Tag Archive for: reasons

Champions League final delayed for security reasons | Sports | German football and major international sports news | DW

/in


The Champions League Final between Liverpool and Real Madrid in the Stade de France, Paris was delayed by 30 minutes for “security reasons” UEFA said Saturday.

Inside the stadium, UEFA posted a statement inside the stadium saying kickoff had been delayed due to the “late arrival” of fans but a host of reports from journalists and fans on the ground suggested otherwise as chaos reigned.

Television footage showed many empty seats in the Liverpool end as thousands of fans were still outside with 30 minutes to go before the original kickoff time. Social media coverage was full of reports from Liverpool fans saying they had been queueing for hours but still couldn’t gain entry. There were also multiple reports of tear gas being used.

Both teams returned to the pitch for a second warmup owing to the delays. When the game did kickoff, many fans were still outside and reports of further tear gas use continued.

DW’s Matt Pearson was on the ground in Paris and reported the following:

“It’s chaos. It was when I went in at 6 and is now. I’ve just been outside and there’s tear gas in the air, fans trying to get in and police charging gates. There are still hundreds, even thousands of fans outside. Anyone at this point should have had a ticket check.”

This comes just a week after chaotic scenes ahead of the Europa League Final in Sevilla.

Later, Liverpool released a statement saying they were requesting a formal investigation into “unacceptable issues.”

UEFA said that “turnstiles at the Liverpool end became blocked by thousands of fans who had purchased fake tickets which did not work”, before adding it was “sympathetic” to those affectd and that a review would be undertaken.

After the game, Parisian police released a statement saying “a large number of supporters without match tickets or holding false tickets disrupted access to the Stade de France at the external security perimeter. These fans exerted strong pressure to enter the stadium and delayed the access of ticketed spectactors. Taking advantage of this action, a number of people managed to get through the gates protecting the stadium.”

Source…

[Webinar] 5 Reasons Why Your eDiscovery Process Should Integrate Forensics Methods – May 4th, 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm EDT | Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS)

/in


Dr. Gavin Manes

Dr. Gavin Manes
CEO
Avansic

Dr. Gavin Manes is a nationally recognized eDiscovery and digital forensics expert. He founded Avansic in 2004 after completing his Doctorate in Computer Science from the University of Tulsa. At Avansic, Dr. Manes is committed to high-technology innovation, research, and mentorship, and has several patents pending. Avansic’s scientific approach to eDiscovery and digital forensics stems from his academic experience.

Dr. Manes routinely serves as an expert witness including consulting with attorneys on data preservation issues. He contributes academic content to peer-reviewed journals and delivers classroom lectures. See his full CV at gavinmanes.com.

Dr. Manes has published over fifty papers on eDiscovery, digital forensics, and computer security, countless blog posts, and educational presentations to attorneys, executives, professors, law enforcement, and professional groups on topics from eDiscovery to cyber law. He’s briefed the White House, the Department of the Interior, the National Security Council, and the Pentagon on computer security and forensics issues.

At the University, Dr. Manes formed the Tulsa Digital Forensics Center, housing Cyber Crime Units from local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. He’s a founder of the University of Tulsa’s Institute for Information Security, leading the creation of nationally recognized research efforts in digital forensics and telecommunications security.

Craig Ball

Craig Ball
Adjunct Professor, Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence
University of Texas School of Law

Craig Ball is a trial lawyer, computer forensic examiner, law professor and noted authority on electronic evidence. He limits his practice to serving as a court-appointed special master and consultant in computer forensics and electronic discovery and has served as the Special Master or testifying expert in computer forensics and electronic discovery in some of the most challenging and celebrated cases in the U.S. A founder of the Georgetown University Law Center E-Discovery Training Academy, Craig serves on the Academy’s faculty and teaches Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence…

Source…

The U.S. Wants to Crack Down on Sales of Commercial Hacking Tools for Obvious Reasons

/in


After a slew of hacking scandals involving private surveillance companies, the U.S. is looking to impose new restrictions on the sale of commercial hacking tools—in the hopes of clamping down on abuse perpetuated by the industry.





© Photo: KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP (Getty Images)


On Wednesday, the Commerce Department announced a rule change that will put new limitations on the resale or export of “certain items that can be used for malicious cyber activities.” This applies to tools used to infiltrate digital systems and conduct surveillance—such as the notorious commercial spyware, Pegasus—as well as other hacking and “intrusion” software, the Washington Post first reported. The rule, which has reportedly been in development for years, will be put into effect in 90 days.

Loading...

Load Error

While the intricacies of the new 65-page rule are somewhat thorny, the biggest result is a new license requirement for American companies that want to sell hacking tools to countries “of national security or weapons of mass destruction concern,” as well as to “countries subject to a U.S. arms embargo,” the Commerce Department’s announcement says. Roughly translated, this means that America’s biggest geopolitical rivals—namely, Russia and China—are on that list, along with a few others. Firms that wish to sell hacking tools to those countries will now have to acquire a special license from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security. Requests for such licenses will be reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether they are appropriate.

“The United States Government opposes the misuse of technology to abuse human rights or conduct other malicious cyber activities, and these new rules will help ensure that U.S. companies are not fueling authoritarian practices,” the announcement states.

The new changes, while apparently long percolating, come on the heels of multiple, high-profile hacking scandals that have threatened human rights and involve malicious cyber activities. Most prominently, the spyware firm NSO Group has been at the center of ongoing controversy, spurred by the publication of a large journalistic investigation detailing

Source…

Three Reasons Why You Should Never Pay Ransomware Attackers

/in


After falling prey to a ransomware attack, most organizations are faced with the decision of whether they’re going to pay the ransom demand. We’ll save you some time: it’s not worth it, and here are three of the many reasons why it does not pay to pay.

First off, paying the ransom doesn’t mean that your organization will regain access to their encrypted data. Too often that is because the decryption utilities provided by those responsible for the attack sometimes simply don’t work properly.

Corrupted Data

Such was the case with the ProLock ransomware strain back in May 2020. As reported by Bleeping Computer at the time, the FBI found that ProLock’s decryptor might corrupt files larger than 64MB. Investigators went on to warn that victims could experience integrity loss of as much as 1 byte per KB for files over 100MB.

It’s instances like ProLock that help to explain why some ransomware victims suffer data loss and corruption even if they paid the attackers and the attackers provide the decryption key.

In our recently published ransomware report, titled Ransomware: The True Cost to Business, nearly half of respondents (46%) who fulfilled their attackers’ demands regained access to their data following payment only to find that some if not all their data was corrupted. Just 51% said that they successfully recovered all their data after paying, with three percent admitting that they didn’t get any of their data back after payment.

Potential Civil Penalties for Paying

Organizations could incur penalties from the U.S. government for paying ransomware actors who may reside or operate out of countries who are subject to U.S. sanctions. The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) made this point clear in an advisory published in October 2020.

The advisory explains that OFAC has included malicious cyber actors including ransomware attackers in its cyber-related sanctions program. The initiative empowers OFAC to impose penalties on U.S. persons who provide material assistance and/or other methods of support to any designated individuals.

Those powers apply even if someone didn’t know that they were dealing with a sanctioned individual…

Source…