Similar to the previous campaign TAG reported on, North Korean threat actors used social media sites like X (formerly Twitter) to build rapport with their targets. In one case, they carried on a months-long conversation, attempting to collaborate with a security researcher on topics of mutual interest. After initial contact via X, they moved to an encrypted messaging app such as Signal, WhatsApp or Wire. Once a relationship was developed with a targeted researcher, the threat actors sent a malicious file that contained at least one 0-day in a popular software package.

[...]

In addition to targeting researchers with 0-day exploits, the threat actors also developed a standalone Windows tool that has the stated goal of 'download debugging symbols from Microsoft, Google, Mozilla and Citrix symbol servers for reverse engineers.' The source code for this tool was first published on GitHub on September 30, 2022, with several updates being released since. On the surface, this tool appears to be a useful utility for quickly and easily downloading symbol information from a number of different sources. Symbols provide additional information about a binary that can be helpful when debugging software issues or while conducting vulnerability research.

But the tool also has the ability to download and execute arbitrary code from an attacker-controlled domain. If you have downloaded or run this tool, TAG recommends taking precautions to ensure your system is in a known clean state, likely requiring a reinstall of the operating system.

[...]

As part of our efforts to combat serious threat actors, TAG uses the results of our research to improve the safety and security of Google’s products. Upon discovery, all identified websites and domains are added to Safe Browsing to protect users from further exploitation. TAG also sends all targeted Gmail and Workspace users government-backed attacker alerts notifying them of the activity and encourages potential targets to enable Enhanced Safe Browsing for Chrome and ensure that all devices are updated.

Just now, loading the page https://lemmy.world, I saw a different user's main page. The page loaded in light mode (I use dark) with the username of /u/froodloop in the top right. Then a moment later, it refreshed into my expected main page with my username in top right. This went past too quickly to get a screenshot, but it was reminiscent of some of the bugs that were happening in the old websocket code.

I'm starting to notice spam accounts here — accounts that do nothing but post and crosspost links to low-quality or promotional websites.

My inclination is to simply downvote and report each spam post, but this maybe generates a lot of mod queue activity for community moderators. And when an account is used for nothing but spam, presumably that would be better handled by admins banning the account than by each community moderator needing to respond individually to each spam post.

And maybe by the time mods or admins get around to looking at the reports, they've already noticed the spam and responded to it directly.

So — if you're a community moderator or an instance admin, what are your preferences for receiving reports of spam accounts? Is it worth it to you to get reports of spam posts, or messages pointing out a spammer account, or would you prefer that we just downvote, block, and move on?

Many "news" sites on the Web are really just private link-aggregators with extra ads. They don't do original reporting; they just link to and summarize an article that someone else wrote, while surrounding it with extra ads.

For example, most news articles that appear on Boing Boing and similar sites are really just links to an article published elsewhere, which was written by an actual reporter for an actual news service. The reporter's article may be one or two links away from the aggregator's page, as news services sometimes also link to other news services.

What the link aggregator adds is ... ads. Lots of them, usually poor-quality ones. And nobody needs another dose of Outbrain or Taboola.

Example: Boing Boing post — Original article at the BBC.

A reader who's interested in the subject of the article is going to want to get to the actual source, not just the link-aggregator page. So it's usually better for the poster here to post the original article, not the link-aggregator page.

/c/magictcg@lemmy.world