Reflects the broad spectrum #spyware harms happen.
But *also* and critically, situations where vendors should expect that their product, once sold, will inevitably be abused.
#Pegasus factor: Ouch. NSO again would get dinged.
7/ I initially expected #SpywareEO to look like a allow/deny aka "blacklist" of spyware sellers..
But the EO's conduct based definitions = constant shell game of vendors corporate identities is blunted.
Even applies to companies that haven't been formed yet.
Probably better.
8/ Lots of spyware companies absolutely know what they are doing.
What's especially interesting is the term "remove" to describe risks.
Not the milquetoast & unverifiable "mitigate."
#SpywareEO is saying: cancel the contracts & more.
And you may still be toast. Do it now.
9/ Reports in the past that USG entities may have occasionally facilitated spyware purchases / acquisition by other governments.
If the #SpywareEO abuse/natsec/counterintelligence triggers are met... that door now closes.
10/ How does the USG know if #spyware vendors hit the #SpywareEO's triggers?
The EO contains a robust set of reporting requirements around misuses from the Intel community & procurement reporting.
Seems intended to prevent vendors from slipping through the cracks.
11/ Use of the "operational use" term is interesting.
And creates carve outs for things like testing & analysis.
Analogy: USG can buy an anti-tank missile from a shady entity to test it against armor, but can't reward the vendor by equipping the whole military with them.
12/ Takeaway: The #SpywareEO is the first comprehensive action by any government on #spyware.
It was clearly drafted to pump the breaks on proliferation & is written with a good understanding the slippery nature of the industry.
It closes many loopholes.
13/ Whenever the USG regulates there's always temptation to speculate about protectionism for American companies.
But reading the #SpywareEO...these provisions hit US-based spyware companies just as hard if they meet the triggers / contribute to proliferation.
Good.
14/ Every government wants to not tie their hands too tightly, so there is a waiver provision.
But what's interesting is how restricted this is. This is a very high bar.
The #SpywareEO is not designed to be easily circumvented by someone in a corner of the USG bureaucracy.
15/ I've spent over a decade researching commercial spyware.
The #spywareEO is one of the most consequential actions to blunt proliferation that I've seen a government take.
So, where do we go from here?
16/ While the #SpywareEO addresses federal procurement, it doesn't hit state & local agencies.
And we know these are targets for sales by NSO Group & others.
This is going to be a really important area in coming years.
Here are some more damming revelations as Intellexa, the shady, sanctioned spyware supplier gets exposed by @AmnestyTech & partners.. /1
2/ First, a mercenary spyware myth has just been busted.
Because the leak shows an Intellexa employee directly accessing a customer deployment.
Prior to the #PredatorFiles leak, spyware companies basically always claimed they couldn't access customer deployments & didn't know what was going on there.
They used this to avoid responsibility & claim ignorance when faced with abuses.
3/ And it gets crazier. The leak shows Intellexa casually accessing a core backbone of Predator deployment of a government customer.
Seemingly without the gov's knowledge.
Suggests that Intellexa can look over their shoulder & watch their sensitive targeting.
NEW: 🇨🇳Chinese hackers ran massive campaign by tricking Claude's agentic AI.
Vibe hacking ran 80-90% of the operation without humans.
Massive scale (1000s of reqs/sec).
Agents ran complex multi-step tasks, shepherded by a human.
Long predicted. Welcome to the new world.
Fascinating report by @AnthropicAI 1/
2/ The old cybersecurity pitch: unpatched systems are the threat.
The next generation concern might be unpatched cognition.
The attacker jailbroke the cognitive layer of @anthropic's Claude code, successfully convincing the system of false intent (that it was a security exercise)
3/ One of the key points in @AnthropicAI's report is just how limited the human time required was to run such a large automated campaign.
Obviously powerful stuff, highlighting the impact of orchestration.
And concerning for the #cybersecurity world for all sorts of reasons, ranging from attack scale, adaptability & cost reductions...
A "damaging" leak of tools from a five eyes exploit developer?
Concerning. We need to know what's under this rug.
Big picture: "trusted, vetted" private sector players offensive cyber are not immune to losing control of tooling... with national security consequences 1/
2/ If true, a tooling leak at boutique firm Trenchant wouldn't be the first time that exploits from commercial offensive vendors wind up... in the wrong place.
Many questions.
In the meantime. Remember when Russian APT29..was caught with exploits first used by NSO & Intellexa?
3/ There will always be a push for states to turn towards the private sector to meet offensive needs.
It's appealing. For some, it's very lucrative.
But in practice it brings unavoidable counterintelligence & national security downside risk that shouldn't be downplayed.