Security Posts

ISC Stormcast For Friday, April 26th, 2024 https://isc.sans.edu/podcastdetail/8956

Enlarge (credit: Getty Images) Hackers are assailing websites using a prominent WordPress plugin with millions of attempts to exploit a high-severity vulnerability that allows complete takeover, researchers said. The vulnerability resides in WordPress Automatic, a plugin with more than 38,000 paying customers. Websites running the WordPress content management system use it to incorporate content from other sites. Researchers from security firm Patchstack disclosed last month that WP Automatic versions 3.92.0 and below had a vulnerability with a severity rating of 9.9 out of a possible 10. The plugin developer, ValvePress, silently published a patch, which is available in versions 3.92.1 and beyond. Researchers have classified the flaw, tracked as CVE-2024-27956, as a SQL injection, a class of vulnerability that stems from a failure by a web application to query backend databases properly. SQL syntax uses apostrophes to indicate the beginning and end of a data string. By entering strings with specially positioned apostrophes into vulnerable website fields, attackers can execute code that performs various sensitive actions, including returning confidential data, giving administrative system privileges, or subverting how the web app works.Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments

It doesn't get any better than this.
Infecting users with commercial spyware where you've managed to somehow infiltrate the global ecosystem of exploits vulnerabilities including "cyber arms" for your own commercial gain and other's suffering to the point of point and click malware infections to both experienced and simple users is simply disgusting.
Here's my OSINT analysis of Bulgaria's infamous commercial spyware vendor known as Circles.
hxxp://circles.bz - support@circles.bzNadezhda Ropleva -> hxxp://lighthousesystem.net52.29.174.30 -> ec2-52-29-174-30.eu-central-1.compute.amazonaws.com -> hxxp://vulcan-club-online.com
Related responding IPs:
52.59.17.12252.57.237.7652.59.25.17952.59.84.17652.58.213.18497.74.215.8550.87.144.13646.107.239.88118.169.224.5hxxp://tracksystem.info87.121.58.646.107.239.14187.121.58.446.107.239.8946.107.239.12hxxp://nac-2013.us - Email: dimitar.markov@circles.bzhxxp://globalhubcom.com - Email: YyhplaFwhvhlp@hotmail.com - Email: nadia.ropleva@circles.bz46.107.239.88 -> hxxp://worldsupport.infoAS60097hxxp://vulcan-club-online.com -> hxxp://vlk-casino-club.comSocial media accounts:hxxp://www.facebook.com/nadia.roplevahxxp://www.slideshare.net/nadiaroplevaSample screenshots:Related sample screenshots:Stay tuned.

The investigation uncovered at least 40,000 phishing domains that were linked to LabHost and tricked victims into handing over their sensitive details

By Will Song The Trail of Bits cryptography team is pleased to announce the open-sourcing of our pure Rust and Go implementations of Leighton-Micali Hash-Based Signatures (LMS), a well-studied NIST-standardized post-quantum digital signature algorithm. If you or your organization are looking to transition to post-quantum support for digital signatures, both of these implementations have been engineered and reviewed by several of our cryptographers, so please give them a try! For the Rust codebase, we’ve worked with the RustCrypto team to integrate our implementation into the RustCrypto/signatures repository so that it can immediately be used with their ecosystem once the crate is published. Our Go implementation was funded by Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), as part of a larger post-quantum readiness effort within the Sigstore ecosystem. We’d like to thank HPE and Tim Pletcher in particular for supporting and collaborating on this high-impact work! LMS: A stateful post-quantum signature scheme LMS is a stateful hash-based signature scheme that was standardized in 2019 with RFC 8554 and subsequently adopted into the federal information processing standards in 2020. These algorithms are carefully designed to resist quantum computer attacks, which could threaten conventional algebraic signature schemes like RSA and ECDSA. Unlike other post-quantum signature designs, LMS was standardized before NIST’s large post-quantum cryptography standardization program was completed. LMS has been studied for years and its security bounds are well understood, so it was not surprising that these schemes were selected and standardized in a relatively short time frame (at least compared to the other standards). Like other post-quantum signature schemes, LMS is a hash-based scheme, relying only on the security of a collision-resistant hash function such as SHA256. Hash-based signature schemes have much longer signatures than lattice-based signature schemes, which were recently standardized by NIST, but they are simpler to implement and require fewer novel cryptographic assumptions. This is the primary reason we chose to develop hash-based signatures first. Unlike any signature algorithm in common usage today, LMS is a stateful scheme. The signer must track how many messages have been signed with a key, incrementing the counter with each new signature. If the private key is used more than once with the same counter value, an attacker can combine the two signatures to forge signatures on new messages. This is analogous to a nonce-reuse attack in encryption schemes like AES-GCM. If it’s not immediately obvious, requiring this state also severely limits these schemes’ usability and security. For instance, this makes storing your private key (and its state) to some sort of persisted storage (which is usually typical for secret keys) incredibly risky, as this introduces the possibility of an old state being reused, especially for multi-threaded applications. This is why NIST makes the following warning in their standard: Stateful hash-based signature schemes are secure against the development of quantum computers, but they are not suitable for general use because their security depends on careful state management. They are most appropriate for applications in which the use of the private key may be carefully controlled and where there is a need to transition to a post-quantum secure digital signature scheme before the post-quantum cryptography standardization process has completed. The main benefit of a stateful algorithm like LMS over a stateless hash-based signature like SLH-DSA (SPHINCS+) is significantly shorter signature sizes: a signature with LMS is around 4KB, while a signature with SLH-DSA at a similar security level is closer to 40KB. The downside is that stateful schemes like LMS cannot easily be plugged into existing applications. Managing the private state in a signature scheme makes integration into higher-level applications complex and prone to subtle and dangerous security flaws. However, a carefully managed environment for code signing is an excellent place to test stateful post quantum signatures in the real world, and we feel that Sigstore effectively meets the NIST requirement. RustCrypto implementation Our Rust implementation is no-std capable and does not require heap allocations, in addition to being fully compatible with the currently available digest and signature crates. In particular, we implement the SignerMut and Verifier traits on private and public keys, respectively. The goal of our work is to provide a more strongly typed alternative to the pre-existing implementation while also not over-allocating memory. While ArrayVec is a suitable alternative to the headaches caused by generics and GenericArray, at the cost of slightly higher memory requirements in certain cases of signatures, it does introduce an additional crate dependency that did not previously exist, which we wanted to avoid. Currently, in our implementation, both signatures and keys must know their LMS parameters before being able to deserialize and verify signatures. This should be sufficient for most use cases, but if unknown parameters must be used, it is not too difficult to hack together an enum that covers all potential algorithm types and uses the correct TryFrom implementation once the algorithm type is parsed. Go implementation Our Go implementation, on the other hand, is less picky. We were asked to build an LMS implementation for Sigstore, which is a more controlled environment and does not have the same restrictions that the general RustCrypto implementation assumes. Because of this, our implementation uses some small heap allocations to keep track of some variable length data, such as the number of hashes in a private key. Go is a less-clever language than Rust, which means we cannot really parameterize it over the various LMS modes, so some additional work needs to be done at a few call sites to re-specify the LMS parameters. More post-quantum engineering is coming soon! Like the rest of the world, we are still in the early days of post-quantum cryptography development and deployment. We’re always exploring opportunities to help teams adopt more secure cryptography, with or without the threat of quantum computers in the mix. Our cryptography team is currently working on another post-quantum standard in Rust, so look out for another open-source codebase soon! If your team needs a post-quantum cryptography (or any other cryptographic library that is not widely supported in the open-source community) module tailored to your exact needs, contact us! Our team is well-equipped to design and build a codebase incorporating all of your design requirements, with ownership transferred over to you at the end of the project. We will even perform an internal code audit of the same quality we give standard secure code reviews. Get in touch with our sales team to start your next project with Trail of Bits.

Authored by Willem Zeeman and Yun Zheng Hu This blog is part of a series written by various Dutch cyber security firms that have collaborated on the Cactus ransomware group, which exploits Qlik Sense servers for initial access. To view all of them please check the central blog by Dutch special interest group Cyberveilig Nederland [1] The effectiveness of the public-private partnership called Melissa [2] is increasingly evident. The Melissa partnership, which includes Fox-IT, has identified overlap in a specific ransomware tactic. Multiple partners, sharing information from incident response engagements for their clients, found that the Cactus ransomware group uses a particular method for initial access. Following that discovery, NCC Group’s Fox-IT developed a fingerprinting technique to identify which systems around the world are vulnerable to this method of initial access or, even more critically, are already compromised. Qlik Sense vulnerabilities Qlik Sense, a popular data visualisation and business intelligence tool, has recently become a focal point in cybersecurity discussions. This tool, designed to aid businesses in data analysis, has been identified as a key entry point for cyberattacks by the Cactus ransomware group. The Cactus ransomware campaign Since November 2023, the Cactus ransomware group has been actively targeting vulnerable Qlik Sense servers. These attacks are not just about exploiting software vulnerabilities; they also involve a psychological component where Cactus misleads its victims with fabricated stories about the breach. This likely is part of their strategy to obscure their actual method of entry, thus complicating mitigation and response efforts for the affected organizations. For those looking for in-depth coverage of these exploits, the Arctic Wolf blog [3] provides detailed insights into the specific vulnerabilities being exploited, notably CVE-2023-41266, CVE-2023-41265 also known as ZeroQlik, and potentially CVE-2023-48365 also known as DoubleQlik. Threat statistics and collaborative action The scope of this threat is significant. In total, we identified 5205 Qlik Sense servers, 3143 servers seem to be vulnerable to the exploits used by the Cactus group. This is based on the initial scan on 17 April 2024. Closer to home in the Netherlands, we’ve identified 241 vulnerable systems, fortunately most don’t seem to have been compromised. However, 6 Dutch systems weren’t so lucky and have already fallen victim to the Cactus group. It’s crucial to understand that “already compromised” can mean that either the ransomware has been deployed and the initial access artifacts left behind were not removed, or the system remains compromised and is potentially poised for a future ransomware attack. Since 17 April 2024, the DIVD (Dutch Institute for Vulnerability Disclosure) and the governmental bodies NCSC (Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum) and DTC (Digital Trust Center) have teamed up to globally inform (potential) victims of cyberattacks resembling those from the Cactus ransomware group. This collaborative effort has enabled them to reach out to affected organisations worldwide, sharing crucial information to help prevent further damage where possible. Identifying vulnerable Qlik Sense servers Expanding on Praetorian’s thorough vulnerability research on the ZeroQlik and DoubleQlik vulnerabilities [4,5], we found a method to identify the version of a Qlik Sense server by retrieving a file called product-info.json from the server. While we acknowledge the existence of Nuclei templates for the vulnerability checks, using the server version allows for a more reliable evaluation of potential vulnerability status, e.g. whether it’s patched or end of support. This JSON file contains the release label and version numbers by which we can identify the exact version that this Qlik Sense server is running. Figure 1: Qlik Sense product-info.json file containing version information Keep in mind that although Qlik Sense servers are assigned version numbers, the vendor typically refers to advisories and updates by their release label, such as “February 2022 Patch 3”. The following cURL command can be used to retrieve the product-info.json file from a Qlik server: curl -H "Host: localhost" -vk 'https://<ip>/resources/autogenerated/product-info.json?.ttf' Note that we specify ?.ttf at the end of the URL to let the Qlik proxy server think that we are requesting a .ttf file, as font files can be accessed unauthenticated. Also, we set the Host header to localhost or else the server will return 400 - Bad Request - Qlik Sense, with the message The http request header is incorrect. Retrieving this file with the ?.ttf extension trick has been fixed in the patch that addresses CVE-2023-48365 and you will always get a 302 Authenticate at this location response: > GET /resources/autogenerated/product-info.json?.ttf HTTP/1.1 > Host: localhost > Accept: */* > < HTTP/1.1 302 Authenticate at this location < Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate < Location: https://localhost/internal_forms_authentication/?targetId=2aa7575d-3234-4980-956c-2c6929c57b71 < Content-Length: 0 < Nevertheless, this is still a good way to determine the state of a Qlik instance, because if it redirects using 302 Authenticate at this location it is likely that the server is not vulnerable to CVE-2023-48365. An example response from a vulnerable server would return the JSON file: > GET /resources/autogenerated/product-info.json?.ttf HTTP/1.1 > Host: localhost > Accept: */* > < HTTP/1.1 200 OK < Set-Cookie: X-Qlik-Session=893de431-1177-46aa-88c7-b95e28c5f103; Path=/; HttpOnly; SameSite=Lax; Secure < Cache-Control: public, max-age=3600 < Transfer-Encoding: chunked < Content-Type: application/json;charset=utf-8 < Expires: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:14:56 GMT < Last-Modified: Fri, 04 Nov 2022 23:28:24 GMT < Accept-Ranges: bytes < ETag: 638032013040000000 < Server: Microsoft-HTTPAPI/2.0 < Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 07:14:55 GMT < Age: 136 < {"composition":{"contentHash":"89c9087978b3f026fb100267523b5204","senseId":"qliksenseserver:14.54.21","releaseLabel":"February 2022 Patch 12","originalClassName":"Composition","deprecatedProductVersion":"4.0.X","productName":"Qlik Sense","version":"14.54.21","copyrightYearRange":"1993-2022","deploymentType":"QlikSenseServer"}, <snipped> We utilised Censys and Google BigQuery [6] to compile a list of potential Qlik Sense servers accessible on the internet and conducted a version scan against them. Subsequently, we extracted the Qlik release label from the JSON response to assess vulnerability to CVE-2023-48365. Our vulnerability assessment for DoubleQlik / CVE-2023-48365 operated on the following criteria:

1. The release label corresponds to vulnerability statuses outlined in the original ZeroQlik and DoubleQlik vendor advisories [7,8].
2. The release label is designated as End of Support (EOS) by the vendor [9], such as “February 2019 Patch 5”.

We consider a server non-vulnerable if:

1. The release label date is post-November 2023, as the advisory states that “November 2023” is not affected.
2. The server responded with HTTP/1.1 302 Authenticate at this location.

Any other responses were disregarded as invalid Qlik server instances. As of 17 April 2024, and as stated in the introduction of this blog, we have detected 5205 Qlik Servers on the Internet. Among them, 3143 servers are still at risk of DoubleQlik, indicating that 60% of all Qlik Servers online remain vulnerable. Figure 2: Qlik Sense patch status for DoubleQlik CVE-2023-48365 The majority of vulnerable Qlik servers reside in the United States (396), trailed by Italy (280), Brazil (244), the Netherlands (241), and Germany (175). Figure 3: Top 20 countries with servers vulnerable to DoubleQlik CVE-2023-48365 Identifying compromised Qlik Sense servers Based on insights gathered from the Arctic Wolf blog and our own incident response engagements where the Cactus ransomware was observed, it’s evident that the Cactus ransomware group continues to redirect the output of executed commands to a True Type font file named qle.ttf, likely abbreviated for “qlik exploit”. Below are a few examples of executed commands and their output redirection by the Cactus ransomware group: whoami /all > ../Client/qmc/fonts/qle.ttf quser > ../Client/qmc/fonts/qle.ttf In addition to the qle.ttf file, we have also observed instances where qle.woff was used: Figure 4: Directory listing with exploitation artefacts left by Cactus ransomware group It’s important to note that these font files are not part of a default Qlik Sense server installation. We discovered that files with a font file extension such as .ttf and .woff can be accessed without any authentication, regardless of whether the server is patched. This likely explains why the Cactus ransomware group opted to store command output in font files within the fonts directory, which in turn, also serves as a useful indicator of compromise. Our scan for both font files, found a total of 122 servers with the indicator of compromise. The United States ranked highest in exploited servers with 49 online instances carrying the indicator of compromise, followed by Spain (13), Italy (11), the United Kingdom (8), Germany (7), and then Ireland and the Netherlands (6). Figure 5: Top 20 countries with known compromised Qlik Sense servers Out of the 122 compromised servers, 46 were not vulnerable anymore. When the indicator of compromise artefact is present on a remote Qlik Sense server, it can imply various scenarios. Firstly, it may suggest that remote code execution was carried out on the server, followed by subsequent patching to address the vulnerability (if the server is not vulnerable anymore). Alternatively, its presence could signify a leftover artefact from a previous security incident or unauthorised access. While the root cause for the presence of these files is hard to determine from the outside it still is a reliable indicator of compromise. Responsible disclosure by the DIVD
We shared our fingerprints and scan data with the Dutch Institute of Vulnerability Disclosure (DIVD), who then proceeded to issue responsible disclosure notifications to the administrators of the Qlik Sense servers. Call to action Ensure the security of your Qlik Sense installations by checking your current version. If your software is still supported, apply the latest patches immediately. For systems that are at the end of support, consider upgrading or replacing them to maintain robust security. Additionally, to enhance your defences, it’s recommended to avoid exposing these services to the entire internet. Implement IP whitelisting if public access is necessary, or better yet, make them accessible only through secure remote working solutions. If you discover you’ve been running a vulnerable version, it’s crucial to contact your (external) security experts for a thorough check-up to confirm that no breaches have occurred. Taking these steps will help safeguard your data and infrastructure from potential threats. References

1. https://cyberveilignederland.nl/actueel/persbericht-samenwerkingsverband-melissa-vindt-diverse-nederlandse-slachtoffers-van-ransomwaregroepering-cactus ︎
2. https://www.ncsc.nl/actueel/nieuws/2023/oktober/3/melissa-samenwerkingsverband-ransomwarebestrijding ︎
3. https://arcticwolf.com/resources/blog/qlik-sense-exploited-in-cactus-ransomware-campaign/ ︎
4. https://www.praetorian.com/blog/qlik-sense-technical-exploit/ ︎
5. https://www.praetorian.com/blog/doubleqlik-bypassing-the-original-fix-for-cve-2023-41265/ ︎
6. https://support.censys.io/hc/en-us/articles/360038759991-Google-BigQuery-Introduction ︎
7. https://community.qlik.com/t5/Official-Support-Articles/Critical-Security-fixes-for-Qlik-Sense-Enterprise-for-Windows/ta-p/2110801 ︎
8. https://community.qlik.com/t5/Official-Support-Articles/Critical-Security-fixes-for-Qlik-Sense-Enterprise-for-Windows/ta-p/2120325 ︎
9. https://community.qlik.com/t5/Product-Lifecycle/Qlik-Sense-Enterprise-on-Windows-Product-Lifecycle/ta-p/1826335 ︎

From 2018 to 2023, healthcare data breaches have increased by 93 percent. And ransomware attacks have grown by 278 percent over the same period. Healthcare organizations can’t afford to let preventable breaches slip by. Globally, the average cost of a healthcare data breach has reached $10.93 million. The situation for healthcare organizations may seem bleak. But there is hope. Focus on layering your security posture to focus on threat prevention, protection, and recovery. Check out three healthcare organizations that are strengthening their cyber resilience with layered security tools. 1. Memorial Hermann balances user experience with encryption Email encryption keeps sensitive medical data safe and organizations compliant. Unfortunately, providers will skip it if the encryption tool is difficult to use. Memorial Hermann ran into this exact issue. Juggling compliance requirements with productivity needs, the organization worried about the user experience for email encryption. Webroot Email Encryption powered by Zix provides the solution. Nearly 75 percent of Memorial Hermann’s encrypted emails go to customers who share Webroot. Now more than 1,750 outside organizations can access encrypted email right from their inbox, with no extra steps or passwords. Read the full case study. 2. Allergy, Asthma and Sinus Center safeguards email The center needed to protect electronic medical records (EMR). But its old software solution required technical oversight that was difficult to manage. Webroot Email Threat Protection by OpenText gives the healthcare organization an easy way to keep EMR secure. OpenText’s in-house research team is continually monitoring new and emerging threats to ensure the center’s threat protection is always up to date. With high-quality protection and a low-maintenance design, the IT team can focus on other projects. When patient data is at stake, the center knows it can trust Webroot. Read the full case study. 3. Radiology Associates avoid downtime with fast recovery Radiologists need to read and interpret patient reports so they can quickly share them with doctors. Their patients’ health can’t afford for them to have downtime. After an unexpected server crash corrupted its database, Radiology Associates needed a way to avoid workflow interruptions. Carbonite Recover by OpenText helps the organization get back to business quickly in the event of a data breach or natural disaster. Plus, the price of the solution and ease of use gave Radiology Associates good reasons to choose our solution. Read the full case study. Conclusion As ransomware becomes more sophisticated and data breaches occur more frequently, healthcare organizations must stay vigilant. Strong cyber resilience should be a priority so that you can protect patient privacy and maintain trust within the healthcare industry. And you don’t have to do it alone. We’re ready to help out as your trusted cybersecurity partner. Together, we can prevent data breaches, protect sensitive data, and help you recover when disaster strikes. Contact us to learn more about our cybersecurity solutions. The post 3 healthcare organizations that are building cyber resilience appeared first on Webroot Blog.

Ransomware attacks are targeting healthcare organizations more frequently. The number of costly cyberattacks on US hospitals has doubled. So how do you prevent these attacks? Keep reading to learn five ways you can strengthen security at your organization. But first, let’s find out what’s at stake. Why healthcare needs better cybersecurity Healthcare organizations are especially vulnerable to data breaches because of how much data they hold. And when a breach happens, it creates financial burdens and affects regulatory compliance. On average, the cost of a healthcare data breach globally is $10.93 million. Noncompliance not only incurs more costs but also hurts patient trust. Once that trust is lost, it’s difficult to regain it, which can impact your business and standing within the industry. Adopting a layered security approach will help your organization prevent these attacks. Here are five ways to strengthen your cybersecurity: 1. Use preventive security technology Prevention, as the saying goes, prevention is better than the cure. With the right systems and the right methodology, it’s possible to detect and intercept most cyberthreats before they lead to a data breach, a loss of service, or a deterioration in patient care.
Examples of prevention-layer technologies include:

• Endpoint protection keeps out malicious files, scripts, URLs, and exploits via a cloud-based architecture.
• Email encryption makes it hard for attackers to intercept sensitive medical data—just make sure the encryption tool is easy to manage and use.
• Email threat protection and continuity safeguards electronic medical records by monitoring emerging threats.

2. Provide cybersecurity training According to Verizon, 82 percent of all breaches involve a human element. Sometimes malicious insiders create security vulnerabilities. Other times, well-intentioned employees fall victim to attacks like phishing, legitimate-looking emails that trick employees into giving attackers their credentials or other sensitive information—like patient data. In fact, 16 percent of breaches start with phishing. When your employees receive basic cybersecurity training, they are more likely to recognize bad actors, report suspicious activity, and avoid risky behavior. You can outsource cybersecurity training or find an automated security training solution that you manage. 3. Ensure regulatory compliance Healthcare providers are subject to strict data privacy regulations like HIPPA and GDPR. If an avoidable data breach occurs, organizations face hefty fines from state and federal authorities. The email and endpoint protection tools described above help you stay compliant with these regulations. But sometimes a breach is out of your control. So regulators have provided guidelines for how to respond, including investigation, notification, and recovery. 4. Build business recovery plans Adding a recovery plan to your multilayered security approach is crucial to achieving and maintaining cyber resilient healthcare. Ideally, you’ll catch most incoming threats before they become an issue. However, the recovery layer is critical when threats do get through or disasters occur. You might think that your cloud-based applications back up and secure your data. But SaaS vendors explicitly state that data protection and backup is the customer’s responsibility of the customer. Some SaaS applications have recovery options, but they’re limited and ineffective. A separate backup system is necessary to ensure business continuity. Reasons for implementing a solid recovery strategy include:

• Re-establishing patient trust.
• Avoiding disruptions to patient care.
• Remaining compliant with HIPPA and GDPR requirements.

Remember, lives depend on getting your systems back up quickly. That’s why your healthcare organization needs a secure, continuously updated backup and recovery solution for local and cloud servers. 5. Monitor and improve continuously Once you have your multilayered security approach in place, you’ll need a centralized management console to help you monitor and control all your security services. This single-pane-of-glass gives you real-time cyber intelligence and all the tools you need to protect your healthcare organization, your reputation, and your investment in digital transformation. You can also spot gaps in your approach and find ways to improve. Conclusion Cybersecurity can seem daunting at times. Just remember that every step you take toward cyber resilience helps you protect patient privacy and maintain your credibility within the healthcare industry.
So when you’re feeling overwhelmed or stuck, remember the five ways you can strengthen your layered cybersecurity approach:

1. Use preventive technology like endpoint protection and email encryption.
2. Train your employees to recognize malicious activities like phishing.
3. Ensure that you’re compliant with HIPPA, GDPR, and any other regulation standards.
4. Retrieve your data from breaches with backup and recovery tools.
5. Monitor your data and improve your approach when necessary.

The post 5 ways to strengthen healthcare cybersecurity appeared first on Webroot Blog.

Additive manufacturing (AM) engineers have been incredibly creative in developing ancillary systems that modify a printed parts mechanical properties.  These systems mostly focus on the issue of anisotropic properties of additively built components.  This blog post is a good reference if you are unfamiliar with isotropic vs anisotropic properties and how they impact 3d printing.  […] The post Cybersecurity Concerns for Ancillary Strength Control Subsystems appeared first on BreakPoint Labs - Blog.

To consolidate all of our security intelligence and news in one location, we have migrated Naked Security to the Sophos News platform.