ᴛʜᴇ ɢʜᴏꜱᴛ ɪɴ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴀᴄʜɪɴᴇ
Kanalga Telegram’da o‘tish
356
Obunachilar
Ma'lumot yo'q24 soatlar
+77 kun
+830 kun
Postlar arxiv
LISTEN: The heartbreaking mayday call of doomed private jet.
Nathalia Gadelha, 20, has been identified as the co-pilot whose voice was heard in air-traffic-control recordings shortly before the Learjet 60 crashed in Palm Beach, Florida.
#RIP
Repost from 𓂆 La Princesa Fantasma
VIDEO | Activists from People Against Genocide broke into Ultra I&C’s Hertfordshire arms facility in the UK earlier today, destroying military satellite equipment destined for Israel.
The action was timed to mark the 109th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which paved the way for the colonization of Palestine.
🇵🇸 109 YEARS SINCE THE BALFOUR DECLARATION: BRITAIN'S BETRAYAL OF PALESTINE
On this day in 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, promising its support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine — a land that was not Britain's to give away.
In a letter just 67 words long, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour made a commitment to the Zionist movement without consulting the Palestinian population, which made up around 90% of the country's inhabitants.
Palestinians were not even mentioned by name. Instead, they were dismissed as the "existing non-Jewish communities", with no explicit recognition of their national or political rights.
Britain subsequently took control of Palestine and facilitated Jewish immigration and the development of Zionist institutions, laying the foundations for the establishment of Israel in 1948.
The consequences for Palestinians were catastrophic.
During the Nakba of 1948, around 750,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from their homes, hundreds of Palestinian villages were destroyed or depopulated, and an entire people was left dispossessed and scattered.
More than a century later, millions of Palestinians remain refugees, and have suffered apartheid, ethnic cleansing, occupation, oppression and genocide.
The Balfour Declaration remains a symbol of British colonial betrayal: one power promising another people's homeland to a movement seeking to establish a state there by force, without the consent of the people who lived on that land.
109 years on, Palestinians are still living with its consequences.
🇵🇸 Palestine was never Britain's to give away.
Those figures describe detection results and device identifiers—not 57 million people or one million confirmed households. Even with that distinction, the exposure was substantial.
Testing also demonstrated that an observed message could be republished and received by the test television. Subsequent checks reportedly confirmed fixes for unauthorized access and publishing, while the unencrypted transmission remained.
This illustrates why encryption, authentication, and authorization must be treated as separate requirements. Preventing unauthorized subscriptions does not protect plaintext traffic. Encrypting traffic would not, on its own, fix improper access permissions.
Privacy Can Leak Outside the Tracking Feature
ACR was not the only concern.
Vizio’s WatchFree+ reportedly exposed program or channel information through unencrypted DNS queries and visible TLS server-name fields associated with its streaming infrastructure.
That creates a separate exposure path: an observer with visibility into the relevant network traffic could infer viewing activity even when ACR was disabled.
The lesson is architectural. A product cannot deliver meaningful privacy by securing one feature while adjacent services disclose the same information through another route.
What Meaningful Protection Looks Like
For consumers, the strongest separation described in the findings is to disconnect the television itself from the internet and use an external streaming device without ACR. The television must remain offline for that arrangement to address its own network-based reporting; an external device alone is not enough.
Where the television remains connected, disabling ACR is still a relevant step, but its effectiveness depends on the implementation. Endpoint blocking may provide an additional barrier, yet it does not resolve every exposure, including the separate WatchFree+ leak described above.
For manufacturers, the standard should be clearer:
- Define precisely what each opt-out stops and disclose any exceptions.
- Test that privacy choices change device behavior across supported inputs and services.
- Protect viewing information in transit.
- Enforce device-level access controls on messaging infrastructure.
- Validate the full data path, rather than treating the settings screen as proof of compliance.
A privacy switch is a promise about system behavior. Until that promise is verifiable across the device and its supporting services, users are being asked to trust an interface rather than a demonstrated protection.
#TGITM
Your Smart TV’s Privacy Switch Should Be a Boundary, Not a Suggestion
By Yara Tabet
When viewing-related network activity persists after an opt-out, the issue is bigger than advertising. It raises fundamental questions about consent, secure engineering, and whether privacy controls do what they promise.
A television’s privacy settings should not require a cybersecurity investigation to interpret. If a user disables viewing recognition, the reasonable expectation is straightforward: the television stops identifying what they watch.
Recent testing of smart televisions raises concerns about whether that expectation consistently matches reality. Across some platforms, network traffic associated with viewing recognition continued after the relevant setting was switched off. Separately, weaknesses in supporting infrastructure exposed viewing-related information at a scale that turns a household privacy concern into a significant security issue.
The central problem is enforcement. A privacy preference has little value unless the device, its software, and its downstream services reliably honor it.
How a Television Becomes a Viewing Sensor
Automatic content recognition, or ACR, identifies what appears on a television by matching audio or video samples—or fingerprints derived from them—against reference libraries.
Its reach can extend beyond the television’s built-in applications. Depending on the implementation, it can recognize content arriving through an antenna or an HDMI-connected device.
That distinction matters. Connecting a separate streaming box does not necessarily prevent the television itself from recognizing the content it displays.
From a cybersecurity perspective, this creates a data flow that users may not associate with their viewing experience: the screen is not merely displaying content; it can also act as a sensor reporting information about that content.
Switching Off a Feature Is Not the Same as Verifying It Stopped
The reported testing covered 5,943 automated experiments across 12 televisions from ten manufacturers, examining viewing scenarios with ACR enabled and disabled.
The results were not uniform.
On the tested LG webOS, Amazon Fire TV OS, ACR-enabled Sony Google TV, and VIDAA implementations, disabling ACR suppressed the network traffic attributed to that feature.
Other implementations raised concerns:
- Samsung’s Tizen continued generating traffic consistent with ACR in multiple opted-out scenarios, including its built-in streaming service, antenna viewing, and HDMI playback.
- Vizio SmartCast showed no observable reduction in traffic to an identified Amazon Kinesis endpoint after opting out.
- Roku’s opt-out generally worked for external inputs but did not cover its own streaming service, with inconsistent disclosure across the tested televisions.
These findings require an important qualification: most traffic was encrypted. Its continued presence does not, by itself, prove that viewing fingerprints were still being transmitted, retained, or used for advertising.
The defensible conclusion is narrower—but still consequential. Some opt-outs did not produce the expected observable change in viewing-related traffic, leaving uncertainty about what those controls actually stopped.
The More Concrete Failure: Exposed Viewing Infrastructure
Separate findings involved clearer security weaknesses.
A tested VIDAA implementation transmitted ACR information without encryption using MQTT, a messaging protocol. The messages included audio fingerprints, application names, input sources, time zones, antenna channels, and a persistent device identifier.
Server responses also classified content into categories including religion, politics, and health.
An authentication flaw allowed access to detection results belonging to other televisions. During a limited three-hour collection window, more than 57 million results associated with over one million unique televisions were received.
100 PORTS BEGIN MASSIVE WORK STOPPAGE TO PROTEST ISRAELI ARMS SHIPMENTS
A historic work stoppage is beginning at 100 ports across four continents.
The workers in Genoa, Italy, blocking a passageway, halting operations at the start of the day. Speeches and protests will begin later today.
Over $2 billion dollars worth of cargo will sit idle on October 30th as workers from across 100 ports (and counting) will protest against Israeli weapons shipments.
In one of the largest coordinated day of actions observed in history, spanning four continents, dockworkers will unite to reject their labour being used for the transfer of weapons of war, specifically weapons used Isr*el for its genocide in Gaza.
According to the "No Harbour for G*nocide" website, dockworker demands are the following:
* An immediate end to the g*nocide of the Plestinian people and all imperialist wars;
* No arms, ammnition, military equipment or troops sent to war through their ports;
* No ports turned into military bases, no to rearmament and the war economy;
* Instead of wepons budgets: health and safety measures, real wages, secure jobs, and no automation in place of dockworkers.w
The demands, known as the "Istanbul Declaration," are signed and endorsed by the following unions: ENEDEP (Greece), USB (Italy), LAB (Basque Country), ODT (Morocco), Liman-İş (Türkiye), CGT (France), SEGDAMELIN-PEO (Cyprus) and WTWFI (India).
Dalle scuole alle università ai quartieri, contro la guerra e il carovita: riprendiamoci il futuro.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Data Leak Exposes Records of More Than 41,000 Personnel
Published October 30, 2026 | The6 Ghost In The Machine
A major data leak has reportedly exposed identifying information and work contact details for more than 41,000 current and former U.S. Department of Homeland Security employees and contractors, including thousands of personnel associated with immigration enforcement.
The records reportedly include nearly 6,600 Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel and more than 21,000 Customs and Border Protection personnel. Those figures describe staff associated with the agencies—not necessarily exclusively frontline agents or officers.
What information was exposed?
The published dataset reportedly contains names, email addresses, telephone numbers, job titles, office locations and internal group memberships. Some records also indicate sensitive assignments, including surveillance and undercover work, raising concerns beyond the exposure of ordinary workplace contact information.
The material includes contractors and former personnel, and journalists identified entries belonging to individuals who had already left their positions.
Who claimed responsibility?
A hacktivist group calling itself the Department of Peace claimed responsibility for obtaining the records. The material was published by the transparency organization Distributed Denial of Secrets under the name “Icepick.” The group framed its actions as opposition to the administration’s immigration-enforcement policies.
The attackers claimed they accessed a DHS-used Okta sign-on service. That account of the intrusion has not been independently established. Okta said it found no evidence that its own systems or data had been compromised—a distinction that leaves the attackers’ claimed access method unresolved.
#TGITM
Binance is cooperating with law enforcement and blockchain intelligence partners to identify those responsible.
North Korea’s TraderTraitor has been mentioned in speculative discussions, but Binance has not confirmed any connection.
Source: Binance Official Security Update, October 30, 2026.
7. WHO HELPED FREEZE THE BINANCE-LINKED ASSETS?
Two major stablecoin issuers reported freezing assets associated with the incident:
• Tether: More than $1.5 billion in USDT.
• Circle: More than $800 million in USDC.
Binance subsequently reported approximately $3 billion in affected assets frozen across the blockchain ecosystem.
These are frozen assets, not necessarily recovered funds or confirmed losses.
8. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM?
October’s incidents reveal several major vulnerabilities:
• Banks exposing customer information.
• Brokerage and investment platforms suffering unauthorized access.
• Crypto exchanges facing serious security incidents.
• Third-party technology providers becoming entry points for attackers.
• AI tools accelerating reconnaissance and cyber operations.
THE SUSPECTED ACTORS:
🇨🇳 South Korean financial attacks: Unidentified Chinese-speaking actor, according to CrowdStrike’s assessment.
❓ Daishin, Bithumb and Mirae Asset: Attackers not publicly identified.
❓ State Bank of India: Unknown.
❓ Coinbase / Amplitude: Unknown.
❓ Binance: Unknown, investigation ongoing.
IMPORTANT: These are separate incidents. There is no verified evidence that they were coordinated by one hacking group or directed by one government.
The financial sector is facing a growing cybersecurity challenge, and October 2026 has become a critical reminder that banks, brokerages and crypto exchanges must strengthen their security infrastructure.
#TGITM @TheGhostITM
