A Telstra software defect disrupted mobile services, rail communications, payments, and emergency calls across Australia, exposing infrastructure risks.

The post Massive Telstra Outage Hits Mobile Networks, Rail, and Payments in Australia appeared first on TechRepublic.

A Telstra software defect disrupted mobile services, rail communications, payments, and emergency calls across Australia, exposing infrastructure risks.

The post Massive Telstra Outage Hits Mobile Networks, Rail, and Payments in Australia appeared first on TechRepublic.

A new study proposes using shoebox-sized detector satellites to sniff out nuclear weapons launched by adversary nations. The idea is aimed at addressing fears that a space-based nuclear detonation could destroy satellites across low Earth orbit and make some orbits unusable for years. Space.com shares the findings from a new paper authored by Areg Danagoulian, an associate professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: No reliable way currently exists to detect and defuse a nuclear bomb in space. Danagoulian proposes a constellation of small "9U" cubesats, each one about the size of a large shoebox and each carrying a special detector capable of sensing radiation emitted by unexploded nuclear bombs. He explores a scenario in which Russia launches a suspected space nuke into an orbit with an altitude of 1,200 miles (2,000 km). That number is not random. In 2022, Russia's Kosmos 2553 satellite, orbiting at that exact altitude, triggered suspicions it might be testing components for a future orbital nuclear weapon. Russia claims the satellite just observes Earth. At that altitude, the satellite passes through the Van Allen belt, a region of intense cosmic radiation trapped by Earth's magnetic field. Most of the belt stretches between altitudes of around 600 miles (1,000 km) to tens of thousands of miles, but in some areas the radiation can reach much closer to Earth's surface. The interaction between the fissile material inside the nuke and the energetic particles from the radiation belt would create distinct signatures, Danagoulian said, which could help confirm whether a suspicious satellite carries a nuke or not. "The thermonuclear weapon would contain a significant amount of uranium," Danagoulian said. "The high-energy protons [in the uranium] would break up when another proton is coming in and shred the nuclei. That would knock out a large number of neutrons. This interaction turns that device into a very intense neutron source that otherwise would not be there." he process is known as proton-induced neutron spallation, which essentially means the ejection of fragments from material triggered by impacts of protons. The detector satellite Danagoulian proposes would have to be able to get quite close to the suspect spacecraft -- a few kilometers. The inspector spacecraft would carry a sensor combining two types of detectors. At the heart of the device is a neutron scintillator, which detects all incoming neutrons and protons. Around it is a "cage of diamond" detector that detects only neutrons -- not protons. Such a set-up helps filter out the particles present in the environment naturally, said Danagoulian. In addition, by using two "planes of neutron detectors," the sensor can determine the direction from which the neutrons arrived. "If the external diamond detector triggers and gives a signal, you can ignore the particle, because it's most likely a proton and not a neutron," said Danagoulian. "Once you identify those neutrons, by having those two detections, you can back project and find out where the neutron came from." Danagoulian says such a nuke sniffer would have to be launched into an orbit aligned with that of the suspicious satellite and creep up as close as 2.5 miles (4 km) from it. It would then take about a week to gather enough measurements to confirm whether the object is hiding a nuke or not. A constellation of 10 such satellites could reduce the process to mere hours, Danagoulian said. If a nuke were detected, the military could then try to jam the satellite's communications link from the ground, making it impossible for the adversary to remotely detonate the bomb. There is currently no technology available to safely defuse a nuclear weapon in space. [...] Danagoulian also suggests that high-grade radiation hardening could improve satellites' chances of surviving a nuclear winter in space. The paper has been published in the journal Nature.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Welcome back, aspiring cyberwarriors!

Many of us are being pushed toward insecure messengers and social networks. These communication channels may be monitored and are not trustworthy. That does not mean private communication is impossible. Far from it. One of the oldest and most practical problems in cryptography is how to send a secret message through an open channel without making the message obvious to anyone who sees it. And that problem has already been solved very well.

The encrypted text does not always have to look like encrypted text. A message can be hidden in plain sight so that it looks like ordinary content, or it can be embedded inside something else entirely, such as audio, video, or text that does not raise suspicion. That is the realm of steganography. Cryptography protects the meaning. Steganography helps hide the fact that a message exists at all.

For most people, though, the real need is much simpler. They want a practical and convenient way to encrypt messages quickly and reliably. So let’s look at some easy tools that make that possible.

Workflow

The workflow is always the same. First, the sender and recipient agree on a secret password or passphrase. A short sentence made up of several words is often better than a single word because it is easier to remember and usually much stronger. Then the sender pastes the message into the tool, clicks Encrypt, enters the password, and sends the resulting encrypted text through whatever channel they want, even if that channel is insecure. The recipient then uses the same tool and the same password to decrypt the message.

That is the basic pattern, and it stays consistent across different tools and platforms.

Web-Based Encryption Tools

There are browser-based applications that can encrypt text very effectively, and they are often the easiest place to begin. But there is one very important detail. You want to make sure the encryption happens entirely on the client side. That means the message is processed inside your browser, on your own machine, and the password never leaves your device. If the server never sees the key, the risk of leakage is much lower.

That point is worth checking. A good looking website is not automatically secure. One way to verify local processing is to monitor browser traffic using Developer Tools, or DevTools, and see whether your password is being sent over the network. Another way is to use a firewall application such as Little Snitch and observe whether the service tries to communicate with remote servers during encryption or decryption. If the system is truly local, the encrypted message can later be decrypted either through the same browser-based Decrypt form or offline with OpenSSL.

There are a few websites out there. 

The first one is Encrypt Online. It uses AES-256-CBC to encrypt text, strings, JSON, YAML and config data directly in your browser. It’s considered to be a strong, mathematically unbreakable encryption algorithm.

Paranoia Text Encryption uses AES-256 in EAX mode with keys derived from passwords using Argon2. That combination is strong and modern.

LOCK.PUB is another browser-based option, focused on creating encrypted online notes, polls, images, audio and a lot more. The content can only be accessed with the correct password.

For users who want something more flexible and technical, GCHQ CyberChef is a powerful open-source option from the UK’s GCHQ intelligence agency. It supports many encryption and encoding operations. 

AES Utils is another choice, using AES-256-GCM with PBKDF2 while keeping the interface simple.

Warning

As a contrast, it is useful to look at what should not be considered a proper secure solution. MagicTool encrypts and decrypts text without requiring a password. 

At first glance that may sound convenient, but from a cryptographic point of view it means the same built-in secret is used every time. If anyone knows the website and the service’s behavior, they may be able to infer or recover the messages. In that setup, the tool itself is functioning like the secret key simply by existing.

That is not a strong cryptographic model. However, in some situations, “encryption” without a user-provided key could still serve a purpose. For example, it might be used to deceive an adversary into believing you are an inexperienced user who does not know how to encrypt messages properly, when your real objective is to feed them specific information in a controlled manner.

Offline Encryption Software

Browser tools are convenient, but sometimes you want something local, traditional, and fully under your control. Linux, Windows, and macOS all have native or widely trusted applications that can encrypt text and files without relying on a remote browser service.

Common examples include command-line tools such as GnuPG, OpenSSL, and ccrypt, along with password managers, VeraCrypt, Cryptomator, and a wide range of similar utilities. These tools are often used not only for text messages but also for file encryption, container protection, and secure storage.

Offline tools have an advantage because they reduce the number of outside systems involved in the process. You are not dependent on a remote website staying available, and you do not need to trust a third-party server with your content or password. For many users, that is a better model from a privacy perspective. At the same time, it is important to understand that privacy tools still leave traces. On a Windows system, a digital forensics investigator may be able to see installation artifacts, program execution history, registry keys, recent files, shortcut files, jump lists, user activity traces, prefetch data and remnants of encrypted containers or text editors. Even when the content itself remains protected, the fact that you used a particular application may still be visible in the system’s history.

That is why privacy-conscious users often prefer systems that are designed to leave fewer traces by default. A privacy-oriented operating system, live environment, or hardened Linux distribution can be a better choice when your goal is to reduce unnecessary local exposure. 

Summary

Encrypting messages is a simple and useful privacy skill. Whether you use a browser-based tool or you prefer offline software the basic principle is the same. 

The right tool depends on the situation. Browser-based tools are convenient and fast. Offline tools give you more independence and more control. Some systems are designed for strong cryptography, while others are only suitable for demonstration or deceptive use. Understanding the difference matters.

If you want to go deeper into how privacy can be preserved on real systems and how forensic traces are created and analyzed, our Anti-Forensics training is your next step. We covered advanced techniques for preserving your privacy and understanding what investigators can still see even when you think you have covered your tracks.

The post Anti-Forensics: How to Encrypt Messages in Any Messenger or Social Network first appeared on Hackers Arise.