A new strain of malware intercepts and tampers with internet traffic on infected Apple Macs to inject Bing results into users' Google search results. The Register reports: A report out this month by security house AiroAV details how its bods apparently spotted a software nasty that configures compromised macOS computers to route the user's network connections through a local proxy server that modifies Google search results. In this latest case, it is claimed, the malware masquerades as an installer for an Adobe Flash plugin -- delivered perhaps by email or a drive-by download -- that the user is tricked into running. This bogus installer asks the victim for their macOS account username and password, which it can use to gain sufficient privileges to install a local web proxy and configure the system so that all web browser requests go through it. That proxy can meddle with unencrypted data as it flows in and out to and from the public internet.

A root security certificate is also added to the Mac's keychain, giving the proxy the ability to generate SSL/TLS certs on the fly for websites requested. This allows it to potentially intercept and tamper with encrypted HTTPS traffic. This man-in-the-middle eavesdropping works against HTTP websites, and any HTTPS sites that do not employ MITM countermeasures. When the user opens their browser and attempts to run a Google search on an infected Mac, the request is routed to the local proxy, which injects into the Google results page an HTML iframe containing fetched Bing results for the same query, weirdly enough. As for why, "it's believed the Bing results bring in web ads that generate revenue for the malware's masterminds," the report says.

Russian telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor will start blocking major VPNs including NordVPN, ExpressVPN, IPVanish and HideMyAss, following through with its threat back in March. At the time, ten major VPN providers were ordered to begin blocking sites present in the country's national blacklist -- but almost all of them didn't comply. TorrentFreak reports: When questioned on the timeline for blocking, Roscomnadzor chief Alexander Zharov said that the matter could be closed within a month. If that happens, the non-compliant providers will themselves be placed on the country's blacklist (known locally as FGIS), meaning that local ISPs will have to prevent their users from accessing them. It is not yet clear whether that means their web presences, their VPN servers, or both. In the case of the latter, it's currently unclear whether there will be a battle or not. TorGuard has already pulled its servers out of Russia and ExpressVPN currently lists no servers in the country. The same is true for OpenVPN although VyprVPN still lists servers in Moscow, as does HideMyAss. Even if Roscomnadzor is successful in blocking any or all of the non-compliant services, there are still dozens more to choose from, a fact acknowledged by Zharov.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: For more than two hours on Thursday, June 6, a large chunk of European mobile traffic was rerouted through the infrastructure of China Telecom, China's third-largest telco and internet service provider (ISP). The incident occurred because of a BGP route leak at Swiss data center colocation company Safe Host, which accidentally leaked over 70,000 routes from its internal routing table to the Chinese ISP. But instead of ignoring the BGP leak, like most ISPs, China Telecom re-announced Safe Host's routes as its own, and by doing so, interposed itself as one of the shortest ways to reach Safe Host's network and other nearby European telcos and ISPs. "But if any other ISP would have caused this incident, it would have likely been ignored," the reader adds. "Alas, it was China Telecom, and there's a backstory, as this is the same Chinese ISP that was accused last year in an academic paper of 'hijacking the vital internet backbone of western countries' for intelligence gathering purposes."

Sony will increase salaries by up to 20% for new recruits with high-tech skills in fields such as artificial intelligence, moving away from the traditional Japanese emphasis on seniority to better compete in a battle for talent that crosses industries and international borders. From a report: Traditionally, new graduates hired by Sony all receive the same entry-level salary, then are assigned a pay grade after more than a year based on their role. Starting this year, grades can be set for standout hires in as little as three months, resulting in annual salaries as much as 20% higher than colleagues'. Japanese companies have a deep-rooted tendency to pay new employees equally regardless of individual qualifications. But global competition for top talent -- particularly in the tech industry, where big American players like Google and Apple dominate -- has made it increasingly important to offer new graduates compensation in line with their abilities from the time they enter the company.

Technology services provider Probrand has carried out a study at a cyber expo attended by UK security professionals, where attendees voluntarily shared sensitive data including their name, date of birth and favourite football team -- all to get their hands on a free donut. From a report: "We wanted to put this theory to the test and see just how willing people were to give up their data," says Mark Lomas, technical architect at Probrand. "We started by asking conversational questions such as 'How are you finding the day? Got any plans for after the event?' If someone happened to mention they were collecting their kids from school, we then asked what their names and ages were. One individual even showed a photograph of their children." As part of the task, Probrand also asked more direct questions such as, 'Which football team do you support?', 'What type of music are you into?' and 'What is your favourite band?' Whether asking questions transparently as part of a survey, or trying to adopt more hacker-type methods, they were alarmed to find how easy it was to obtain personal data -- which many people may be using as the basis of their passwords.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica, written by Wired's . Andy Greenberg: In upcoming versions of iOS and macOS, the new Find My feature will broadcast Bluetooth signals from Apple devices even when they're offline, allowing nearby Apple devices to relay their location to the cloud. That should help you locate your stolen laptop even when it's sleeping in a thief's bag. And it turns out that Apple's elaborate encryption scheme is also designed not only to prevent interlopers from identifying or tracking an iDevice from its Bluetooth signal, but also to keep Apple itself from learning device locations, even as it allows you to pinpoint yours.

In a background phone call with WIRED following its keynote, Apple broke down that privacy element, explaining how its "encrypted and anonymous" system avoids leaking your location data willy nilly, even as your devices broadcast a Bluetooth signal explicitly designed to let you track your device. The solution to that paradox, it turns out, is a trick that requires you to own at least two Apple devices. Each one emits a constantly changing key that nearby Apple devices use to encrypt and upload your geolocation data, such that only the other Apple device you own possesses the key to decrypt those locations. That system would obviate the threat of marketers or other snoops tracking Apple device Bluetooth signals, allowing them to build their own histories of every user's location. In fact, Find My's cryptography goes one step further than that, denying even Apple itself the ability to learn a user's locations based on their Bluetooth beacons. That would represent a privacy improvement over Apple's older tools like Find My iPhone and Find Friends, which don't offer such safeguards against Apple learning your location.

An anonymous reader shares a report: The German Federal Office for Information Security (or the Bundesamt fur Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik -- BSI) has issued security alerts today warning about dangerous backdoor malware found embedded in the firmware of at least four smartphone models sold in the country. Impacted models include the Doogee BL7000, the M-Horse Pure 1, the Keecoo P11, and the VKworld Mix Plus (malware present in the firmware, but inactive). All four are low-end Android smartphones. The BSI said the phones' firmware contained a backdoor trojan named Andr/Xgen2-CY.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: A critical remote command execution (RCE) security flaw impacts over half of the Internet's email servers, security researchers from Qualys have revealed today. The vulnerability affects Exim, a mail transfer agent (MTA), which is software that runs on email servers to relay emails from senders to recipients. According to a June 2019 survey of all mail servers visible on the Internet, 57% (507,389) of all email servers run Exim -- although different reports would put the number of Exim installations at ten times that number, at 5.4 million.

In a security alert shared with ZDNet earlier today, Qualys, a cyber-security firm specialized in cloud security and compliance, said it found a very dangerous vulnerability in Exim installations running versions 4.87 to 4.91. The vulnerability is described as a remote command execution -- different, but just as dangerous as a remote code execution flaw -- that lets a local or remote attacker run commands on the Exim server as root. Qualys said the vulnerability can be exploited instantly by a local attacker that has a presence on an email server, even with a low-privileged account. lBut the real danger comes from remote hackers exploiting the vulnerability, who can scan the internet for vulnerable servers, and take over systems. The vulnerability was patched with Exim 4.92, on February 10, 2019, "but at the time the Exim team released v4.92, they didn't know they fixed a major security hole," reports ZDNet.

"This was only recently discovered by the Qualys team while auditing older Exim versions. Now, Qualys researchers are warning Exim users to update to the 4.92 version to avoid having their servers taken over by attackers."

When you type in a URL to your browser and press "enter," your browser sends that name to a network of computers called the Domain Name System (DNS), which converts it into IP addresses. These numbers are what allow your browser to find the right server on the internet and connect to it. When you navigate to a website, you are trusting a handful of organizations that have been charged with keeping the DNS working and secure.

"To people like Steven McKie, a developer for and investor in an open-source project called the Handshake Network, this centralized power over internet naming makes the internet vulnerable to both censorship and cyberattacks," reports MIT technology review. "Handshake wants to decentralize it by creating an alternative naming system that nobody controls. In doing so, it could help protect us from hackers trying to exploit the DNS's security weaknesses, and from governments hoping to use it to block free expression." From the report: The system would be based on blockchain technology, meaning it would be software that runs on a widely distributed network of computers. In theory, it would have no single point of failure and depend on no human-run organization that could be corrupted or co-opted. Handshake's software is a heavily modified version ("fork") of Bitcoin, and just as Bitcoin's network of miners protects the cryptocurrency from manipulation and makes it virtually impossible for authorities to shut down, a similar network could keep a permanent, censorship-resistant record of internet names. The Handshake team is far from the first to try to create a decentralized naming system for the web. But unlike previous efforts, Handshake isn't trying to replace DNS but work with it.

Besides ICANN, there's yet another class of organization whose job Handshake aims to decentralize. See that little padlock icon in your browser bar, to the left of the domain name? That means your computer has verified that your connection to this website is encrypted and that the site is authentic, not a fake one designed by a criminal trying to steal your login credentials. It does that by checking the veracity of a string of numbers called the site's digital certificate, issued by one of a number of so-called certificate authorities. These entities, many of which are for-profit companies, are crucial to internet security. They can also get hacked. And if one gets breached, and an attacker can start issuing fake certificates, it undermines the security of the whole internet. But if website names are managed on a tamper-resistant blockchain, then you don't need certificate authorities; the naming system itself can provide the guarantee that the site you're connected to is real. That's what Handshake aims to do.

A Florida election software company targeted by Russians in 2016 inadvertently opened a potential pathway for hackers to tamper with voter records in North Carolina on the eve of the presidential election, POLITICO reported on Wednesday, citing a document and a person with knowledge. From the report: VR Systems, based in Tallahassee but with customers in eight states, used what's known as remote-access software to connect for several hours to a central computer in Durham County, N.C., to troubleshoot problems with the company's voter list management tool, the person said. The software distributes voter lists to so-called electronic poll books, which poll workers use to check in voters and verify their eligibility to cast a ballot.

The company did not respond to POLITICO's requests for comment about its practices. But election security experts widely condemn remote connections to election-related computer systems -- not only because they can open a door for intruders but because they can also give attackers access to an entire network, depending on how they're configured. In Durham County's case, the computer in question communicated with North Carolina's State Board of Elections to download the county's voter list before elections, which could have potentially opened a gateway to the state system as well.

The European Union's embassy in Moscow was hacked and had information stolen from its network, according to a leaked internal document seen by BuzzFeed News. From the report: An ongoing "sophisticated cyber espionage event" was discovered in April, just weeks before the European Parliament elections -- but the European External Action Service (EEAS), the EU's foreign and security policy agency, did not disclose the incident publicly. Russian entities are believed to be behind the hack, a source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told BuzzFeed News.

The EEAS confirmed an incident had taken place and, asked whether the EU's foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini knew about the incident, said that EEAS hierarchy had been informed. "We have observed potential signs of compromised systems connected to our unclassified network in our Moscow Delegation. Measures have been taken and the investigation is in progress -- at this stage we cannot comment further," a spokesperson said. According to the leaked document, the initial attack took place in February 2017 but it was only detected in April this year. An analysis of the hack found activity affecting at least two computers and concluded that information had been stolen. However, officials have no idea how much and exactly what kind of information was taken during the attack.

JustAnotherOldGuy writes from a report via NBC New York: Did your personal, medical, or financial data just get hacked? Quest Diagnostics, one of the biggest blood testing providers in the country, warned Monday that nearly 12 million of its customers may have had personal, financial and medical information breached due to an issue with one of its vendors. In a filing with securities regulators, Quest said it was notified that between Aug. 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019, someone had unauthorized access to the systems of AMCA, a billing collections vendor. "The information on AMCA's affected system included financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank account information), medical information and other personal information (e.g., Social Security Numbers)," Quest said in a filing.

Apple today announced a "Sign in with Apple" button -- that is similar to sign-in buttons from Twitter, Facebook or Google that allow users to quickly login to a range of services using their social media account. But unlike any existing solution, Apple is focusing on privacy. From a report: More importantly, you can choose to hide your email address, and Apple will generate a random email ID visible to only to that particular app that'll forward all emails to your main email ID. Plus, this method creates a unique random email for each app, so that they can't track you and your personal data. The new sign-in feature is available across MacOS, iOS, and websites.

Synthetic events remain a big security hole for macOS in spite of Apple's recent efforts to prevent malicious applications from abusing this feature. From a report: Speaking at the second edition of the Objective by the Sea security conference that was held in Monaco over the weekend, Patrick Wardle, a well-known Apple security expert, has revealed a zero-day impacting Apple's macOS operating system, including the new version launched today. The zero-day is a bypass of the security protections that Apple has put in place to prevent unauthorized access to synthetic events. Synthetic events are a macOS mechanism that allows applications to automate mouse clicks and keyboard input. It was created for the sake of automation and can be used via either the Core Graphics framework or the AppleScript scripting language. [...]

For almost two years now, Wardle has been looking at Apple's countermeasures aimed to prevent the abuse of synthetic events. He previously showed two methods[1, 2] of bypassing Apple's synthetic events protections, so much so that Apple decided last year to block access to synthetic events by default. But over the weekend, Wardle disclosed a new way of bypassing these latest protections, once again. "It's the gift that keeps giving," Wardle told ZDNet via email. "And actually gets more and more valuable as Apple adds more protections (privacy and security mechanisms) that can be 'allowed' by a single synthetic click." The new technique is possible because of the Transparency Consent and Control (TCC) system. Wardle says the TCC contains a compatibility database in the form of a file named AllowApplications.plist. This file lists apps and app versions that are allowed to access various privacy and security features, including synthetic events.

"What would happen, or what should happen, if tomorrow a trivial method was discovered for Prime Factorization?" asks Slashdot reader medv4380: By trivial I mean an algorithm that runs in relatively constant time that could factor a number like 2737631357921793461914298938174501291 relatively instantly on most modern hardware today. And that even increasing the bit length wouldn't slow it down much. How much chaos would result if such a method were revealed tomorrow with little warning?

Keeping it a secret only means that others may have long ago exploited the method at the expense of others. Should proof be presented without revealing the method, to reduce the impact, and who should be told first if at all?
Slashdot reader Shikaku sees a real possibility of this actually happening when quantum computers are developed, adding that quantum-resistant encryption "is an ongoing experiment."

But if development lags -- what would happen if all encryption could be broken?

Long-time Slashdot reader Qbertino is your typical Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP (LAMP) developer, and writes that "in recent years Docker has been the hottest thing since sliced bread." You are expected to "dockerize" your setups and be able to launch a whole string of processes to boot up various containers with databases and your primary PHP monolith with the launch of a single script. All fine and dandy this far.

However, I can't shake the notion that much of this -- especially in the context of LAMP -- seems overkill. If Apache, MariaDB/MySQL and PHP are running, getting your project or multiple projects to run is trivial. The benefits of having Docker seem negilible, especially having each project lug its own setup along. Yes, you can have your entire compiler and Continuous Integration stack with SASS, Gulp, Babel, Webpack and whatnot in one neat bundle, but that doesn't seem to dimish the usual problems with the recent bloat in frontend tooling, to the contrary....

But shouldn't tooling be standardised anyway? And shouldn't Docker then just be an option, who couldn't be bothered to have (L)AMP on their bare metal? I'm still skeptical of this Dockerization fad. I get it makes sense if you need to scale microsevices easy and fast in production, but for 'traditional' development and traditional setups, it just doesn't seem to fit all that well.

What are your experiences with using Docker in a development environment? Is Dockerization a fad or something really useful? And should I put up with the effort to make Docker a standard for my development and deployment setups?
The original submission ends with "Educated Slashdot opinions requested." So leave your best answers in the comments.

Is Dockerization a fad?

In his TechCrunch column, software engineer/journalist Jon Evans writes that last month "marked a victory for sanity and pragmatism over irrational paranoia." I'm talking about Microsoft finally -- finally! but credit to them for doing this nonetheless! -- removing the password expiration policies from their Windows 10 security baseline... Many enterprise-scale organizations (including TechCrunch's owner Verizon) require their users to change their passwords regularly. This is a spectacularly counterproductive policy.

To quote Microsoft: "Recent scientific research calls into question the value of many long-standing password-security practices such as password expiration policies, and points instead to better alternatives... If a password is never stolen, there's no need to expire it. And if you have evidence that a password has been stolen, you would presumably act immediately rather than wait for expiration to fix the problem... If an organization has successfully implemented banned-password lists, multi-factor authentication, detection of password-guessing attacks, and detection of anomalous logon attempts, do they need any periodic password expiration? And if they haven't implemented modern mitigations, how much protection will they really gain from password expiration...?"

Perfect security doesn't exist. World-class security is hard. But decent security is generally quite accessible, if you faithfully follow some basic rules. In order to do so, it's best to keep those rules to a minimum, and get rid of the ones that don't make sense. Password expiration is one of those. Goodbye to it, and good riddance.
Instead the column recommends password managing software to avoid password re-use across sites, as well as two-factor authentication. "And please, if you work with code or data repositories, stop checking your passwords and API keys into your repos."

But if your company still has a password expiration policy, he suggests mailing Microsoft's blog post to your sys-admin. "They will ignore you at first, of course, because that's what enterprise administrators do, and because information security (like transportation security) is too often an irrational one-way ratchet because our culture of fear incentivizes security theater rather than actual security -- but they may grudgingly begin to accept that the world has moved on."

Slashdot reader Nicola Hahn argues that at first, Edward Snowden's revelations six years ago "put mass surveillance and state sponsored hacking center stage," leading to other revelations like the ANT Catalogue, the Equation Group tools, and the Vault 7 leaks: In the wake of these developments a number of high-ranking officials scrambled to justify clandestine programs. Executives likewise recalibrated their stance toward the government and lawmakers worked to defend our civil liberties. Yet despite the tumult of the post-Snowden era and the debates that ensued, has it actually changed anything? Or did society merely offer a collective shrug to the looming threat of pervasive monitoring, surrendering to the convenience of mobile devices?

One observer who has warily followed the aftermath of the Snowden affair believes that most people followed the latter path and that it does not bode well for civilization.
That observer is Bill Blunden, who asks this question in an essay at Counterpunch.

"After all the breathless headlines, Hollywood movies, book deals, Pulitzer prizes, and glossy primetime biopics. What, pray tell, has come of it?"

Horst Seehofer, Germany's federal interior minister, wants to require encryption companies to provide the government with plain text transcripts. One security expert says Facebook is already working on a way to make it happen.

An anonymous reader quotes his remarks in Forbes: The reality is that at its annual conference earlier this month, Facebook previewed all of the necessary infrastructure to make Germany's vision a reality and even alluded to the very issue of how Facebook's own business needs present it with the need to be able to covertly access content directly from users' devices that have been protected through end-to-end encryption...

While it was little noticed at the time, Facebook's presentation on its work towards moving AI-powered content moderation from its data centers directly onto users' phones presents a perfect blueprint for Seehofer's vision. Touting the importance of edge content moderation, Facebook specifically cited the need to be able to scan the unencrypted contents of users' messages in an end-to-end encrypted environment to prevent them from being able to share content that deviated from Facebook's acceptable speech guidelines. This would actually allow a government like Germany to proactively prevent unauthorized speech before it is ever uttered, by using court orders to force Facebook to expand its censorship list for German users of its platform.

Even more worryingly, Facebook's presentation alluded to the company's need to covertly harvest unencrypted illicit messages from users' devices without their knowledge and before the content has been encrypted or after it has been decrypted, using the client application itself to access the encrypted-in-transit content. While it stopped short of saying it was actively building such a backdoor, the company noted that when edge content moderation flagged a post in an end-to-end encrypted conversation as a violation, the company needed to be able to access the unencrypted contents to further train its algorithms, which would likely require transmitting an unencrypted copy from the user's device directly to Facebook without their approval.

Could this be the solution Germany has been searching for?
The article warns that by "sparking the idea of being able to silently harvest those decrypted conversations on the client side, Facebook is inadvertently telegraphing to anti-encryption governments that there are ways to bypass encryption while also bypassing the encryption debate."

Long-time Slashdot reader rastos1 works for a mid-size software company that for many decades has been developing CAD-CAM software for the textile industry. But last weekend their code-signing certificate was revoked -- and they're looking for advice. On Monday morning we woke up to phones ringing from confused customers unable to launch our software. This has hit mostly Java applications launched from a web page because JRE checks the signature by default using OCSP. But traditional executables and shared libraries also would report invalid signature upon checking.

We reached out, but for half a day we could not get any feedback. Later we got information that some malware was signed with our certificate. Two days and many e-mails and phone calls later, we understand that this is what happened: someone submitted one of our executables to virustotal.com -- a site that runs ~70 antivirus programs on submitted files and reports back whether they flag the uploaded file. Five of their antivirus packages flagged our executable. We tracked down the version and we positively know it was a false positive. There is random guy that wrote a tool that creates a monthly report of files flagged at Virustotal. Sectigo found the report, and, according to their statement, revoked all certificates used to sign executables -- causing major disruption to us and downtime for our customers... There was no attempt to contact us and clarify the situation.

How do you prepare and deal with such scenario? Did you know how little it takes to get your certificate revoked?
They'd bought their certs from the same seller for more than a decade -- and their story has already drawn some interesting comments from long-time Slashdot readers. "False positives are way too common in the anti-virus world today..." argues Z00L00K, adding "you have to cut down all unnecessary players in the chain to a minimum, so the dependency on an external CA is worth reconsidering."

sjames -- Slashdot reader #1,099 -- agrees. "If you must depend on another entity, make sure they're small enough that they would actually care if they lost you as a customer." And Martin S. simply recommends talking to a lawyer, adding "This is a legal problem, not a technology problem."

But what's your advice? Leave your best thoughts in the comments. What should you do when your certificate authority suddenly revokes your cert?