Good morning to all of you well rested infosec folks who are just now waking up to this newest catastrophe :)

Fine, fine, I’ll be nice. While you were sleeping, Google security notified of a long term (allegedly DPRK) SE campaign targeting infosec researchers on Twitter, ingratiating themselves into the community with minor research and blogs, then sending them malicious links and code.
The list of accounts is in the blog and 3 or 4 accounts were very active, messaged and drew in a ton of researchers, and successfully got some to execute malicious code in the name of exploit research. My thread is full of stories and screenshots. They hit a ton of people.
Here is the blog. https://t.co/T3No8Hj7xy
There are still a lot of unsubstantiated rumors and humble brags floating around about what else they did, so I would stick to the blog for now.
You need to check if you (or your team on work machines) interacted with any of these people, potentially followed malicious links, or amplified their social media posts.
@LawrenceAbrams also did not sleep: https://t.co/98UGrOk9fL
Anyway https://t.co/FNL9H3uZDh
Here is a particularly poignant and well documented one, as he discovers in real time what happened... https://t.co/uibzAnNNUn
Anyway this is all novel not so much for the established sock accounts and Twitter SE (which *ahem* some researchers have been dealing with for ages 🤷🏻‍♀️🍸) but more because of the tactics of tricking exploit researchers into running malicious code, and burning a Chome 0day.
Good luck, all. VM all the things, and assume every inbound DM is gonna be a dickpic!
(This is also a very funny 5am joke because one of the fake people they used was named James Willy. Thank you, I have been here all night.)

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x