Category: ban

The United Kingdom is poised to implement a significant shift in its approach to tackling ransomware attacks, with a formal ban on ransomware payments set to be enforced. This ban will apply specifically to public and critical infrastructure sectors, which include essential services such as education, transportation, hospitals (including the NHS), and financial institutions like banks. On January 14th, 2025, the Home Office released a consultation white paper outlining this forthcoming policy change, which is expected to be formalized into an executive order in the near future.

The UK’s decision to introduce a ransomware payment ban follows in the footsteps of the United States, which has already taken steps to discourage businesses and public sector organizations from paying ransoms in exchange for decryption keys. The rationale behind this policy is to weaken the financial incentives for cybercriminals, thereby reducing the frequency of these devastating attacks that have caused significant disruptions across industries globally.

In addition to the payment ban, the proposal includes a mandatory requirement for businesses and organizations that experience ransomware attacks to report these incidents to law enforcement agencies within three working days. Failing to comply with this reporting requirement could lead to legal penalties and other repercussions. This measure is designed to ensure that attacks are swiftly addressed and that law enforcement can gather critical intelligence to track and dismantle ransomware operations.

The National Crime Agency (NCA), in partnership with the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), has already begun efforts to raise awareness about the new policy and its implications. These agencies will also encourage victims to share valuable intelligence with authorities, as timely reporting can help prevent further attacks. Proactively sharing information can also alert other vulnerable organizations, allowing them to bolster their defenses before becoming victims themselves.

One notable example of the success of such collaborative efforts is Operation Cronos, which led to the dismantling of the LockBit Ransomware group’s IT infrastructure. This operation was made possible through a coordinated effort between Europol, the FBI, and Interpol, demonstrating the importance of intelligence-sharing across borders to combat the global nature of ransomware threats.

While the ransomware payment ban could prove beneficial in discouraging cybercriminals, there are concerns that it could also have unintended consequences for the victims of these attacks. In some cases, businesses could face irreversible damage, including permanent closure or severe financial losses. Such outcomes may create challenges for the affected organizations, which could struggle to recover without the option to negotiate a ransom.

The debate around combating ransomware has also led to discussions about the potential for banning cryptocurrency payments, as these digital currencies are often used to facilitate ransom transactions. Countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK have explored this idea, but implementing such a ban faces significant obstacles. Cryptocurrency transactions, particularly those based on blockchain technology, are notoriously difficult to trace and monitor, which makes enforcement challenging.

Despite these challenges, the UK’s proposed ransomware payment ban represents a bold step in the ongoing fight against cybercrime. If successful, it could serve as a model for other nations grappling with the growing threat of ransomware attacks. The hope is that this policy will yield positive results, curbing the frequency and impact of ransomware incidents and helping law enforcement agencies to dismantle criminal operations more effectively. As the NCA and NCSC continue their efforts to inform the public, the UK will be watching closely to see how this new approach unfolds in the coming months.

The post UK to follow America in imposing a ransomware payment ban appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

Recently, the FBI initiated a global operation aimed at disrupting the infrastructure utilized by the ALPHV hackers responsible for spreading ransomware. Despite this effort, the criminal group managed to bounce back swiftly and launched even more sophisticated attacks.

Just a short while ago, the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) launched Operation Cronos to counter the spread of LockBit Ransomware. However, the Russian-speaking gang behind it quickly regained momentum and is now threatening to expose sensitive legal documents concerning former US President Donald Trump if further action is taken against them by international cyber forces.

This has sparked a discussion on platforms like Reddit and Facebook, with many advocating for a ban on ransom payments to the LockBit Ransomware group. The idea is that cutting off their financial support would make it harder for the hackers to operate and potentially force them to cease their activities altogether.

Ciaran Martin, the inaugural CEO of Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), has stressed the need for such a ban following the setback of Operation Cronos and the confident resurgence of the LockBit gang.

The pressing question now is whether a ban on cryptocurrency payments can be effectively implemented, or if all payments can be traced and blocked.

While there are some newly developed online tools supported by blockchain and artificial intelligence that could aid in imposing restrictions on virtual currency transactions, the practicality of banning digitally generated coins like Bitcoin remains dubious. This is primarily because there is no centralized authority governing such currencies, unlike fiat currencies.

Without centralized control, governments and law enforcement agencies face significant hurdles in controlling the generation and circulation of these currencies. Essentially, the prevalence of cryptocurrencies can only be curbed when the demand for them diminishes, akin to combating other crimes like trafficking, which can only be effectively tackled when demand and usage decline significantly.

 

The post Can ban on ransom payments block ransomware spread appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

The concerns raised by the United States regarding the use of TikTok on government-owned devices led to restrictions on its usage during the Trump administration. However, under President Joe Biden’s leadership, a comprehensive ban was implemented on the video messaging app owned by the Chinese conglomerate ByteDance owner Zhang Yiming. The primary rationale behind this nationwide prohibition was rooted in national security considerations.

This move prompted several other nations to follow suit and impose bans on the Chinese mobile entertainment application. Notable instances include:

1.) Afghanistan – In 2022, TikTok was banned due to concerns about national security and its potential negative influence on the younger population. The ban was extended to include PUBG as well.

2.) Australia – TikTok was barred from use on federal devices.

3.) Belgium – Restricted usage only on federal devices.

4.) Canada – TikTok ban extended to government-issued devices.

5.) Denmark – The app was banned on all devices issued by the defense ministry.

6.) European Union – The European Parliament, European Commission, and EU Council prohibited the use of TikTok on devices owned by staff and lawmakers.

7.) France – Usage was banned on government-issued devices.

8.) India – A nationwide ban was implemented across all devices.

9.) Latvia – A ban was enforced on foreign ministry smartphones.

10.) Netherlands – The Dutch government issued a TikTok ban on its devices.

11.) New Zealand

12.) Norway

13.) Pakistan – A temporary ban was instituted.

14.) Taiwan

15.) Japan

16.) United Kingdom

17.) New York City – A region-wide ban on TikTok was implemented separately.

 

A study by the business research firm Bernstein revealed that the ban could potentially benefit other online service providers such as Meta, Snapchat, and Google. These platforms could see a significant increase in viewership for short-video content, translating into substantial advertising revenues of over $8 billion daily for each company.

In a related survey conducted by Reuters, it was found that more than half of American adults (approximately 53%) supported the idea of banning the Chinese-owned social media app. TikTok has amassed a staggering revenue of over $140 billion for the company to date.

However, the question of the advantages of enforcing a TikTok ban arises. Here are some points to consider:

a.) Opportunity for Other Platforms: The ban could prompt small companies to shift their marketing efforts to alternative platforms, benefiting different firms and diversifying revenue streams.

b.) Impact on Businesses: TikTok’s wide user base, particularly among younger audiences, has made it a powerful marketing tool for apparel and electronics companies. A ban could lead to revenue losses as they lose a valuable marketing channel.

c.) Complexity of Data Security: While data security and privacy are vital concerns, banning an application( having 1billion active users worldwide) solely due to its Chinese origin may not be practical. The global electronics industry relies heavily on components manufactured in China, raising questions about the consistency of this approach.

In conclusion, the ban on TikTok, initiated by the United States and followed by other nations, has triggered a series of consequences affecting various sectors. The debate surrounding its benefits and implications continues to evolve, with considerations extending beyond national security to encompass economic and technological dimensions.

The post List of countries that issued TikTok ban due to data security concerns and benefits appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

Google has issued a ban on approximately 173,000 application developers who tried various methods to get their software published on its Play Store. The web search giant has officially confirmed that it has weeded out a large number of bad accounts and has announced that it will raise the bar even further this year.

According to a source at the technology giant, the company has taken stringent action against those spreading malware and spying tools under the guise of renowned applications and will no longer accept applications that work under the same name and objective.

Google estimates that it has blocked over $2 billion from fraudulent and abusive dealings.

It has also issued stringent rules for developers whose apps access sensitive data and share it with servers, which goes against the privacy rules of the internet juggernaut.

Inside sources suggest that the company is also keeping a close eye on app developers from certain countries, such as India, China, Russia, and some other Asian and African countries, as well as the United States. If found guilty, their accounts are permanently suspended.

Additionally, the company blocks apps with names that are similar to government-related utility and services applications. Previously, it used to allow competing applications. However, to prevent fraud arising from such services, it has decided not to accept applications operating under the same name and motive.

Will it accept applications that are mimicked with just a typo or synonym? Only time will provide an appropriate answer to this question!

Note: Between January and December 2022, Google launched the App Security Improvements program, which helped developers fix over 500,000 vulnerabilities in 300,000 apps that had over 253 billion installs.

The post Google bans 173,000 malicious app developers appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

The Australian government is set to issue a complete ban on ransomware payments after one of its major financial lenders became the target of a massive file-encrypting malware attack on March 16th this year.

As the victim received a ransom demand in Tornado Cash on April 11th, 2023, the Albanese-led government is considering banning cryptocurrency usage and circulation to block ransomware payments.

Technically, transactions related to digital cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Monero are anonymous and therefore hard to ban. However, law enforcement is increasingly able to track such payments by using sophisticated blockchain-driven software. Imposing a ban might prove practically impossible, but it can be done if certain open-source tools are used wisely.

The Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), under the leadership of Cyber Security Minister Clare O’Neil, is urging victims not to pay a ransom as there is no guarantee that the information will be returned instead of being sold online. However, making such payments illegal might not be possible, says Andy Penn, the former CEO of Telstra and currently serving as a lead at ACSC.

Note: Paying a ransom carries the risk of the hacker treating the victim as a soft target and launching digital attacks at regular intervals to test the company’s cyber immunity skills.

The post Australia to issue ban on ransomware payments after Latitude Financial Cyber Attack appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

ChatGPT released by Microsoft owned OpenAI has been slapped with a temporary ban by Italy government agencies due to data security concerns. Now, on Monday i.e. on April 3rd of the year 2023, Germany Commissioner for data protection told Handelsblatt that it may also follow the footsteps of its neighboring nation and might impose a ban on the usage of the AI driven conversational chat bot until, a thorough investigation is launched on how the AI application is using information for analysis to produce results.

Currently, Germany has sorted the inputs from the government of Italy on ban impose and the evidence behind the ban move.

France and Ireland are also planning to contact the Italian data watchdog to share and discuss their findings on how the chat bot use could raise data security concerns.

Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) has given its staff members a fortnight’s time frame to study and analyze the findings, after which it could also impose a ban on the use of OpenAI product/s.

Sweden has, however, issued a press statement saying it has no plan to ban the much trending ChatGPT, nor is intending to contact the Italian watchdog for its apprehensions over the usage of the said conversational chat technology.

NOTE- According to the European data laws, online services should deploy an automated software mechanism to identify and block those who are below the age of 13 from using the service. Since Microsoft ChatGPT doesn’t opt for such checks, Italy happens to be the first western country to impose a temporary ban on the AI Chatbot that recently reached 100 million monthly active users mark, since its commercial release in November 2022. The move was made after the Italian government was questioned by some elected representatives about the accuracy of info that surfaced last month. Leaking chat titles and payment related info (billing first and last names, last 4 digits of credit cards, the card expiration date and billing addresses) on the screens of some users that weren’t related to the respected leaked accounts in any way.

 

The post After Italy, Germany to issue ban on the ChatGPT use appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

Donald Trump, during his regime as President of America, imposed a ban on the use of Huawei and Dahua products across the states as the two companies are alleged to be conducting corporate espionage to steal intellectual property. And western countries like Australia, the UK, Canada, and Europe followed the same.

But is this ban on not use or sell Chinese products working in the nation’s favor or is it just an illusion in which we are living or rather say our leaders are living?

If we take any electronic device into account, say a television to devices connected by the Internet of Things. Each of these items have at-least 2-3 parts that are manufactured and assembled in the Chinese Federation region.

That means, we or rather, say our leaders imposed a ban that is being or becoming ineffective. As most of the IoT devices say, sensors to transmitters are being used in a wide range of industrial applications, homes, offices and in vehicles.

So, is there a way to ban such items with an excuse that they are threatening our national infrastructure?

No way, as anything that is being connected to power and the internet is running on Chinese influence, that is now being considered as an adversary to our entire world- especially after the COVID-19 breakout.

According to a survey conducted by Cisco, most of the Telecom market domination is being done by 2 Chinese manufacturers- say Huawei and ZTE. And the fact is that all the components manufactured or bought from these companies are being used in running some cellular IoT modules produced by western countries like Tesla, Intel, Dell and Ford.

So, what’s the question of issuing a superficial ban on such products, when it doesn’t really work in practical?

 

The post Is banning Chinese products in the name of National Security working for countries appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a press statement on Friday last week, determining a ban on Russian Cybersecurity software provider Kaspersky deeming the firm as a threat to US National Security.

FCC also extended the list by adding two other companies, China Mobile International USA and China Telecom Corp, and stated that they will put the purchase of equipment from these two companies on hold until further notice.

Already five other companies such as Huawei Technologies Co and ZTE Corp were on the list since 2019 and the ban on the recent additions will reportedly be implemented on April 1st this year.

Ban on Kaspersky was much expected, as it is a Russian company and the relationship between Putin and Joe Biden deteriorated further, after Russian Federation invaded Ukraine in February 2022 to oust Zelenskyy.

Kaspersky has appealed against the ban and has been constantly telling the world that it is a private firm and has nothing to do with the nation’s president and his war mindset.

Note 1- FCC’s ban on a company means the money from the $8 Billion Annual Universal Service Fund will not be used to purchase any product or service from the banned company.

Note 2- Biden administration might have implanted the ban on Kaspersky, the Russia’s first company to put pressure on Putin to stop war on Ukraine- all a part of the newly announced sanctions on Moscow.

 

The post Russian Cybersecurity software provider Kaspersky is banned appeared first on Cybersecurity Insiders.