Visualização de leitura

Anthropic Issues Claude Security Warnings

Anthropic is sending security warnings and deleting payment methods as info-stealing malware compromises Claude user sessions. Protect your account now.

Related Posts:

The post Anthropic Issues Claude Security Warnings appeared first on Daily CyberSecurity.

Extortion Group FulcrumSec Claims 86GB Manchester Airports Group Data Theft

Extortion group FulcrumSec claims they stole 86GB of Manchester Airports Group data after finding API credentials exposed in client-side JavaScript.

Manchester Airports Group (MAG) disclosed a data breach on August 27 affecting customers of Manchester, London Stansted, and East Midlands airports. Two days later, BleepingComputer reports the extortion group FulcrumSec claimed responsibility, saying it stole roughly 86GB of data, considerably more detailed than what MAG’s original disclosure suggested.

MAG’s own statement describes a relatively limited set of exposed data. It says the breach affected car park, lounge, Fast Track bookings, and airport WiFi registrations, exposing email addresses, phone numbers, vehicle registrations, and postcodes.

MAG disclosed that the data breach impacted 8.7 million customers, however, the company says most of those customers had only their email addresses exposed.

FulcrumSec tells a different story. The group shared samples with BleepingComputer that included a 21.5GB export of Manchester customer data, with personal identifiers, historical booking details, and marketing information. BleepingComputer checked one record against a real traveler’s purchase history and found matching Fast Track bookings, arrival times, terminal information, and payment amounts.

The alleged way into the system is particularly concerning. FulcrumSec says it found airport-specific Iterable API credentials inside client-side JavaScript. That code runs in users’ browsers, so anyone inspecting the website with developer tools could potentially see those credentials.

“The group claims it obtained access using airport-specific Iterable API credentials exposed in client-side JavaScript and that the stolen material includes nearly 200,000 records related to upcoming travel during the remainder of 2026.” states the report. These records allegedly contain dates, times and booking information linked to personally identifiable information. FulcrumSec says it intends to publish the stolen data and a technical account of the intrusion. If the claim is accurate, attackers did not need a highly sophisticated technique. They simply found sensitive API credentials exposed in code that the website sent directly to customers’ browsers.”

The most concerning specific claim is nearly 200,000 records tied to upcoming travel through the rest of 2026, complete with dates, times, and booking details linked to identifiable individuals. BleepingComputer couldn’t independently verify that number or the full scope of what was actually taken, and MAG declined to directly address FulcrumSec’s specific claims when asked, instead pointing to its existing statement that affected customers with upcoming bookings had already been contacted. MAG is confident that we have taken effective measures to protect our customers and we have contacted all those affected, a spokesperson said, without engaging with the 86GB figure or the exposed-credentials claim directly.

FulcrumSec plans to publish the stolen data but may redact upcoming travel records because of the risk of real-world harm. UK postcodes can identify very small groups of addresses, and combined with vehicle registrations, parking dates and booking details, the data could enable highly convincing phishing messages targeting people with upcoming trips.

UK postcodes make this exposure sharper than the equivalent breach might be in the US. Unlike American ZIP codes covering broad delivery areas, a full UK postcode typically identifies a small cluster of neighboring addresses, sometimes a single property, according to the Office for National Statistics. Combined with vehicle registrations, parking dates, and specific booking references, that’s more than enough raw material for a phishing message referencing a real upcoming trip that would be very hard to distinguish from a genuine MAG communication.

Security researchers commenting on the broader incident have flagged a supply-chain angle worth watching. Airport operations increasingly run through third-party platforms for booking, parking, and loyalty services rather than systems the airport itself directly controls, and Iterable, the marketing platform whose API credentials FulcrumSec claims to have abused, is exactly that kind of outsourced dependency. This also isn’t aviation’s first bad year: a September 2025 ransomware attack on Collins Aerospace‘s check-in software had already grounded systems at Heathrow, Brussels, and Berlin, meaning UK and European aviation infrastructure has now taken two significant hits inside twelve months.

MAG says no payment card or banking data was exposed, however, travelers who recently booked parking, lounge access or Fast Track should assume more travel data may be exposed and treat messages citing real booking details with caution.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Manchester Airports Group (MAG))

Thailand SEC Files Criminal Complaint Against Bitkub Over 2021 Cyberattack

Bitkub cyberattack

Thailand's cryptocurrency exchange Bitkub has rejected allegations of fraud after the Thailand SEC filed a criminal complaint related to the company's disclosures following the Bitkub cyberattack in 2021. The case focuses on how the exchange reported the impact of the cyberattack on Bitkub to regulators, rather than on the safety of customer funds.  In response to the complaint, Bitkub stated that all customer assets currently held on its platform remain safe, fully accounted for, and protected in accordance with applicable regulations. The company argued that the allegations stem from decisions made during the aftermath of the 2021 security breach and do not reflect fraudulent conduct. 

Thailand SEC Files Complaint Over the 2021 Bitkub Cyberattack 

On 23 July 2026, the Thailand SEC filed a criminal complaint against Bitkub Online Co., Ltd. and its former directors, Sakolkorn Sakavee and Thaweesap Rawan. The regulator alleged that the company's daily net capital reports submitted between 10 May and 30 October 2021 failed to accurately reflect the material reduction in its digital asset holdings caused by the Bitkub cyberattack.  According to the regulator, the reports did not disclose the impact of the theft on the company's asset balance. The Thailand SEC also accused the two former directors of making false entries in company documents that gave the impression that customer assets were still being held normally and that the company had not suffered any damage.  The complaint has been referred to Thailand's Economic Crime Suppression Division for further investigation. Following that process, the matter may be forwarded to prosecutors and the courts. The Thailand SEC noted that filing a criminal complaint does not represent a final determination of guilt. 

Bitkub Says Disclosure Decision was Intended to Prevent Customer Losses

Following media reports about the complaint, Bitkub published a statement on LinkedIn explaining its position on the cyberattack and the subsequent reporting decisions.  The company said the allegations relate to an incident in early May 2021, when one of its digital asset wallets was compromised by cybercriminals. Bitkub acknowledged that the breach was not disclosed at the time.  According to the company, the individual responsible for disclosure obligations deliberately withheld information about the wallet compromise. Bitkub said the decision was made to avoid triggering a "bank run," or mass withdrawals of digital assets by customers, while the company worked to replace the stolen assets.  The exchange stated:  "The decision of such individual not to disclose the incident was made with the intention to prevent a bank run—that is, a mass withdrawal of digital assets by customers upon learning of the theft—which could have rendered the Company unable to procure sufficient replacement digital assets for the customers while the recovery process was still ongoing."  Bitkub added that such a scenario could have resulted in significant customer losses and broader damage to Thailand's digital asset industry.  The company also stressed that, at the time of the Bitkub cyberattack, all of its digital asset wallet security systems complied with standards prescribed by the relevant authorities and had been audited. 

Co-founders Replaced Stolen Assets After Cyberattack on Bitkub 

Although the digital assets stolen during the cyberattack on Bitkub were never recovered, the company said its co-founders voluntarily absorbed the financial loss.  According to Bitkub, the co-founders purchased digital assets matching the same types and quantities as those stolen and transferred them to the company. As a result, the exchange said neither its customers nor the business ultimately suffered any financial loss from the incident.  In its statement, Bitkub said:  "As no bank run occurred, even though the stolen digital assets could not be recovered, the Co-Founders of the Bitkub Group voluntarily absorbed the loss by purchasing equivalent digital assets (in the same type and quantity as those stolen) and providing them to the Company. Consequently, neither the Company nor its customers suffered any financial loss from the theft." 

Thailand SEC Previously Confirmed Customer Assets Were Intact 

Bitkub also pointed to the findings of an earlier inspection conducted by the Thailand SEC after reports of the Bitkub cyberattack surfaced online. According to the company, the regulator verified that, as of 8 September 2025, all customer assets held by the exchange were safe and fully accounted for.  The company reiterated this point in its latest statement, saying:  "At the outset, for the sake of clarity and mutual understanding, the Company wishes to affirm that all customers' assets currently held by the Company are safe and fully accounted for. The Company reiterates its strict compliance with all applicable laws and regulations in safeguarding and maintaining customer assets."  Bitkub maintained that the criminal complaint relates to historical reporting practices between May and October 2021, more than five years ago, rather than to the current condition of customer assets or any ongoing security concerns.  As the investigation proceeds, the case will determine whether the company's reporting following the Bitkub cyberattack complied with regulatory requirements. For now, the complaint remains an allegation, and the legal process involving the Thailand SEC, investigators, prosecutors, and the courts has yet to reach a final conclusion. 

Wireshark 4.6.6 Resolves ROHC Parser and Buffer Overflow Vulnerabilities

Wireshark 4.6.6

The Wireshark Foundation has released Wireshark 4.6.6, delivering an important round of security and stability updates that address a serious Dissector Crash vulnerability tied to the ROHC protocol parser, along with a separate global-buffer-overflow flaw affecting MACsec traffic analysis. The release focuses heavily on improving reliability for users handling untrusted packet captures and production monitoring environments.  At the center of the update is a security issue identified as wnpa-sec-2026-51, tracked internally as Issue 21243. The flaw involved Wireshark’s ROHC (Robust Header Compression) dissector, the component responsible for decoding compressed IP packet headers during network analysis. According to the release notes, attackers could exploit the weakness by injecting a malformed packet into a live traffic capture or by supplying a crafted .pcap file. Successful exploitation could trigger a Dissector Crash, interrupting packet analysis sessions and potentially affecting operational monitoring systems. 

The ROHC Vulnerability 

The newly patched ROHC vulnerability emerged during fuzz testing campaigns conducted in May 2026. Researchers found that malformed packet injection could destabilize the protocol parser, exposing weaknesses in how Wireshark processed specific ROHC packet sequences. Because Wireshark is commonly used in enterprise monitoring, forensic investigations, and protocol debugging, the risk associated with a remotely triggered Dissector Crash raised concerns for security teams working with external or untrusted traffic captures.  In addition to the ROHC issue, developers also fixed a MACsec dissector global-buffer-overflow vulnerability tracked as Issue 21235. The flaw created a memory safety risk while parsing IEEE 802.1AE-secured traffic. The global-buffer-overflow condition was also identified through fuzz testing and represented another example of how malformed network traffic could affect protocol dissectors inside Wireshark. 

Wireshark 4.6.6 Introduces Stability and Windows Compatibility Fixes 

The Wireshark 4.6.6 release includes several other significant fixes aimed primarily at improving Windows compatibility and application stability. One major correction resolved a Windows crash affecting Visual Studio environments, documented under Work Item 24787. Developers also fixed uninitialized memory reads in both the pntoh16 and find_signature functions within the VeriWave (vwr) file reader, tracked under Issues 16460 and 16461.  Another high-profile issue involved compatibility problems introduced in Wireshark 4.6.5. Users reported that the software failed to run correctly on Windows 10 version 1809, Windows Server 2019, and certain Long-Term Servicing Channel (LTSC) editions. The regression, listed as Issue 21237, has now been resolved in the latest release.  The update also corrects an installation problem on Windows systems where optional features could be accidentally removed during upgrades if users did not explicitly preserve them. That issue was tracked as Issue 18925. Developers further addressed a packaging problem that caused Wireshark.exe version 4.6.5 to become nearly twice the size of version 4.6.4. The oversized executable issue, documented as Issue 21233, has now been fixed.  Two additional fuzz testing crashes discovered in May 2026 capture files, tracked as Issues 21240 and 21253, were also resolved as part of the release. These fixes collectively strengthen Wireshark’s resilience against malformed packet processing and parser instability.  Wireshark 4.6.6 now ships with Npcap 1.88, replacing the previously bundled Npcap 1.87 release. The updated packet capture library is intended to improve low-level packet capture reliability on Windows platforms. Although no entirely new protocols were introduced in this version, dissector support received updates for several technologies, including BACapp, MACsec, ROHC, Kafka, SIP, PFCP, and BPv7. Capture file handling improvements also extend to JSON and VeriWave formats.  On Unix-based systems, extcap binaries now default to the /usr/libexec/wireshark/extcap directory. While this behavior was originally introduced in Wireshark 4.6.0, the change has now been formally documented as part of the 4.6.6 release cycle. 

Post-quantum encryption for Cloudflare IPsec is generally available

While more than two-thirds of human-generated TLS traffic to Cloudflare is already protected by post-quantum cryptography, the world of site-to-site networking has been a different story. For years, the IPsec community remained caught between the high bar of Internet-scale interoperability and the niche requirements of specialized hardware. That gap is now closing. 

Earlier this month, we announced that Cloudflare has moved its target for full post-quantum security forward to 2029, spurred by several recent advances in quantum computing. To advance that goal, we’ve made post-quantum encryption in Cloudflare IPsec generally available.

Using the new IETF draft for hybrid ML-KEM (FIPS 203), we’ve successfully tested interoperability with branch connectors from Fortinet and Cisco — meaning you can start protecting your wide-area network (WAN) against harvest-now-decrypt-later attacks today using hardware you already have.

This post explains how we implemented the new hybrid IPsec handshake, why it took four years longer to land than its TLS counterpart, and how the industry is finally consolidating around a standard that works at Internet scale.

Cloudflare IPsec

Cloudflare IPsec is a WAN Network-as-a-Service that replaces legacy network architectures by connecting data centers, branch offices, and cloud VPCs to Cloudflare's global IP Anycast network. Customers get simplified configuration, high availability (if a data center becomes unavailable, traffic is automatically rerouted to the nearest healthy one), and the scale of Cloudflare's global network. This is done through encrypted IPsec tunnels that support both site-to-site WAN, outbound Internet connections, and connectivity to the Cloudflare One SASE platform

Post-quantum encryption in IPsec

Cloudflare IPsec now uses post-quantum encryption with hybrid ML-KEM (FIPS 203) to stop harvest-now-decrypt-later attacks. These are attacks where an adversary harvests data today and then decrypts later, after Q-Day, when there are powerful quantum computers that can break the classical public key cryptography used across the Internet.  Harvest-now-decrypt-later attacks are becoming a concern for more organizations as Q-Day approaches faster than expected.

ML-KEM (Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism) is a post-quantum cryptography algorithm that is based on mathematical assumptions that are not known to be vulnerable to attacks by quantum computers. It does not require special hardware or a dedicated physical link between sender and receiver. ML-KEM is intentionally designed to be implemented in software across standard processors to provide post-quantum encryption of network traffic. 

Draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem specifies post-quantum encryption for IPsec using hybrid ML-KEM, which combines the well-understood security of classical Diffie-Hellman and the post-quantum security of ML-KEM in a single, standards-compliant handshake. Specifically, a classical Diffie-Hellman exchange runs first, its derived key encrypts a second exchange that runs ML-KEM, and the outputs of both are mixed into the session keys that secure IPsec data plane traffic sent using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) protocol. 

Our interoperable implementation 

Earlier we announced the closed beta of our implementation of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem in production in our Cloudflare IPsec product and tested it against a reference implementation (strongswan). Now that we have made this implementation generally available, we have also confirmed interoperability with several other vendors, including Cisco and Fortinet, which is a big win for this new standard.

Cisco: Customers using Cisco 8000 Series Secure Routers after version 26.1.1 as their branch connector can also now establish post-quantum Cloudflare IPsec tunnels per draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem.

Fortinet: Customers using Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.6 and later as their branch connector can now establish post-quantum Cloudflare IPsec tunnels to Cloudflare's global network per draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem.

The importance of being interoperable

Given that upgrading cryptography is hard and can take years, our 2029 target date for a full update to post-quantum cryptography is going to require concentrated effort. That’s why we hope the IPsec community continues to focus on the development of interoperable standards like draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem.

Let us explain why these standards are vitally important. A full specification for hybrid ML-KEM in IPsec, draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem, became available only in late 2025. That's roughly four years after support for hybrid ML-KEM landed in TLS. (In fact, Cloudflare turned on hybrid post-quantum key agreement with TLS in 2022, even before NIST finalized the standardization of ML-KEM, because the TLS community quickly converged on a single, interoperable approach and pushed it into production. Today more than two-thirds of the human-generated TLS traffic to Cloudflare's network is protected with hybrid ML-KEM.)

The four-year delay is likely due in part to the IPsec community's continued interest in Quantum Key Distribution (QKD), as codified in RFC 8784, published in 2020. We've written before about why QKD is not part of our post-quantum strategy: QKD requires specialized hardware and a dedicated physical link between the two parties, which fundamentally means it will not operate at Internet scale. Also, QKD does not provide authentication, so you still need post-quantum cryptography anyway to stop active attackers. It’s difficult to find implementations of QKD that interoperate across vendors.   

The U.S. NSA, Germany's BSI, and the UK's NCSC have all warned against solely relying on QKD. Post-quantum cryptography, by contrast, runs on the hardware you already have, authenticates the parties at both ends, and works end-to-end across the Internet. 

RFC 9370, published in 2023, opened the door to post-quantum cryptography in IPsec, allowing up to seven key exchanges to be run in parallel with classical Diffie-Hellman. However, RFC 9370 did not specify which ciphersuites should be used in these parallel key exchanges. In the absence of that specification, some vendors shipped early implementations under RFC 9370 before the hybrid ML-KEM draft was available, defining their own ciphersuites including some which are not NIST-standardized. This is exactly the kind of “ciphersuite bloat” NIST SP 800 52r2 warned against. And the risks to interoperability have played out in practice: Cloudflare IPsec does not yet interoperate with Palo Alto Networks' RFC 9370–based implementation, because it was launched before draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem was available. 

Fortunately, we now have draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem that fills in the gaps in RFC 9370, specifying hybrid ML-KEM as one of the key exchange mechanisms that can be operated in parallel with classical Diffie-Hellman. We hope to add Palo Alto Networks to the list of interoperable post-quantum branch connectors as the industry continues to consolidate around draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem.

But the journey towards interoperable post-quantum IPsec standards is not over yet. While draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem supports post-quantum encryption, we still need IPsec standards for post-quantum authentication, so that we can stop attacks by quantum adversaries on live systems after Q-Day. Given the shortened timeline for full post-quantum readiness, we hope the IPsec community will continue to focus on interoperable PQC implementations, rather than diverting focus to niche use cases with QKD.

Towards an interoperable post-quantum Internet

At Cloudflare, we’re helping make a secure and post-quantum Internet accessible to everyone, without specialized hardware and at no extra cost to our customers. Post-quantum Cloudflare IPsec is one more step on our path to full post-quantum security by 2029, and we’re doing it in a way that ensures that the Internet remains open and interoperable for years to come. 

Medtronic Confirms Data Breach, No Impact on Operations or Patient Safety

Medtronic data breach

Medtronic, the global leader in medical technology, disclosed a data breach affecting its corporate IT systems. On April 24, the company confirmed that an unauthorized third party gained access to certain systems, although the Medtronic data breach is not expected to have any material impact on the company’s financial performance or business operations. The breach has raised concerns across the healthcare and medtech sectors, but Medtronic assured investors and customers that it had taken immediate action to contain the situation.

What Happened to the Medtronic Data Breach? 

The Medtronic data breach, which was identified on April 24, involved unauthorized access to some of Medtronic’s corporate IT systems. However, the company was quick to clarify that no disruption had occurred in key operational areas, including product safety, customer connections, and manufacturing or distribution activities. Importantly, there was no reported impact on patient safety or the company’s ability to meet its patient care commitments. In a public filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Medtronic stated, “We have not identified any impact to our products, patient safety, connections to our customers, our manufacturing and distribution operations, or our financial reporting systems.” The company emphasized that the networks supporting corporate IT systems are separate from those used for products, manufacturing, and distribution, which remain unaffected by the breach. Additionally, Medtronic highlighted that the IT systems supporting hospitals and healthcare customers are managed separately and secured by the customers’ IT teams. As such, hospital networks were not impacted by the breach, nor was there any disruption to hospital operations or services.

Immediate Actions Taken by Medtronic 

Following the identification of the breach, Medtronic moved quickly to contain the incident. The company activated its incident response protocols and sought assistance from cybersecurity experts to investigate the breach and implement necessary remediation measures. Medtronic has also initiated an effort to determine if any personal information was accessed during the breach. If any sensitive data has been compromised, the company assured it would provide necessary notifications and support services to affected individuals. The company remains committed to enhancing its cybersecurity measures. “We are simultaneously identifying additional ways to further optimize our system security,” said a Medtronic spokesperson. The company has also assured its stakeholders that it does not expect the incident to have an impact on its financial results or overall business operations.

The Broader Impact on the Medtech Sector 

The data breach at Medtronic follows a series of similar cybersecurity incidents that have affected other companies in the medtech industry. In March 2026, a cyberattack disrupted operations at Stryker, another major player in the medical technology sector. The attack targeted Stryker’s Microsoft environment, affecting ordering, shipping, and manufacturing processes. It took several weeks for Stryker to fully recover and return to normal operations. Simultaneously, Intuitive Surgical, a leading manufacturer of surgical robots, reported a phishing incident. The unauthorized party gained access to sensitive customer, employee, and corporate data. Intuitive Surgical also claimed that the issue was contained without significant financial impact, echoing Medtronic’s own assessment that the data breach would not affect its financial standing. These incidents highlight the frequency and sophistication of cyberattacks within the healthcare and medtech industries. As digital transformation accelerates in these sectors, companies are vulnerable to cyber threats.

Telco Privacy Violation? Fine! No, Telco Privacy Violation, Fine. Supreme Court to Determine if FCC Can Charge Telcos for Data Breaches

data pipeline, blindness, data blindness, compliance,data, governance, framework, companies, privacy, databases, AWS, UnitedHealth ransomware health care UnitedHealth CISO

The intersection of constitutional law and cybersecurity enforcement, specifically the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in regulatory data privacy cases.
Central Conflict: Whether federal agencies (like the FCC, SEC, or FTC) can administratively impose monetary penalties for data misuse without a jury, or if such actions are "Suits at common law" requiring Article III court proceedings.

The post Telco Privacy Violation? Fine! No, Telco Privacy Violation, Fine. Supreme Court to Determine if FCC Can Charge Telcos for Data Breaches appeared first on Security Boulevard.

❌