigating ‎these ‎attacks ‎continues‏ ‎to‏ ‎rise,‏ ‎with ‎significant‏ ‎economic ‎impacts‏ ‎on ‎the‏ ‎affected‏ ‎entities. ‎This‏ ‎includes ‎costs ‎related ‎to ‎additional‏ ‎bandwidth, ‎hardware,‏ ‎and‏ ‎software ‎to ‎mitigate‏ ‎attacks, ‎as‏ ‎well ‎as ‎potential ‎revenue‏ ‎loss‏ ‎due ‎to‏ ‎service ‎disruptions.

📌Political‏ ‎Tensions: The ‎politically ‎motivated ‎nature ‎of‏ ‎these‏ ‎attacks ‎exacerbates‏ ‎existing ‎tensions‏ ‎and ‎conflicts, ‎particularly ‎in ‎regions‏ ‎with‏ ‎ongoing‏ ‎geopolitical ‎issues.