Page 3,699«..1020..3,6983,6993,7003,701..3,7103,720..»

Top 3 Coins Bitcoin, Ethereum and Ripple Price Prediction: Damage control begins after Fridays bloodbath – FXStreet

BTC/USD has a lack of healthy support levels on the downside. On the upside, there are two strong resistance levels at $7,000 and $7,200. The former has the one-week Fibonacci 61.8% retracement level, one-day SMA 10 and 15-min SMA 100. In comparison, the $7,200-level has the one-week Fibonacci 61.8% retracement level, one-day Pivot Point resistance-one and 4-hour Bollinger Band middle curve.

ETH/USD faces two strong resistance levels at $160 and $168. $160 has the one-hour Previous High,15-min and one-hour Bollinger Band middle curves, one-hour SMA 5 and 15-min SMA 10. $168 has the one-week Fibonacci 23.6% retracement level, one-da Pivot Point resistance-one, 0ne-day SMA 5 and one-hour SMA 100.

XRP/USD has no resistance levels of note on the upside. However, the price is supported by a strong level at $0.176, which has the one-week Pivot Point support-one, Previous Year Low and 4-hour SMA 200.

Read more from the original source:
Top 3 Coins Bitcoin, Ethereum and Ripple Price Prediction: Damage control begins after Fridays bloodbath - FXStreet

Read More..

Why $6,600 is the Level To Watch During Bitcoins (BTC) Weekly Close – Ethereum World News

Quick take:

The 2020 Easter weekend will probably be remembered for the innovation of going totally virtual with activities such as Church services, family get-togethers as well as virtual Egg hunts. With the world on high alert due to COVID19, Social distancing has proven itself as being the most effective method of curbing the spread of the virus. With relation to crypto trading, the Bitcoin (BTC) trade volume has seen the usual drop during a major holiday weekend. Such drops are also witnessed during Christmas and New Years. The 7-day Bitcoin trade volume chart below courtesy of Bitcoinity.org further gives a better representation of the drop this weekend.

In our earlier analysis of XTZ/USD, we had stated that Bitcoin looks set to retest previous support zones at $6,600, $6,500, $6,200, $6,050 and possibly $5,800. These levels have been providing reliable support for Bitcoin since the Coronavirus crash of mid-March.

Further checking our favorite 6-hour BTC/USDT chart, we observe the following:

When we zoom out to the daily chart, we observe a totally different bearish picture.

With Bitcoins weekly close only a few hours away, $6,600 is the level to watch as it provides a level of solid support. BTCs trade volume has drastically reduced due to the Easter weekend and could provide the final ingredient for a bearish scenario for the King of Crypto. As with all technical analysis, the reader is advised to use stop losses to safeguard their leveraged positions against sudden volatility.

Disclaimer:This article is not meant to give financial advice. Any additional opinion herein is purely the authors and does not represent the opinion of Ethereum World News or any of its other writers. Please carry out your own research before investing in any of the numerous cryptocurrencies available. Thank you.

More:
Why $6,600 is the Level To Watch During Bitcoins (BTC) Weekly Close - Ethereum World News

Read More..

Schnoor/Taproot Could Improve Bitcoin Privacy and Scaling – CoinDesk

If the privacy and scaling upgrade Schnorr/Taproot makes it into bitcoin (BTC), it could pave the way for advanced and heretofore impossible projects. That is, as they say, good for bitcoin.

Schnorr/Taproot has made a great deal of progress recently, moving from a theoretical privacy and scaling idea into actual code. But while the community is very excited about its future, the change is rather confusing. Why? Because it bundles together several different technologies proposed over the years and each one is technically and conceptually unique.

First, there are Merklized Abstract Syntax Trees (MASTs), a smart contract technology developers have been talking about since 2013. Then we add Schnorr signatures, a scaling change first proposed in 2015 by Pieter Wuille, and finally Taproot, a privacy technology built on top of both, proposed in 2018 by Greg Maxwell.

Privacy and scaling are two things bitcoin still lacks. But as badly as these changes are needed, massive updates like this one are hard and, as such, are few and far between in bitcoin.

One thorny issue is simply deciding what would go into the upgrade.

"I think the biggest struggle in the process was to come up with the exact set of features to deploy at the same time," Blockstream researcher Tim Ruffing told CoinDesk.

Here's a rundown of what changes made the cut, and what didn't.

How big is this update?

First, we must remember this update is helpful but it's not a magic pill that instantly morphs bitcoin into a super-scalable and private currency, as experts debated on Twitter recently.

"It's the right thing to do these improvements but they won't suddenly make bitcoin a private currency," Ruffing said.

There will be some clear improvements. First, more complex types of transactions will be easier to use. In the most typical transaction, one person "signs" a transaction, proving he or she owns the bitcoin and can send it. "Multi-signature" (multi-sig) transactions, on the other hand, require more than one person to sign a transaction. This update will make it easier for multi-sig users.

"It's likely that more wallets will support multi-sig because it's cheaper and more private with BIP-taproot," Blockstream researcher Jonas Nick told CoinDesk.

Multi-signature has many important use cases. First, the multi-sig dependent lightning network could potentially speed up and scale payments for bitcoin, solving massive issues with the digital currency. If lightning proves to be the future of bitcoin, this improvement could have a large impact by making these transactions smaller in size and cheaper to process.

Further, multi-sig transactions using the new technology will look the same as normal transactions. So even though the bitcoin blockchain is public and anyone can easily look up a particular transaction, with this technology viewers will have no idea that these transactions actually represent lightning channels.

"Lightning channel openings and cooperatives are indistinguishable on the blockchain from normal payments. This also means that opening a lightning channel is just as expensive as a normal payment," Nick said.

Finally, the change would pave the way for other improvements that weren't possible before. One such possible next step is the addition of "cross-input aggregation," another way of scaling bitcoin by as much as 25 to 30 percent.

Schnorr for more efficient signatures

Understanding these upgrades requires some understanding of how bitcoin works. Only with the right "private key" (like an access code) can someone "sign" a transaction, thereby sending bitcoin to someone else. This process produces a "signature" that is attached to the transaction. The beauty is that anyone in the world can verify that this signature was produced by the right key

We touched on a more complicated version of this, multi-signature transactions, where more than one person is required to sign a transaction. When such a transaction is signed using ECDSA (bitcoin's current signature algorithm), it produces a separate signature for each person.

But this might be unnecessary. With the help of Schnorr signatures, it is possible to squash all of this data into a single signature using key aggregation.

The biggest struggle in the process was to come up with the exact set of features to deploy at the same time.

This makes the special type of bitcoin transaction smaller in size -- to the tune of 30 to 75 percent, according to Bitcoin Optech, an organization that helps bitcoin businesses adopt new scaling technologies like Schnorr/Taproot.

These sorts of scaling technologies are important because downloading the full bitcoin blockchain is the most secure and trust-minimizing way of using bitcoin. But that process requires more than 300 gigabytes of storage space.

Schnorr signatures also allow for something called "batch validation," making it possible to verify that multiple signatures are valid, saving time.

But just as important is what this upgrade leaves out in terms of Schnorr.

Developers have long proposed using "cross-input signature aggregation" to build Schnorr signatures into bitcoin transactions. Usually, each transaction requires more than one signature, one for each "input," which is roughly equivalent to one bill out of a handful of them passed over to a cashier.

But what if we could squash all these signatures for every transaction together?

Schnorr signatures theoretically allow for this. But this feature will have to wait for another time, as developers are still working through some security problems with adding this to bitcoin. Though with Schnorr added as a signature option in bitcoin, this kind of functionality will be one step closer.

"This could be done in a future upgrade," Ruffing said.

MASTs: better smart contracts

Merkelized Abstract Syntax Trees (MASTs) aren't in the name of the upcoming bitcoin upgrade, but it's still a cool technology that developers have been talking about for a long time.

MASTs improve smart contracts in bitcoin, making it easier for users to set more complicated conditions for a transaction.

Think back to the multi-signature option we talked about earlier, where two people instead of just one need to sign a transaction. Then imagine a situation in which you want to say a bitcoin can't be retrieved until after a certain date. A user might want to combine these conditions at once. That's where MASTs come in.

Right now, when one of these scripts is "redeemed" the full script is squashed into a transaction, taking up a lot of room and showing the whole world what conditions the user used to lock up the bitcoin.

MASTs arrange these conditions in a new way that looks like a tree. Each branch of the tree holds a different condition a user could meet to spend the bitcoin. Then, only a hash of the tip of the tree is included in the bitcoin blockchain instead of all the script conditions.

This is more private because only the script used will hit the blockchain. All in all, MASTs make it much easier and cheaper to lock up bitcoin with these more complicated rulesets.

Taproot gives a privacy boost

Taproot builds on MASTs and Schnorr to create smart contracts with better privacy.

Generally, right now, transactions with complex scripts using MAST would really stand out on the blockchain. Even if MAST itself is more privacy-preserving, the format is a bit different for these transactions so it's easy to tell if someone is using a script or not.

Using the magic of signature aggregation Schnorr provides, Taproot would make these transactions look just like normal transactions.

But it doesn't work for every MAST contract, only for cooperative spends, where one branch of the Merkle tree is a multi-sig transaction, which is successfully used. If any of the other branches are used, then this privacy benefit disappears.

That said, developers expect the cooperative spend use case will be the most common use.

Then there's Tapscript, which could make it easier to make further improvements to the scripts we've talked about in the future. "While the BIP-tapscript changes don't immediately benefit the average bitcoin user, they are designed to make updates to the script system easier in the future," Nick said.

Right now, developers are battle testing this bundle of new technologies. So far no major problems have been found, but developers are making it the best they can before they try to add it to bitcoin with a soft fork.

"Just recently we've suggested a few minor changes to make the Schnorr signing algorithm more resistant to implementation mistakes and physical attacks," Nick said. As developers grow and expand bitcoin's technology, its changes like these that will truly make the platform usable for developers and financial professionals alike.

Read this article:
Schnoor/Taproot Could Improve Bitcoin Privacy and Scaling - CoinDesk

Read More..

Get 2 years of Webroot internet security and antivirus for $50 at Amazon – BGR

The novel coronavirus pandemic has changed our lives in so many ways, and it will be many months before things even begin to get back to normal. In hot zones in particular, most stores and other nonessential businesses will have to remain closed potentially through the end of the summer. The painful truth is that many of them will never reopen. In fact, even restaurants that have been allowed to remain open for takeout and delivery orders may end up closing down permanently because business for many of them has been so slow. We should all do our best to support local businesses whenever were able to, of course.

As for personal impact, many of us are working from home or taking online classes from home for the first time. If thats the case, its important to remember that when it comes to the COVID-19 outbreak, not everyone is in this together. Most people band together and look for ways to help each other, even if that just means having a video chat once in a while with someone who might be lonely. But some people are trying to use the pandemic as an opportunity to take advantage of others. Thats especially true of nefarious hackers, which means you need to protect yourself.

Amazon is running a terrific deal for one day only on Friday that slashes the price of Webroot Internet Security Plus with Antivirus Protection Software to just $49.99. Thats a 2-year subscription, mind you, and it covers you for up to three devices. That means you can protect every computer in your home for the next two years, and itll only cost you $50! Its a fantastic deal, but its only available until the end of the day.

Here are the key details from Amazons product description:

Follow @BGRDeals on Twitter to keep up with the latest and greatest deals we find around the web. Prices subject to change without notice and any coupons mentioned above may be available in limited supply. BGR may receive a commission on orders placed through this article, and the retailer may receive certain auditable data for accounting purposes.

Image Source: Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

See the article here:
Get 2 years of Webroot internet security and antivirus for $50 at Amazon - BGR

Read More..

Internet Security Software Market Growth Analysis, Top Manufacturers, Shares, Growth Opportunities and Forecast to 2026 – Germany English News

New Jersey, United States:The new report has been added by Market Research Intellect to provide a detailed overview of the Internet Security Software Market. The study will help to better understand the Internet Security Software industry competitors, the sales channel, Internet Security Software growth potential, potentially disruptive trends, Internet Security Software industry product innovations and the value / volume of size market (regional / national level, Internet Security Software- Industrial segments), market share of the best actors / products.

Information has been added to the report to provide a realistic view of the industry based on data from Internet Security Software manufacturers, i.e. H. Shipping, price, sales, gross profit, business distribution, etc., SWOT analysis, consumer preference, current developments and trends, drivers and limiting factors, company profile, investment opportunities, analysis of the demand gap, market size value / volume, services and products, Porters five models , socio-economic factors, official regulations in the Internet Security Software branch. Market participants can use the report to take a look at the future of the Internet Security Software market and make significant changes to their operating style and marketing tactics in order to achieve sustainable growth.

Get | Download Sample Copy @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/download-sample/?rid=193777&utm_source=GEN&utm_medium=888

The report examines the competitive environment scenario observed with key players in Internet Security Software sales, the profile of their business, their earnings, their sales, their business tactics, and the forecasting situations of the Internet Security Software sales industry. According to studies, the Internet Security Software sales market is very competitive and diverse due to global and local suppliers.

The Internet Security Software Sales Market Report mainly contains the following Manufacturers:

Market Competition

The competitive landscape of the Internet Security Software market is examined in detail in the report, with a focus on the latest developments, the future plans of the main players and the most important growth strategies that they have adopted. The analysts who compiled the report have created a portrait of almost all of the major players in the Internet Security Software market, highlighting their key commercial aspects such as production, areas of activity and product portfolio. All companies analyzed in the report are examined on the basis of important factors such as market share, market growth, company size, production, sales and earnings.

Report Highlights

Assessment of sales channels

innovation trends

sustainability strategies

Niche market trends

Market entry analysis

market size and forecast

The geographic department provides data that give you an overview of the turnover of companies and sales figures for the growth activity Internet Security Software for electrical meters. Here are the strengths of the geographic divisions: North America (United States, Canada and Mexico), Europe (Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Russia and Italy and more), Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia) and more ), South America (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia), the Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa) and ROW.

Ask For Discount (Special Offer: Get 25% discount on this report) @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=193777&utm_source=GEN&utm_medium=888

Table of Content

1 Introduction of Internet Security Software Market1.1 Overview of the Market1.2 Scope of Report1.3 Assumptions

2 Executive Summary

3 Research Methodology3.1 Data Mining3.2 Validation3.3 Primary Interviews3.4 List of Data Sources

4 Internet Security Software Market Outlook4.1 Overview4.2 Market Dynamics4.2.1 Drivers4.2.2 Restraints4.2.3 Opportunities4.3 Porters Five Force Model4.4 Value Chain Analysis

5 Internet Security Software Market, By Deployment Model5.1 Overview

6 Internet Security Software Market, By Solution6.1 Overview

7 Internet Security Software Market, By Vertical7.1 Overview

8 Internet Security Software Market, By Geography8.1 Overview8.2 North America8.2.1 U.S.8.2.2 Canada8.2.3 Mexico8.3 Europe8.3.1 Germany8.3.2 U.K.8.3.3 France8.3.4 Rest of Europe8.4 Asia Pacific8.4.1 China8.4.2 Japan8.4.3 India8.4.4 Rest of Asia Pacific8.5 Rest of the World8.5.1 Latin America8.5.2 Middle East

9 Internet Security Software Market Competitive Landscape9.1 Overview9.2 Company Market Ranking9.3 Key Development Strategies

10 Company Profiles10.1.1 Overview10.1.2 Financial Performance10.1.3 Product Outlook10.1.4 Key Developments

11 Appendix11.1 Related Research

Complete Report is Available @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/product/global-internet-security-software-market-size-and-forecast/?utm_source=GEN&utm_medium=888

We also offer customization on reports based on specific client requirement:

1-Freecountry level analysis forany 5 countriesof your choice.

2-FreeCompetitive analysis of any market players.

3-Free 40 analyst hoursto cover any other data points

About Us:

Market Research Intellect provides syndicated and customized research reports to clients from various industries and organizations with the aim of delivering functional expertise. We provide reports for all industries including Energy, Technology, Manufacturing and Construction, Chemicals and Materials, Food and Beverage and more. These reports deliver an in-depth study of the market with industry analysis, market value for regions and countries and trends that are pertinent to the industry.

Contact Us:

Mr. Steven FernandesMarket Research IntellectNew Jersey ( USA )Tel: +1-650-781-4080

Email: [emailprotected]

Get Our Trending Report

https://www.marketresearchblogs.com/

https://www.marktforschungsblogs.com/

Tags: Internet Security Software Market Size, Internet Security Software Market Growth, Internet Security Software Market Forecast, Internet Security Software Market Analysis, Internet Security Software Market Trends, Internet Security Software Market

Read the rest here:
Internet Security Software Market Growth Analysis, Top Manufacturers, Shares, Growth Opportunities and Forecast to 2026 - Germany English News

Read More..

Foreign Spies Are Targeting Americans on Zoom and Other Video Chat Platforms, U.S. Intel Officials Say – TIME

As much of the world works from home, an explosion of video conference calls has provided a playground not just for Zoombombers, phishermen and cybercriminals, but also for spies. Everyone from top business executives to government officials and scientists are using conferencing apps to stay in touch during the new coronavirus lockdowns and U.S. counterintelligence agencies have observed the espionage services of Russia, Iran, and North Korea attempting to spy on Americans video chats, three U.S. intelligence officials tell TIME.

But the cyberspies that have moved fastest and most aggressively during the pandemic, the intelligence officials say, have been Chinas. More than anyone else, the Chinese are interested in what American companies are doing, said one of the three. And that, in turn, has some U.S. counterintelligence officials worrying about one video conference platform in particular: Zoom. While the Chinese, Russians, and others are targeting virtually every tool Americans and others are using now that theyre forced to work from home, Zoom is an attractive target, especially for China, the intelligence officials and internet security researchers say.

An Apr. 3 report by The Citizen Lab, a research organization at the University of Toronto, found a number of shortcomings in Zooms security, including some that made it particularly vulnerable to China. It found that Zooms encryption scheme has significant weaknesses, including routing some encryption keys through Chinese servers, and that its ownership structure and reliance on Chinese labor could make Zoom responsive to pressure from Chinese authorities.

The U.S. intelligence officials stress there is no evidence that Zoom is cooperating with China or has been compromised by it, only that Zooms security measures leave gaps, some of which may make the application less secure than others. All three intelligence officials, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss ongoing operations with the media, said spies are using multiple applications to search government, corporate, and academic conversations for financial, personal, product development, research, and intellectual property information and leads. Federal experts have warned both government and private officials not to use video conference applications to discuss or exchange sensitive information. In a memo on Thursday, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms told Senators not to use Zoom, according to one person who received the memo.

Keep up to date on the growing threat to global health by signing up for our daily coronavirus newsletter.

Zoom has responded to the particular criticism of its security with multiple public efforts to address the concerns. After initially claiming that its platform provides end-to-end encryption for all its conversations, Zoom later said some encryption was in fact absent from some online messaging tools. While we never intended to deceive any of our customers, we recognize that there is a discrepancy between the commonly accepted definition of end-to-end encryption and how we were using it, wrote Oded Gal, the chief product officer for Zoom Video, in an April 1 blog post.

The subsequent investigation by The Citizen Lab found other weaknesses. During a test of a Zoom meeting with two users, one in the United States and one in Canada, the Citizen Labs researchers found that the key for conference encryption and decryption was sent to one of the participants from a Zoom server apparently located in Beijing. A scan located a total of five servers in China and 68 in the United States that apparently run the same Zoom server software as the Beijing server, their report says.

Zooms headquarters are in San Jose, California and it is listed on the NASDAQ. The companys main applications have been developed in part by three companies in China that all are named Ruanshi Software, the Citizen Lab study found. Two are owned by Zoom, and one is owned by a company called American Cloud Video Software Technology Co., Ltd. Zooms most recent SEC filing says the company employs at least 700 research and development employees in China, and job postings for Ruanshi Software in Suzhou, China include positions for C++ coders, Android and iOS app developers, and testing engineers, the Citizen Lab reported.

Zoom says it is not alone in having workers and servers in China, and says it has resolved the issue of encryption keys being routed through a server there. Zoom is not unique among its U.S. based teleconferencing peers in having a data center and employees in China; Zoom is perhaps just more transparent about it, the company said in a statement to TIME. Ruanshi is the Chinese name that Zoom uses to name our subsidiaries in China, the company said, and Our engineers are employed through these three subsidiaries and we are fully transparent about itall of this is disclosed in our filings. The company added that it has a number of documented controls and protections in place to protect data and prevent unauthorized access, including from Zoom employees. These controls are strictly enforced across the Company, regardless of jurisdiction.

In the wake of the Citizen Lab report, Zoom has taken other steps to reassure users about its commitment to security. On April 8, Alex Stamos, former chief security officer at Facebook and Yahoo, posted a note on Medium saying Zoom CEO Eric Yuan had called and asked if I would be interested in helping Zoom build up its security, privacy and safety capabilities as an outside consultant, and I readily agreed.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Michael Bennet of Colorado and Reps. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois have called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether Zoom has taken the measures necessary to protect its users. Multiple state attorneys general already have begun looking into the company, Politico reported. And despite Zooms reassurances, some intelligence experts remain concerned about its vulnerabilities. Zooms links to China, regardless of what its CEO promises, create a persistent threat, former director of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Hayden, tells TIME.

Please send tips, leads, and stories from the frontlines to virus@time.com.

Thank you! For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder.

Contact us at editors@time.com.

See the original post here:
Foreign Spies Are Targeting Americans on Zoom and Other Video Chat Platforms, U.S. Intel Officials Say - TIME

Read More..

iOS users beware: Myth of Apple security invulnerability is just that – The Star Online

Windows computers are prone to viruses, while iOS is a safe haven: Apple users like to believe their operating systems are virus-proof. But MacBooks and iPhones also come with weaknesses and the myth of their invulnerability is perhaps the biggest danger.

The common belief is that while Windows users have to deal with viruses, worms, and Trojans, Mac and iPhone users don't have to worry because Apple's devices are invulnerable to security threats.

In fact it's not really true anymore because there's been a rapid increase in the amount of malware targeting Apple in recent years.

The security of the macOS and iOS operating systems has always been based on a simple principle: the systems are closed and Apple specifies which hardware and software can be used with them.

Microsoft Windows and Android, Google's operating system for mobile devices, on the other hand, follow an open approach. That means that anyone can configure those systems themselves or develop and distribute software for them.

This approach means more freedom but also more risk. Windows and Android keep the gates a little bit open, which can mean that threats sometimes get in, while Apple users are protected behind high walls, at least in theory.

In reality those walls have gaps too. In 2017 a serious security vulnerability was discovered in the High Sierra version of macOS that made it easy for anyone to gain admin access, even if they didn't have programming knowledge or special software.

As well as the security of a closed system, Mac users in the past could rely on another advantage: cybercriminals focused on Windows.

"Macs have always also been vulnerable, but Windows was the easier and bigger target," says Kai Schwirzke from Mac & i magazine.

Because Windows computers were so much more common than Macs, that platform offered criminals a lot more potential victims.

However, with Macs now having an increased market share they've become a more attractive cyber-crime target.

"We have found that targeted attacks against macOS are increasingly being carried out," Schwirzke says.

In its 2019 annual report, the US anti-malware manufacturer Malwarebytes identified an increase in threats to Mac systems of more than 400% compared to the previous year.

According to the security experts, the integrated security systems of macOS are particularly blind to adware.

Adware not only displays advertisements and often transmits user data, but can also serve as a gateway for attacks.

Downloading apps only from Apple's App Store is also no cast-iron guarantee of security.

With the millions of lines of code in the apps that have to be checked by the App Store, it is impossible to rule out the possibility of malicious code slipping through unnoticed," Schwirzke says.

He recommends that you pay close attention to the permissions you grant an iPhone app. For example, a recipes app doesn't need access to your phone's address book or microphone.

Possibly the biggest danger is the Apple myth itself. In the belief that macOS and iOS are invulnerable, Apple users are often careless.

"The same applies to Apple as to other manufacturers: The biggest weak point is people," warns Internet security specialist David Bothe.

Phishing emails in particular pose a risk and are now being tailored specifically for Apple users.

In 2019 Germany's Federal Office for Information Security warned of an email that pretended to come from Apple Support. A blackmail trojan was hidden in a link inside the message.

Bothe advises Apple users to maintain a healthy dose of scepticism.

"Emails with calls for action should always be critically examined. Do not click on links if you're not one hundred per cent sure," he says. In addition, you shouldn't open email attachments from strangers. dpa

Read the original:
iOS users beware: Myth of Apple security invulnerability is just that - The Star Online

Read More..

Experts: Internet voting isn’t ready in the face of coronavirus pandemic – CyberScoop

Written by Brett Winterford Apr 8, 2020 | CYBERSCOOP

Internet technologies are set to play a critical role in the 2020 presidential election, but precisely which voting alternatives will be pursued and whether they can adequately be secured is now a $400 million question.

COVID-19 doesnt at this point present an excuse to postpone the general election in November. Chris Krebs, Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency told a recent Axios forum that 42 U.S. states have mechanisms in place that allow for alternatives to in-person voting, and the other eight have break-glass provisions for doing the same when emergencies require it. A global pandemic would most certainly meet that threshold.

The $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill (CARES Act) signed into law last week included $400 million of grants the Election Assistance Commission can give to states to help them prevent, prepare for and respond to Coronavirus. Earlier versions of the bill stipulated that the grants were conditional on states spending it on election security, but these provisions were later stripped out. States retain the autonomy to make the preparations they each deem necessary, as officials face the daunting task of upholding the most essential function of democracy in the midst of a health pandemic that constrains the movement and assembly of people in public spaces.

How each state chooses to conduct the election now shapes as a partisan battleground. House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., paints the $400 million as a down payment on the several billions of dollars required to run a wholly vote-by-mail election. There remains a danger that President Donald Trump or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., might seize this as a political opportunity to promote radical alternatives.

The worst alternative, according to election security experts, would be online voting.

Last week, Risky Business spoke to Jennifer Morrell, expert adviser to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency for our feature podcast, as well as DEF CON Voting Village co-founder Harri Hursti and several top security researchers in the field to ask what trade-offs theyd make to ensure Americans still get to the polls.

None felt that online voting was ready for a general election, even in the midst of a crisis.

It doesnt make sense to rush into remote marking of ballots, said Dan Guido, CEO of Trail of Bits.

In March, Trail of Bits published a complete white-box audit of Voatz, a mobile voting app piloted at small scale in several states including West Virginia, Colorado, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. The jaw-dropping report of that assessment detailed 79 security findings, a third of which were high severity. Voatz was one of several election apps Guidos team has tested.

To use a mobile phone to mark a ballot in a high-stakes election, you would need to trust every computer between you and the election official to correctly record your preference, Guido told Risky Business. There are any number of points at which remote marking of ballots could be interfered with. We havent seen an adequate solution to this yet.

MIT researcher Mike Specter who independently discovered a number of bugs in the same platform shares the same concern. Its still not clear how to prevent attacks against the host (user) operating system in a consumer device, Specter said.

Harri Hursti has dedicated 15 years of his career on the security of election systems, made famous in the 2006 documentary Hacking Democracy and the recent HBO sequel Kill Chain. He describes online voting as snake oil that doesnt solve any of the pressing problems facing elections.

The first sign of a crackpot is somebody that says elections are easy, Hursti told Risky Business. There is nothing easy about elections. Elections are uniquely difficult problems because they require both a secret ballotand auditability.

COVID-19 presents a very specific problem to the November election, he said, for which online voting isnt necessarily the right answer. The need is for a mode of voting that doesnt require hundreds of people to congregate in queues at polling stations. But that problem is solved already, Hursti said. Weve had early ballots, absentee ballots, mail-in ballots and other methods of voting for 40 or 50 years.

If politics doesnt get in the way, the internets best attributes can be harnessed in the November election in order to better facilitate these tried-and-true methods.

The most likely solution will be an electronic distribution of printable ballots that can be hand marked and posted back to the polling station. In some states, it will be augmented with earlier and staggered opportunities to vote at the polling place or curbside drive-thru voting booths.

Morrell confirmed that these options are under active investigation. The bulk of U.S. voters are most likely to receive their ballot digitally and submit it physically. The point of expanding mail-in voting is only to minimize the number of people you have to serve in-person on election day, she said.

Thats because most election officials, she said, are as anxious as the cybersecurity community about ballots being marked online.

Guido was at ease with using the internet for voter registration and distribution of unmarked ballot forms.

We should use every technology available to use to make the process of delivering ballots more efficient, Guido said.

Election officials would need to adjust their threat model to accommodate the change. Voters would face heightened social engineering risks, such as malicious actors using the process for phishing. Misinformation campaigns will try to convince voters to mail their ballot back to the wrong place.

But these are risks that can be managed, Guido said, especially if information about the voting process is centralized a difficult prospect in a process every state guards with zeal. An official voting app would quickly achieve primacy in the relevant app stores within the first million downloads, making it much harder for adversaries to trick people into downloading imitations.

Morell agrees that voters will need a trusted place to go for information and a consistent set of messages.

We saw in recent primaries some examples of voters being told on social media not to bother showing up, she said. Currently, CISA is focused on how to operationalize for a huge increase in mail-in ballots, and the agency will focus on voter outreach as November draws closer.

There will likely remain small pockets of the voting population offered mobile options , such as military personnel stationed overseas or disabled voters. Morell predicts a handful of states might also allow for voters to submit a scanned, marked ballot via PDF via a web portal.

Its also unclear whether current election apps can scale to meet the needs of a general election. The identity verification process in Voatz, for example, appears to require manual confirmation of identity data by a human operator making it no more scalable than the processes used by polling places.

Hursti urges policymakers to re-frame their threat model in order to meet the challenges for this election cycle. He feels that its less probable that a candidate would attempt to manipulate the system to win, and more probable that a motivated, well-funded adversary like a nation-state would use the compromise of an election system to seek to sow distrust and undermine a society.

A peaceful transition of power is only possible when the supporters of the losing party accept that the result is fair and square, Hursti said.

Morell wants researchers to keep exploring and pushing for better ways to improve election systems, and doesnt want to write off the use of online voting altogether.

But as for November, were not ready.

Brett Winterford is an editor with Risky Business. This post was reported by and originally appeared on Risky.Biz, and was produced with support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

More:
Experts: Internet voting isn't ready in the face of coronavirus pandemic - CyberScoop

Read More..

Slack in the security spotlight lessons for collaboration servers – Naked Security

Researchers at German pentesting company Enable Security just published an intriguing blog post about a security problem they found in the popular online collaboration tool Slack.

The short version is that they uncovered a way to poke around inside the private parts of Slacks network, so they disclosed it, Slack fixed it and paid them a $3,500 bounty

and then, as sometimes happens when the rest-of-life gets in the way, it was another two years before they got the green light to publish their findings.

In some ways, the bug bounty progress report makes more fascinating reading than the blog post itself, because it shows how the responsible disclosure process allows for affable and open technical discourse between the bug finders and the bug fixers, without giving needless hints to crooks along the way.

But well focus on the blog post here because it includes some really simple but very effective advice that anyone running real-time collaboration services (a hot topic right now!) can take on board.

Whether youre interested in live text chat, audio or video, this report could help you improve your own security, and that of your users.

One problem that so-called end-to-end or peer-to-peer software has on most internet-connected networks is that very few computers these days have network identifiers what are known as IP numbers assigned uniquely to them.

Heres why.

The modern internet numbering system known as IPv6 (there is no IPv5 numbering system because the suffix -5 had already been used for other things) gives each device on the internet a 128-bit number.

Even using just 64 bits worth of that so-called address space, you can count all the way from zero to 264-1, which is enough to number more nearly 20 million million million devices uniquely.

But the older IPv4 system is still used by the vast majority of devices out there, and it has just 32 bits, which gives you an absolute maximum device count of just over 4000 million (4 billion).

As large as that sounds, there are already billions of mobile phones around the world, plus billions more laptops, routers, cloud servers, smart kettles, street signs, lampposts

so you can see why 32-bit network numbers are a real problem these days, and have been for years.

(In practice, there arent even 232 values available because about half-a-billion IPv4 numbers are set aside for purposes other than identifying individual devices.)

Most networks these days make do with one IP number thats shared between all the computers on the local network (LAN), which make do with so-called private IP numbers that are reserved for internal use only.

These private IP numbers dont get past the router, so they dont need registration or any central authority to control them, but they dont identify your computer globally in any useful or usable way.

If youve ever wondered why your computer may show up with an IP number such as 192.168.1.12 at home, and something very similar, such as 192.168.1.13 at the coffee shop you (used to) frequent, its because those numbers are private only, and as long as theyre allocated on separate LANs they wont get in each others way.

As an aside, if youve ever had the misfortune to have all the computers on your network blocklisted at the same time because just one of them did something naughty, such as sending spam

thats because all traffic out of your network has the very same IP number once it joins the public internet, so your individual computers cant be blocked independently they stand or fall together.

Your router therefore acts as a sort of traffic proxy that figures out which incoming network packets are replies to what outgoing network requests, and redirects them accordingly.

Thats called NAT, short for Network Address Translation, and its a decent enough solution if all you want to do is establish connections from your private network to servers on the public internet, as you did when you browsed to this web server to start reading this article.

Generally speaking, however, a NATting router can only deal reliably with incoming traffic after a computer on the LAN has initiated an outbound connection otherwise it has no idea which network flows (as they are called) belong to which device.

For peer-to-peer chats, whether theyre one-to-one calls or group calls, you have a problem each participant can dial out to the call by connecting outwards to any or all of the others, but no one can accept the call because incoming network traffic relies on an already-open connection to a public server first.

Stalemate!

One solution to this problem is known as TURN, which is a rather forced acronym meaning Traversal Using Relays around NAT. (Relays Using NAT Traversal would be clearer to write in full, but wouldnt be a good acronym.)

The idea is that a server on the public internet acts as an answering machine that accepts calls from other computers, even if they are behind NAT routers, and applies suitable identification and authentication as needed.

For any call that users are trying to connect to, the TURN server ends up on the receiving end of outbound connections from everyone on the call, so it can act as a relay or broker that shuffles one callers outbound data into the right recipients inbound data channel and vice versa, thus simulating an end-to-end connection between two or more computers that would otherwise be kept apart by their NAT routers.

This isnt an ideal solution, especially if the TURN server is in New York and the callers are both in San Diego, say, because the packets are crossing a continent only to come straight back again, and it also means that everyones call latency gets affected by the load on the TURN server.

But by making TURN into a lightweight data packet shuffling service, its nevertheless proved to be a very useful system that works for all sorts of traffic, not just for audio, or video, or whatever.

Because TURN servers can broker traffic between arbitrary services on arbitrary computers, you dont need to add TURN code to every type of server you run, meaning that you can dedicate TURN servers entirely to their job of packet brokering.

This means you can therefore configure and tune TURN your servers for optimum throughput, without worrying if those tweaks would reduce performance for other service types on your network such as web, database and streaming servers.

But this general-purpose nature of TURN means that you need some way for a TURN server to allow the original caller to specify where they want to go to reach the other end of their TURN call.

And the primary functions of TURN is to broker traffic past NAT routers, which means that TURN needs to be able to make sense of IP traffic that a router itself would ignore because the destination computers have internal-only IP numbers that make no sense on the public internet.

You can probably guess where this is going.

There are almost certainly several network ports open on your laptop right now, many of them listening on localhost, which is a special series of IP numbers from 127.0.0.0 to 127.255.255.255 that are reserved for your computer to access itself only from itself.

Localhost addresses (127.0.0.1 is usually used) are so special that many operating systems dont even send local network packets through the networking subsystem.

To improve the speed, security and reliability of local-to-local connections they often just shuffle the data directly in memory between the sending program and the receiver.

Likewise, your router probably has an administration web server running on an IP number such as 192.168.1.254 or 192.168.0.1 to keep it safely cut off from the outside world but accessible to computers inside your network.

But if you have a TURN server, it is already inside your network, so if you accidentally permit an incoming caller to specify an internal-only IP number as its target, you may end up brokering packets between an outsider and some internal service that would otherwise be invisible to outsiders.

Peeking into internal Slack resources via Slacks TURN servers in this way is what our intrepid researchers were able to do, two years ago.

By placing fake calls with recipients that were inside Slacks own network, using a mixture of localhost and private IP numbers, they were able to boldly go where no caller was supposed to.

They made an informative video (its slow going but surprisingly easy to follow) of what happened:

If you are a Slack user, there is nothing to do.

Slack already did it for you, which is why this report is public only now.

But if you run your own TURN servers, the researchers suggest checking that you have configured your server to ignore connection brokering requests to any internal-only IP numbers.

This protects you from access control mistakes down the line, because there is no down the line.

For the server described in their paper (called coturn), the configuration they recommend is as follows:

If youre a networking person you will probably recognise those ranges anyway they cover multicast, LAN-only IP numbers, localhost-only IP numbers, autoconfiguration IP numbers, reserved-for-documentation IP numbers and more.

Remember: the earlier you block bad traffic, the less harm it can possibly do!

More:
Slack in the security spotlight lessons for collaboration servers - Naked Security

Read More..

Google removes Android VPN with critical vulnerability from Play Store – Naked Security

Google has removed an Android VPN program from the Google Play store after researchers notified it of a critical vulnerability. The app, SuperVPN, has been downloaded over 100 million times.

Virtual private networks (VPNs) let users create encrypted connections to online servers that then serve as their gateway to the Internet. They enable users to tunnel safely to the internet when using untrusted local connections such as those in public places like coffee shops. In theory, they should stop intruders from sniffing your traffic on insecure networks. SuperVPN is one of dozens of programs that supposedly serve this function for Android devices.

VPNpro, a company that reviews and advises on VPN products, warned in February of a vulnerability in the product that could cause a man in the middle (MITM) attack, enabling an intruder to insert themselves between the user and the VPN service. It said at the time:

What this VPN app has done is to leave its users, people seeking extra privacy and security, to actually have less privacy and security than if theyd used no VPN at all.

The program was sending encrypted data, but it hard coded the decryption key, the review site said. Decrypting the data revealed information about SuperVPNs server, certificates, and authentication credentials. VPNpro was able to replace that data with its own.

That means the attacker can force SuperVPN to connect to a fake server, enabling them to see all of the users data including passwords, private text, and voice messages, VPNpro said.

VPNpros researcher Jan Youngren discovered the vulnerability in October 2019, adding that its developer, SuperSoftTech, likely based in Beijing, didnt respond to its notification. Instead, it notified the Google Play Security Reward Program (GPSRP), operated for Google by HackerOne. That team couldnt get a response from SuperSoftTech either, so it removed the program from the Google Play store on 7 April, 2020.

This isnt the first time that SuperVPN has cropped up in vulnerability research. It also got a mention in a 2016 paper that researched security risks in Android VPNs. That research, presented at the Association for Computing Machinerys 2016 Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), found that 13 antivirus programs detected malware activity in the software. It took third place in a ranking of Android VPNs most often flagged with malware-like activity by antivirus programs.

SuperVPN wasnt the only Android VPN to raise VPNpros concerns. It identified nine others in its February blog post that it said had critical vulnerabilities leaving their users vulnerable to to MITM attacks. A quick check shows that several of them are still available for download on the Play Store.

Read more from the original source:
Google removes Android VPN with critical vulnerability from Play Store - Naked Security

Read More..