Dissecting the Dangerous XZ Utils Backdoor CVE 2024-3094:  An Attack on Linux

‍Brief Overview of the EU AI Act

The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies.  The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.

The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI  use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.

In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions

• The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
• Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
• The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.

Application & Timeline of Act

The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:

• August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
• February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
• August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models. 
• August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
•  August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.

The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).

In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers. 

CyberPeace Outlook 

The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.

The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount. 

At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.

References: 

1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
2. https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
3. https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
4. https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
5. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
6. https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide

‍

Introduction

In the intricate maze of our interconnected world, an unseen adversary conducts its operations with a stealth almost poetic in its sinister intent. This adversary — malware — has extended its tendrils into the digital sanctuaries of Mac users, long perceived as immune to such invasive threats. Our narrative today does not deal with the physical and tangible frontlines we are accustomed to; this is a modern tale of espionage, nestled in the zeros and ones of cyberspace.

The Mac platform, cradled within the fortifications of Apple's walled garden ecosystem, has stood as a beacon of resilience amidst the relentless onslaught of cyber threats. However, this sense of imperviousness has been shaken at its core, heralding a paradigm shift. A new threat lies in wait, bridging the gap between perceived security and uncomfortable vulnerability.

The seemingly invincible Mac OS X, long heralded for its robust security features and impervious resilience to virus attacks, faces an undercurrent of siege tactics from hackers driven by a relentless pursuit for control. This narrative is not about the front-and-centre warfare we see so often reported in media headlines. Instead, it veils itself within the actions of users as benign as the download of pirated software from the murky depths of warez websites.  

The Incident 

The casual act, born out of innocence or economic necessity, to sidestep the financial requisites of licensed software, has become the unwitting point of compromised security. Users find themselves on the battlefield, one that overshadows the significance of its physical counterpart with its capacity for surreptitious harm. The Mac's seeming invulnerability is its Achilles' heel, as the wariness against potential threats has been eroded by the myth of its impregnability.

The architecture of this silent assault is not one of brute force but of guile. Cyber marauders finesse their way through the defenses with a diversified arsenal; pirated content is but a smokescreen behind which trojans lie in ambush. The very appeal of free access to premium applications is turned against the user, opening a rift that permits these malevolent forces to ingress.

The trojans that permeate the defenses of the Mac ecosystem are architects of chaos. They surreptitiously enrol devices into armies of sorts – botnets which, unbeknownst to their hosts, become conduits for wider assaults on privacy and security. These machines, now soldiers in an unconsented war, are puppeteered to distribute further malware, carry out phishing tactics, and breach the sanctity of secure data.

The Trojan of Mac 

A recent exposé by the renowned cybersecurity firm Kaspersky has shone a spotlight on this burgeoning threat. The meticulous investigation conducted in April of this year unveiled a nefarious campaign, engineered to exploit the complacency among Mac users. This operation facilitates the sale of proxy access, linking previously unassailable devices to the infrastructure of cybercriminal networks.

This revelation cannot be overstated in its importance. It illustrates with disturbing clarity the evolution and sophistication of modern malware campaigns. The threat landscape is not stagnant but ever-shifting, adapting with both cunning and opportunity.

Kaspersky's diligence in dissecting this threat detected nearly three dozen popular applications, and tools relied upon by individuals and businesses alike for a multitude of tasks. These apps, now weaponised, span a gamut of functionalities - image editing and enhancement, video compression, data recovery, and network scanning among them. Each one, once a benign asset to productivity, is twisted into a lurking danger, imbued with the power to betray its user.   

The duplicity of the trojan is shrouded in mimicry; it disguises its malicious intent under the guise of 'WindowServer,' a legitimate system process intrinsic to the macOS. Its camouflage is reinforced by an innocuously named file, 'GoogleHelperUpdater.plist' — a moniker engineered to evade suspicion and blend seamlessly with benign processes affiliated with familiar applications.

Mode of Operation 

Its mode of operation, insidious in its stealth, utilises the Transmission Control Protocol(TCP) and User Datagram Protocol(UDP) networking protocols. This modus operandi allows it to masquerade as a benign proxy. The full scope of its potential commands, however, eludes our grasp, a testament to the shadowy domain from which these threats emerge.  

The reach of this trojan does not cease at the periphery of Mac's operating system; it harbours ambitions that transcend platforms. Windows and Android ecosystems, too, find themselves under the scrutiny of this burgeoning threat.

This chapter in the ongoing saga of cybersecurity is more than a cautionary tale; it is a clarion call for vigilance. The war being waged within the circuits and code of our devices underscores an inescapable truth: complacency is the ally of the cybercriminal.

Safety measures and best practices

It is imperative to safeguard the Mac system from harmful intruders, which are constantly evolving. Few measures can play a crucial role in protecting your data in your Mac systems.

• Refrain from Unlicensed Software - Refrain from accessing and downloading pirated software. Plenty of software serves as a decoy for malware which remains dormant till downloaded files are executed.  

• Use Trusted Source: Downloading files from legitimate and trusted sources can significantly reduce the threat of any unsolicited files or malware making its way into your Mac system. 

• Regular system updates: Regular updates to systems released by the company ensure the latest patches are installed in the system critical to combat and neutralize emerging threats. 

• General Awareness: keeping abreast of the latest developments in cyberspace plays a crucial role in avoiding new and emerging threats. It is crucial to keep pace with trends and be well-informed about new threats and ways to combat them. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, this silent conflict, though waged in whispers, echoes with repercussions that reverberate through every stratum of digital life. The cyber threats that dance in the shadows cast by our screens are not figments of paranoia, but very real specters hunting for vulnerabilities to exploit. Mac users, once confident in their platforms' defenses, must awaken to the new dawn of cybersecurity awareness.

The battlefield, while devoid of the visceral carnage of physical warfare, is replete with casualties of privacy and breaches of trust. The soldiers in this conflict are disguised as serviceable code, enacting their insidious agendas beneath a façade of normalcy. The victims eschew physical wounds for scars on their digital identities, enduring theft of information, and erosion of security.

As we course through the daunting terrain of digital life, it becomes imperative to heed the lessons of this unseen warfare. Shadows may lie unseen, but it is within their obscurity that the gravest dangers often lurk, a reminder to remain ever vigilant in the face of the invisible adversary.

References:

• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/hackers-are-using-these-pirated-softwares-to-spread-malware-campaigns-on-mac-9054168/

Executive Summary:

A photo circulating on the web that claims to show the future design of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center, BARC building, has been found to be fake after fact checking has been done. Nevertheless, there is no official notice or confirmation from BARC on its website or social media handles. Through the AI Content Detection tool, we have discovered that the image is a fake as it was generated by an AI. In short, the viral picture is not the authentic architectural plans drawn up for the BARC building.

Claims:

A photo allegedly representing the new outlook of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) building is reigning over social media platforms.

Fact Check:

To begin our investigation, we surfed the BARC's official website to check out their tender and NITs notifications to inquire for new constructions or renovations.

It was a pity that there was no corresponding information on what was being claimed.

Then, we hopped on their official social media pages and searched for any latest updates on an innovative building construction, if any. We looked on Facebook, Instagram and X . Again, there was no information about the supposed blueprint. To validate the fact that the viral image could be generated by AI, we gave a search on an AI Content Detection tool by Hive that is called ‘AI Classifier’. The tool's analysis was in congruence with the image being an AI-generated computer-made one with 100% accuracy.

To be sure, we also used another AI-image detection tool called, “isitai?” and it turned out to be 98.74% AI generated.

Conclusion:

To conclude, the statement about the image being the new BARC building is fake and misleading. A detailed investigation, examining BARC's authorities and utilizing AI detection tools, proved that the picture is more probable an AI-generated one than an original architectural design. BARC has not given any information nor announced anything for such a plan. This makes the statement untrustworthy since there is no credible source to support it.

Claim: Many social media users claim to show the new design of the BARC building.

Claimed on: X, Facebook

Fact Check: Misleading

‍