The US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has recently updated its Russia General License (GL) 25E, maintaining authorisation for essential and incidental transactions to telecommunications involving the Russian Federation. That license facilitates various internet-based services, including instant messaging, social networking, and e-learning platforms.
It supports the ongoing exchange of communications and allows for the export or reexport of related software, hardware, and technology, provided such transactions comply with the Department of Commerce’s Export Administration Regulations. However, it is important to note that transactions involving significant Russian telecommunications companies designated by OFAC remain unauthorised under this license and must be carefully analysed.
The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control has also issued a critical alert regarding Russia’s attempts to evade sanctions by establishing new overseas branches and subsidiaries of Russian financial institutions. That alert warns that these efforts to open new international branches or subsidiaries should be considered potential red flags for sanction evasion.
Financial institutions and foreign regulators are advised to exercise caution when engaging with these entities, as activities such as maintaining accounts, transferring funds, or providing financial services may carry significant risks of facilitating Russia’s attempts to bypass sanctions.
Germany’s domestic intelligence agency has warned about a Russian cyber group tied to the military intelligence agency, GRU. Known as Unit 29155 or UNC2589, the group has been accused of launching cyberattacks against NATO and the EU countries, escalating concerns about Russian interference. In a coordinated effort, Germany’s Bundesverfassungsschutz issued the alert in collaboration with the FBI, US cybersecurity agencies, and other international partners.
The warning follows a wave of suspicion across Europe regarding Russian cyber activities, particularly since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Earlier this year, Germany accused Russia of targeting the Social Democratic Party as well as industries like defence, aerospace, and logistics. These attacks have been attributed to UNC2589, also known by other names such as Cadet Blizzard or Ember Bear.
The cyber group is reportedly involved in espionage and sabotage, with tactics that include defacing websites and leaking stolen data. The GRU unit to which it belongs is notorious for its alleged role in the poisoning of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Britain in 2018, further cementing its reputation as a severe threat to international security.
The US government indicted two Russian nationals and seized over 30 internet domains on Wednesday, disrupting an operation aimed at influencing the American election. However, an extensive FBI dossier revealed a broader Russian campaign targeting political and social stability in Europe. The 277-page affidavit detailed plans to manipulate politicians, businesspeople, journalists, and influencers in Germany, France, Italy, and the UK, with the Kremlin intending to sow division, discredit the US, and undermine support for Ukraine.
Documents showed the Social Design Agency, under the directive of Sergey Kiriyenko, Deputy Chief of Staff to President Vladimir Putin, orchestrated these efforts. The agency used real posts on social media to bypass bot filters and created ‘doppelgänger domains’ that mimicked reputable media outlets like Reuters and Le Monde to spread fake news. Funded by cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, these sophisticated methods aimed to provoke rational and emotional anti-West sentiments, questioning the necessity of supporting Ukraine and criticising Americans.
Germany was identified as particularly vulnerable due to its economic ties with Russia. Russian memos stressed discrediting the USA, Great Britain, and NATO, while convincing Germans to oppose sanctions.
Another operation, ‘International Conflict Incitement,’ focused on escalating tensions in France and Germany, using fake articles and targeted social media posts to create conflicts and destabilise these societies.
Why does it matter?
The findings underscore how pervasive strategic manipulation of public opinion through sophisticated cyber operations is. Through FBI evidence, the depth and breadth of these influence operations to escalate internal tensions and to promote the interests of the Russian Federation are made clear, highlighting ongoing geopolitical tensions and the sophisticated nature of modern information warfare.
Latvian cybersecurity officials report that politically motivated hackers linked to Russia and Belarus are launching a new wave of cyberattacks against the Latvian government and critical infrastructure websites. The attacks aim to disrupt access rather than steal sensitive data, according to Baiba Kaskina, head of the Latvian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT). Varis Teivans, deputy manager of Latvian CERT, highlighted this trend two years ago in an interview with Recorded Future News.
In August, the frequency of attacks surged again, likely in response to Latvia’s new aid package to Ukraine, which includes drones and air defense systems. Vineta Sprugaine, a representative of the Latvian State Radio and Television Center, noted that such attacks often coincide with political decisions or holidays.
Most of these incidents involve distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, which temporarily slow down targeted websites. Kaskina described the attacks as “very large” in volume and “well customized” to their targets.
Russia-linked hacktivist groups, including NoName057(16) and Anonymous Guys, have claimed responsibility for the recent cyberattacks on Latvian websites, asserting they are retaliating against Latvia for supporting Ukraine. NoName057(16) declared on Telegram, “We continue to punish Russophobic Latvia for aiding the criminal Kyiv regime.”
Baiba Kaskina acknowledged that while Latvia is ‘well prepared’ for these attacks, the constantly evolving tactics of the hackers make them challenging to combat. She described the attacks on Latvia and other Baltic states as part of a ‘hybrid war’ aimed at creating societal panic and eroding trust in government institutions.
According to Lumen Technologies, a Chinese hacking group has exploited a software flaw, compromising several internet companies in the US and abroad. Researchers at Lumen revealed that the hackers targeted a previously unknown vulnerability in Versa Director, a software platform used by Santa Clara-based Versa Networks. The attack began early in June and affected four US firms and one in India.
Versa Networks acknowledged the flaw and urged customers to update their software. Lumen’s researchers believe the hacking campaign was conducted by the Chinese government-backed group, ‘Volt Typhoon.’
Allegedly, the attackers aimed to surveil the customers of the compromised internet companies. Cybersecurity experts warn that such access could enable broad, undetected surveillance.
The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency added the Versa vulnerability to its list of known exploited weaknesses. Concerns over China’s cyber activities have grown, with US officials noting an increase in the intensity of these efforts. In April, the FBI warned that China was developing the capability to disrupt critical infrastructure.
Meta recently announced that it had detected attempts to hack WhatsApp accounts belonging to US officials from both the Biden and Trump administrations. The company linked these efforts to an Iranian hacker group, APT42, which has previously been connected to breaches in the Trump campaign. Meta described the attempts as a small-scale operation using social engineering tactics, where hackers posed as technical support from major companies like AOL, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft.
After users flagged these suspicious activities, Meta blocked the accounts and confirmed that none of the targeted WhatsApp accounts had been compromised. The company explained that APT42 is known for deploying surveillance software on victims’ mobile devices, enabling them to access calls and text messages and even activate cameras and microphones without detection.
These hacking attempts are reportedly part of a broader campaign targeting US presidential campaigns earlier this month, just ahead of the upcoming presidential election. While Meta did not disclose the identities of those targeted, it indicated that the hackers focused on political and diplomatic figures, as well as business leaders from several countries, including the US, UK, Israel, the Palestinian territories, and Iran.
Meta’s findings underscore the ongoing risks of cyber-attacks targeting political figures and highlight the need for increased vigilance as the US heads into a critical election period.
The collaboration will focus on creating software tailored to Australia’s regulatory environment. Google will contribute its existing open-source vulnerability database and AI services, while CSIRO will apply its research expertise to enhance the project’s outcomes. The goal is to provide customised cybersecurity solutions that align with local laws and promote greater compliance and trust.
The partnership is part of Google’s commitment to invest A$1 billion in Australia over five years, a pledge made in 2021 amidst Australia’s efforts to enforce stricter regulations on global tech companies. The collaboration is seen as a critical step in bolstering the country’s defences against cyber threats.
Why does this matter?
The Australian government has recently imposed stricter requirements on critical infrastructure operators to report and prevent cyberattacks following a series of breaches that compromised the personal data of millions of Australians. The tools developed through this partnership aim to mitigate such risks and ensure the security of essential services.
The findings from this research will be made publicly available, ensuring that critical infrastructure operators can easily access the information and improve their cybersecurity measures.
Halliburton, a major US oilfield services company, experienced a cyberattack on Wednesday, affecting certain systems and disrupting business operations at its north Houston campus and global networks. The company is working with external experts to resolve the issue and has advised some staff not to connect to internal networks as they investigate the cause and impact of the attack.
Cyberattacks have become a significant concern for the energy sector following high-profile incidents like the 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack that led to fuel shortages and price spikes. Although details about the Halliburton attack remain unclear, ransomware attacks typically involve hackers encrypting data and demanding payment for its release, with threats to leak confidential information if their demands are not met.
Halliburton, one of the largest oilfield services firms globally, is now the latest in a series of major US companies targeted by cybercriminals, raising further alarm in an industry already on high alert for such threats.
Switzerland has announced its decision to join the European Cyber Security Organisation (ECSO) to bolster its defences against cyber threats. By becoming a member, Switzerland will gain access to valuable information on technological advancements and be able to collaborate with a network of experts across Europe, enhancing its ability to combat online attacks.
The ECSO, which includes 300 members such as companies, universities, research centres, and European governments, provides a platform for sharing expertise and resources in cybersecurity. Switzerland’s move comes in response to a notable rise in cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns earlier this year, particularly surrounding a summit focused on establishing peace in Ukraine.
This membership reflects Switzerland’s proactive approach to strengthening its cybersecurity infrastructure, ensuring it remains resilient despite evolving digital threats.
‘2024 will be marked by an interplay between change, which is the essence of technological development, and continuity, which characterises digital governance efforts.’, said Dr Jovan Kurbalija in one of his interviews, predicting the year 2024 at its beginning.
Judging by developments in the social media realm, the year 2024 indeed appears to be the year of change, especially in the legal field, with disputes and implementations of newborn digital policies long in the ‘ongoing’ phase. Dr Kurbalija’s prediction connects us to some of the main topics Diplo and its Digital Watch Observatory are following, such as the issue of content moderation and freedom of speech in the social media world.
This taxonomic dichotomy could easily make us think of how, in the dimly lit corridors of power, where influence and control intertwine like the strands of a spider’s web, the role of social media has become a double-edged sword. On the one hand, platforms like 𝕏 stand as bastions of free speech, allowing voices to be heard that might otherwise be silenced. On the other hand, they are powerful instruments in the hands of those who control them, with the potential to shape public discourse narratives, influence public opinion, and even ignite conflicts. That is why the scrutiny 𝕏 faces for hosting extremist content raises essential questions about whether it is merely a censorship-free network, or a tool wielded by its enigmatic owner, Elon Musk, to further his agenda.
The story begins with the digital revolution, when the internet was hailed as the great equaliser, giving everyone a voice. Social media platforms emerged as the town squares of the 21st century, where ideas could be exchanged freely, unfiltered by traditional gatekeepers like governments or mainstream media. Under Musk’s ownership, 𝕏 has taken this principle to its extreme, often resisting calls for tighter content moderation to protect free speech. But as with all freedoms, this one also comes with a price.
The platform’s hands-off approach to content moderation has led to widespread concerns about its role in amplifying extremist content. The issue here is not just about spreading harmful material; it touches on the core of digital governance. Governments around the world are increasingly alarmed by the potential for social media platforms to become breeding grounds for radicalisation and violence. The recent scrutiny of 𝕏 is just the latest chapter in an ongoing struggle between the need for free expression and the imperative to maintain public safety.
The balance between these two forces is incredibly delicate in countries like Türkiye, for example, where the government has a history of cracking down on dissent. The Turkish government’s decision to block instagram for nine days in August 2024 after the platform failed to comply with local laws and sensitivities is a stark reminder of the power dynamics at play. In this context, 𝕏’s refusal to bow to similar pressures can be seen as both a defiant stand for free speech and a dangerous gamble that could have far-reaching consequences.
But the story does not end there. The influence of social media extends far beyond any one country’s borders. In the UK, the recent riots have highlighted the role of platforms like 𝕏 and Meta in both facilitating and exacerbating social unrest. While Meta has taken a more proactive approach to content moderation, removing inflammatory material and attempting to prevent the spread of misinformation, 𝕏’s more relaxed policies have allowed a more comprehensive range of content to circulate. Such an approach has included not just legitimate protest organisations but also harmful rhetoric that has fuelled violence and division.
The contrast between the two platforms is stark. Meta, with its more stringent content policies, has been criticised for stifling free speech and suppressing dissenting voices. Yet, in the context of the British riots, its approach may have helped prevent the situation from escalating further. On the other hand, 𝕏 has been lauded for its commitment to free expression, but this freedom comes at a price. The platform’s role in the riots has drawn sharp criticism, with some accusing it of enabling the very violence it claims to oppose as the government officials have vowed action against tech platforms, even though Britain’s Online Safety Act will not be fully effective until next year. Meanwhile, the EU’s Digital Services Act, which Britain is no longer part of, is already in effect and will allegedly serve as a backup in similar disputes.
The British riots also serve as a cautionary tale about the power of social media to shape public discourse. In an age where information spreads at lightning speed, the ability of platforms like 𝕏 and Meta to influence events in real time is unprecedented. This kind of lever of power is not just a threat to governments but also a powerful tool that can be used to achieve political ends. For Musk, acquiring 𝕏 represents a business opportunity and a chance to shape the global discourse in ways that align with his future vision.
Musk did not even hesitate to accuse the European Commission of attempting to pull off what he describes as an ‘illegal secret deal’ with 𝕏. In one of his posts, he claimed the EU, with its stringent new regulations aimed at curbing online extremist content and misinformation, allegedly tried to coax 𝕏 into quietly censoring content to sidestep hefty fines. Other tech giants, according to Musk, nodded in agreement, but not 𝕏. The platform stood its ground, placing its unwavering belief in free speech above all else.
The European Commission offered 𝕏 an illegal secret deal: if we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us.
While the European Commission fired back, accusing 𝕏 of violating parts of the EU’s Digital Services Act, Musk’s bold stance has ignited a fiery debate. And here, it is not just about rules and fines anymore—it is a battle over the very soul of digital discourse. How far should governmental oversight go? And at what point does it start to choke the free exchange of ideas? Musk’s narrative paints 𝕏 as a lone warrior, holding the line against mounting pressure, and in doing so, forces us to confront the delicate dance between regulation and the freedom to speak openly in today’s digital world.
Furthermore, the cherry on top of the cake, in this case, is Musk’s close contact and support for the potential new president of the USA, Donald Trump, generating additional doubts about the concentration and acquisition of power by social media owners, respectively, tech giants and their allies. Namely, in an interview with Donald Trump, Elon Musk openly endorsed the candidate for the US presidency, discussing, among others, topics such as regulatory policies and the juridical system, thus fueling speculation about his platform 𝕏 as a powerful oligarchic lever of power.
At this point, it is already crystal clear that governments are grappling with how to regulate these platforms and the difficult choices they are faced with. On the one hand, there is a clear need to implement optimal measures in order to achieve greater oversight in preventing the spread of extremist content and protecting public safety. On the other hand, too much regulation risks stifling the very freedoms that social media platforms were created to protect. This delicate dichotomy is at the heart of the ongoing debate about the role of tech giants in a modern, digital society.
The story of 𝕏 and its role in hosting extremist content is more than just the platform itself. It is about the power of technology to shape our world, for better or worse. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, the questions raised by 𝕏’s approach to content moderation will only become more urgent. And in the corridors of power, where decisions that shape our future are made, answers to those questions will determine the fate of the internet itself.
