The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has issued a postmortem on a recent data leak in which a contractor published dozens of internal CISA credentials — including AWS Govcloud keys — in a public GitHub repository for almost six months before being notified by KrebsOnSecurity. Experts say the gaps identified in the agency’s initial response provide important lessons that all security teams should absorb.

On May 15, 2026, the security firm GitGuardian asked for help in notifying CISA about the existence of a public GitHub repository called “Private CISA” that included 844 MB of sensitive CISA-related data. One of the exposed files, titled “importantAWStokens,” included the administrative credentials to three Amazon AWS GovCloud servers. Another file — “AWS-Workspace-Firefox-Passwords.csv” — listed plaintext usernames and passwords for dozens of internal CISA systems.

CISA quickly acknowledged our initial alert, but took more than 48 hours to invalidate the AWS keys and many other important secrets leaked in the GitHub repo. In its report on the data leak, CISA said the complexities of the agency’s systems and interconnections with federal and industry partners caused its key rotation to take longer than anticipated.

“Drawing on this experience, CISA encourages others to maintain mature and well-tested key management capabilities,” the report notes.

CISA also admitted it can do better when it comes to responding to security incident notifications from external parties. The postmortem stresses that clear and distinct reporting channels are essential to ensure that incidents affecting the organization itself are handled differently from those involving its products or customers.

“In CISA’s case, these channels were not well defined, leading the security researcher to try multiple avenues – including emailing the contractor, submitting through CISA’s vulnerability disclosure platform (which is intended for vulnerabilities impacting the broader cybersecurity community), and ultimately involving a reporter,” reads the analysis written by Preston Werntz and Brad Libbey, the acting chief information officer and acting chief information security officer at CISA, respectively.

CISA said it is refining its reporting channels to make them easier and faster for researchers. “Additionally, while many researchers rely on the security.txt file, organizations can ensure clarity by publishing reporting instructions in multiple prominent locations,” the CISA authors wrote.

Guillaume Valadon, the GitGuardian researcher who first contacted KrebsOnSecurity about the exposed CISA credentials, said CISA ignored nine automated alerts about the exposed credentials prior to our notification on May 15. Valadon’s company constantly scans public code repositories at GitHub and elsewhere for exposed secrets, automatically alerting the offending accounts of any apparent sensitive data exposures.

“Letting nine notification emails go unanswered is how a one-day incident becomes a six-month exposure,” Valadon wrote in an analysis of CISA’s report. “Make it trivial to report a leak about you, not just about your products. The person reporting a leak to you is not the threat. Publish a security.txt, but do not stop there. Put reporting instructions in several prominent places, and make sure a report about your own infrastructure does not land in a product-bug queue.”

The report’s authors also emphasized the importance of continuously scanning public code repositories like GitHub for exposed secrets, and said CISA has since rotated all secrets and created an action plan to improve management of developer secrets and to better monitor for them going forward.

The report notes that while CISA had developed a playbook for responding to cybersecurity incidents, that playbook somehow didn’t include what to do in situations involving GitHub or other cloud services. Valadon said the report validates the need to scan continuously — not just quarterly — for exposed secrets.

“The Private-CISA repository sat public for six months,” Valadon wrote. “Continuous monitoring of public GitHub surfaced it. Comprehensive internal scanning could have caught the plaintext passwords and committed backups long before they left the building.”

CISA gave itself passing grades on several areas of security preparedness that it said helped the agency gauge the scope and impact of the exposed secrets, including enhanced logging capabilities, and the adoption of zero-trust principles in both its production and development systems. CISA said those detailed logs allowed it to show that no customer or mission data was exposed, and that the leaked credentials were not used outside of CISA’s environments. The agency said the contractor who exposed the secrets had their system access revoked.

Valadon reckons the biggest takeaway is the CISA postmortem itself, and praised the agency for being transparent about what worked and what didn’t.

“To my knowledge, it is also the first time a national cybersecurity agency has publicly advocated for secrets scanning and for simplifying relations with security researchers,” Valadon wrote. “That is exactly the incident communication we should expect from every organization.”

from the moral-panic-with-a-british-accent dept

Recently, politicians in the UK pushed forward with plans to eviscerate privacy and free speech on the internet by announcing a ban on social media for users under 16 that is set to take effect in Spring 2027. 

The UK government continues to falsely characterize this policy as a necessary response to growing concerns about online harms for young people. In reality, much like the Online Safety Act, it will cause more harm than it will prevent. 

Users of all ages are burdened with proving their age before accessing content, with social media platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X included in the ban. There remains no reliable, privacy-preserving method of verifying the age of every internet user and methods vary from one platform to the next.

Young people will not simply be protected from being contacted by adults or endlessly scrolling—they’ll also lose access to educational videos on YouTube, local events on Facebook, and potentially cut off from distant friends and family. 

Public policy must be effective, proportionate and respectful of fundamental rights. Young people deserve better than a policy built on panic, and all internet users deserve a safe and free internet. A social media ban generates headlines, but it will not solve the problem. 

A Brief History of Age-Gating in the UK

Age restriction proposals in the UK date back to a decade ago, when the proposed Digital Economy Bill was put forth to (among other things) restrict young people from accessing pornographic websites. While the Digital Economy Act of 2017 passed without age-based restrictions, it laid the groundwork for later age verification measures.

Over the next few years, age checks for porn websites were announced then delayed several times. But it wasn’t until a consultation under the 2016-2019 May government and the 2020 publication of the Online Harms Whitepaper that age verification became a broader idea.

In 2023, the UK passed the controversial Online Safety Act, establishing powers that could weaken privacy protections and freedom of expression for internet users worldwide. In July 2025, the government implemented age assurance measures on sites hosting “harmful” content. 

And despite politicians affirming repeatedly that the Online Safety Act would solve all of the problems with online safety, this year they decided it in fact did not go far enough. American social psychologist and The Anxious Generation author Jonathan Haidt—who has called for age-related social media bans around the world, despite significant scientific doubt about his research—met with the UK Health Secretary in February to push for the ban.

In March, politicians introduced plans for a social media ban into the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to “prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users” of “all regulated user-to-user services,” to be implemented by “highly-effective age assurance measures”—effectively banning under-16s from social media. 

When this proposal came before the House of Commons, MPs defeated and proposed their own amendment: enabling the Secretary of State to introduce provisions “requiring providers of specified internet services” to prevent access by children, under age 18 rather than 16, to specified internet services or to specified features; and to restrict access by children to specified internet services which ministers provide. 

But the social media ban does not stop there. The provision also requires internet service providers to limit the time kids spend online, and has rules about who can contact them online. These extreme rules will take decisions about using technology away from families and put them in the hands of government regulators. 

The history of this proposal shows that the UK government has repeatedly returned to the same flawed idea: restricting access to online services by requiring age checks for everyone. But the fundamental problems have not changed. There is still no widely available way to verify age online without compromising privacy—but even if there were, broad restrictions on social media will inevitably limit access to lawful speech, and valuable online communities, and arts and culture.

Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

Filed Under: age verification, kids, online safety act, social media, social media ban, uk

Ravie LakshmananJul 13, 2026Endpoint Security / Cybercrime

Cybersecurity researchers have flagged a new macOS information stealer called CrashStealer that’s capable of harvesting sensitive data from compromised systems.

Unlike other information stealers that are built on AppleScript droppers or Objective-C-based wrappers, CrashStealer is implemented in native C++, according to Jamf Threat Labs.

“It validates the victim’s login password locally before harvesting, collects broadly across browsers, cryptocurrency wallets, password managers, and the keychain, encrypts what it collects with AES-GCM before exfiltrating over libcurl, and persists by copying and re-signing itself,” security researcher Thijs Xhaflaire said in a report shared with The Hacker News.

CrashStealer is said to be distributed by means of a signed and Apple-notarized dropper that’s distributed as a disk image file named “Werkbit.app.” Because both the disk image and binary are notarized and carry a valid developer ID (“Emil Grigorov (WWB7JA7AQV)”), it passes Gatekeeper checks.

The disk image itself originates from the domain “werkbit[.]io,” which was registered in June 2026. In an interesting twist, the download is gated behind a meeting PIN, meaning the installer is served only to those site visitors who arrive with the right code rather than everyone.

The harvested data is then packaged into a ZIP archive and exfiltrated to an attacker-controlled server (“179.43.166[.]242”).

“CrashStealer’s delivery chain shows real care: rather than a bare, unsigned lure, the operators front the attack with a signed and notarized dropper that clears Gatekeeper before quietly fetching, re-signing and launching the payload,” Jamf said.

“What sets it apart from the commodity stealer crowd is less what it collects than how it is built: client-side AES-GCM encryption of the collected files, and an emphasis on analysis resistance through control-flow flattening, encrypted strings and layered anti-debugging.”