Tag Archive for: Prevents

How to Fix a “Security policy prevents use of Camera” Android Error

/in


Getting a “Security policy prevents use of Camera” error while trying to use your Android phone’s Camera app? You might have disabled a sensor option on your phone, or your app might be acting up. Here are a few ways to resolve your issue, so you can get back to capturing beautiful pictures.

While there are various reasons your Camera app displays the above error, the most common ones are that your phone has a minor bug, the Camera app’s cache is corrupt, or the settings are faulty, you have a malicious app installed on your phone, your phone’s system settings are incorrect, and more.

Activate the Sensors on Your Samsung or Another Android Phone

One reason you can’t use your Android phone’s Camera app and get an error message is that you’ve disabled your phone’s various sensors. Some phones offer this option in the Quick Settings menu, and you or someone else may have toggled the option to disable the sensors.

You can fix that by ensuring your sensors are turned on.

Activate the Sensors on Your Android Phone from Quick Settings

  1. Pull down twice from the top of your phone’s screen.
  2. Tap Sensors Off to activate your phone’s sensors.

Activate the Sensors on Your Android Phone from Settings

If you don’t see the Sensors Off option in Quick Settings, enable the option in your phone’s settings menu as follows:

  1. Open Settings on your Android phone.
  2. Select About phone > Software information in Settings and tap Build number seven times. This will unlock the Developer options menu.
  3. Head back to Settings’ main screen and choose Developer options > Quick settings developer tiles.
  4. Turn on the Sensors Off option.
  1. Pull down twice from the top of your phone’s screen and choose Sensors Off.

After activating your phone’s sensors, launch the Camera app and see if the app works.

Reboot Your Samsung Phone or Another Android Phone

Android’s minor system problems can cause your Camera app not to work. In this situation, you can resolve most minor system issues by simply rebooting your phone.

Doing that turns off all your phone’s features and then reloads those features, fixing minor issues….

Source…

SpyCloud Session Identity Protection prevents fraud from compromised web sessions

/in


SpyCloud launched Session Identity Protection, a transformative early warning system designed to prevent trusted user fraud, one of the hardest forms of fraud to detect.

SpyCloud Session Identity Protection

The new offering is powered by SpyCloud’s malware intelligence, which surfaces credentials and session tokens stolen from consumers by prevalent infostealers.

Existing anti-fraud solutions offer a fragmented overview of user activity, often designed to determine if a user is a bot or a human. Session Identity Protection, however, is the only solution to expand on standard fraud and browser checks to identify consumers whose session or trusted device cookies have been compromised or collected by malware. This allows tech firms, financial services companies, and retailers to mitigate the risk of hijacked sessions by giving organizations more comprehensive visibility into an untouched area of at-risk and exposed consumers.

“There are virtually no indicators that differentiate a legitimate user from a criminal using an anti-detect browser and stolen session cookie data. They look nearly identical, down to their geofenced IP, browser version, OS version, and even screen resolution,” said Jacob Wagh, Senior Product Manager at SpyCloud. “In some cases, analysis of SpyCloud’s database of recaptured breach and botnet data shows stolen session cookie data indicating a risk of fraud before the credentials connected to an associated account have even been compromised.”

Threat actors using stolen credentials often face the challenge of bypassing multifactor authentication (MFA), device ID checks, and newer browser fingerprinting anti-fraud technologies. However, in recent years, criminals have learned how to bypass these protections by relying on “anti-detect” browsers that can emulate a legitimate user’s trusted device and browser fingerprint. These tools are powered by a constant stream of malware infections that steal credentials, session cookies and other browser data – all available for sale on the dark web.

Trusted user fraud is one of the hardest forms of fraud to detect because it allows criminals to mimic legitimate users that have been compromised by malware. By accessing active…

Source…

When a virus prevents you from downloading pirate series and movies

/in


An interest Virus Acts as descriptive Computer vaccine. Its function is to block downloads Sites pirates.

Our body often needs a vaccine to fight certain diseases better. Two types of vaccines are used to strengthen our immune system. One of our favorites, the vaccine. This substance contains a virus, the infection of which is significantly reduced. The vaccinated person benefits from effective and lasting protection. A systemic vaccine can work the same way. It contains a computer virus that prevents illegal downloads from illegal sites. These can provide content that hides malware.

Pixie credit

Sophos researchers – a company specializing in IT security – Discovered Strange new malware. It has already affected a number of devices. Its action is similar to that described as a computer vaccine.

Virus that only wants “good”“

Experts are confused about the spread of this interesting malware. Traditionally, a virus pursued a malicious purpose: to hack accounts, retrieve information, or take control of a device or network. The company, discovered by the Sophos team, has no other task than to complicate the daily lives of hackers. In fact, its action is to block access to all illegal download sites such as The Pirate Bay.

Malware spreads on illegal download sites. It is embedded in files downloaded by Internet users. Among other things, such as pirated versions of games Within us Or Minecraft, As well as illegal copies of Microsoft Office explaining Sophos in its memo.

And according to researchers, the virus involved is also very prevalent on the Discord platform.

Once installed, the program blocks access to a large list of pirate sites. Determining its presence on a device is difficult because it leaves very few indications that allow it to be identified. An error message may appear while running the software. The dialog box prompts the user to reinstall the failed software. The malware does not appear to cause further damage, and the IT professionals behind its discovery are surprised.

Also read: 9 Tips to Protect Yourself from Ransomware

Unknown origin

« It is often easy to guess what is driving malware creators, but not with this virus », Sophos emphasizes team member. The origin…

Source…

Federal Court Blocks Unconstitutional Arkansas Law That Prevents Plant-Based Food Companies From Using Meat Words

/in

Another case of nonexistent “customer confusion” is being litigated. Tofurky, the maker of several vegetable-based products, sued the state of Arkansas over its bogus [squints at Legiscan in disbelief] “Act To Require Truth In Labeling Of Agricultural Products That Are Edible By Humans” law.

The law, written at the behest of meat and dairy lobbyists, claims customers are “confused” by non-meat products that use meat-like words in their product descriptions. A law similar to this passed in Mississippi was recently found unconstitutional by a federal court, resulting in legislators rewriting the law to make it less, um, unlawful.

The Arkansas law has an added bonus not found elsewhere: wording targeting the use of phrase “cauliflower rice.” Why? Because Arkansas is home to the nation’s largest rice industry.

Not that any consumers were actually confused. If they had been, they would have approached lawmakers. Instead, the entities approaching legislators were entrenched interests claiming shoppers were too stupid to figure out veggie burgers don’t contain meat.

That law is now on death’s door, having been savaged by a federal judge calling bullshit on the state’s willingness to violate the First Amendment to make certain industries happy. (via AgWeek)

The ruling [PDF] blocks the state from enforcing the law while the rest of the particulars are sorted out, but it seems clear there’s no way the state can salvage this terrible legislation. Tofurky pointed out the law contains no exceptions for makers of plant-based meat alternatives, meaning the company has almost zero chance of ever complying fully with the law, even if it retools its packaging (at an estimated cost of $ 1,000,000) and does everything it can to keep Arkansas consumers from viewing ads targeting shoppers in states not saddled with idiotic laws.

The state argued that Tofurky’s use of words like “sausage,” “kielbasa,” “burger,” and “ham” confuse consumers despite Tofurky also using words like “white quinoa,” “all vegan,” “plant-based,” and a big “V” to distinguish its vegetarian and vegan products from the meats they emulate. The court says this argument is ridiculous.

The State appears to believe that the simple use of the word “burger,” “ham,” or “sausage” leaves the typical consumer confused, but such a position requires the assumption that a reasonable consumer will disregard all other words found on the label.

[…]

That assumption is unwarranted. The labels in the record evidence include ample terminology to indicate the vegan or vegetarian nature of the products. Additionally, “[t]here is no contention that any [consumer or potential consumer] was actually misled or deceived by” Tofurky’s packaging, labeling, or marketing.

It also pulls a delicious quote from a 2013 decision dealing with a different state’s attempt to carve out exceptions to the First Amendment on behalf of favored industries.

“Under Plaintiffs’ logic, a reasonable consumer might also believe that veggie bacon contains pork, that flourless chocolate cake contains flour, or that e-books are made out of paper.”

The court says the law is likely to be found unconstitutional. The state had other options to use to limit consumer confusion but decided to specifically craft a law that harmed plant-based food manufacturers and their free speech rights.

Tofurky identifies several in-effect federal and state laws directed at prohibiting deceptive labeling and marketing of food products, and consumer products more generally, with which Tofurky contends its food labeling complies; these laws have not been enforced against Tofurky’s labels based on the record evidence before the Court (Dkt. Nos. 1, ¶¶ 21-33; 15, at 11- 12). There also is no convincing argument as to why each of these laws is ineffective at policing the alleged deceptive or confusing practices the State purports to target. Further, as opposed to the prohibition in Act 501, the State could require more prominent disclosures of the vegan nature of plant-based products, create a symbol to go on the labeling and packaging of plant-based products indicating their vegan composition, or require a disclaimer that the products do not contain meat if further laws are deemed necessary to advance its stated purpose.

Because it went this route, the new law may as well have never been written, massaged, and put into effect. The state is blocked from enforcing it until Tofurky finishes succeeding on its First Amendment claims. Yeah, I’m writing it that way because that’s the only way this is going to turn out. The state doesn’t have a compelling argument up its sleeve that’s going to reverse what’s seen in this injunction order.

If legislators are going to close their minds and open their ears when lobbying dollars come calling, they’re going to end up creating stupid crap that puts Constitutional rights on the back burner to allow a few powerful incumbents to make a few extra dollars. Fortunately, the courts (for the most part) don’t care who’s donating to whose re-election campaign.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.