BINANCE IS ONE of the world’s biggest cryptocurrency exchanges. As of Tuesday, it’s now also the scene of a major cryptocurrency theft. In what the company calls a “large-scale security breach,” hackers stole not only 7,000 bitcoin—equivalent to over $40 million—but also some user two-factor authentication codes and API tokens.
Theft has long been endemic to cryptocurrency; hackers stole more than $356 million from exchanges and infrastructure in the first three months of 2019 alone, according to a recent report from blockchain intelligence company Ciphertrace. But it’s less common to see an established exchange like Binance get hacked—and for the attackers to get so much other information along the way.
It’s time to pour one out, because BlackBerry Messenger is shutting down.
It was announced today that the consumer version of BBM is closing on May 31st, 2019. After that date, the BBM app will stop working. Emtek, who licensed the BBM consumer business from BlackBerry in 2016, says that BBM stickers and BBMoji can’t be exported out of the app, so you won’t be able to use them after the shutdown. You can issue refunds of your in-app purchases for stickers that you’ve bought, though.
LILY HAY NEWMAN
Lily Hay Newman is a staff writer and the lead blogger for Future Tense.
Hackers have already developed myriad phishing and spear phishing attacks to steal personal data or gain control of computers. But here comes another one: the latest trend in cyber attacks is called typosquatting, and it’s a clever con.
Anonymous had already threatened war on Mr Trump in December, after his controversial comments about banning Muslims from the US. That campaign included cyber attacks on various websites, taking them down for just a few hours but causing no lasting damage.
It also claimed credit for hacking into Mr Trump’s voicemail, and apparently leaking messages from journalists and supporters.
The US teenager, whose activism and online success had made him a youth outreach chairman for Republican Ted Cruz, had been trading messages with a reporter for Glenn Beck’s news site, The Blaze.
Oliver Darcy, a reporter for the site, was asking Pearson to prove – as he had claimed, to great viral attention – that US President Barack Obama had truly blocked him on Twitter. In lieu of proof, Pearson was calling for help.
“In a few minutes, @oliverdarcy is going to release a hit article on me and I’m going to take it,” Pearson wrote..”Because here’s what the PR folks are saying: say you lied and apologise to avoid backlash. But, instead, I choose to stand by my word. While the article will be incriminating, all we have in politics is our word and I stand by it. Nevertheless, I’m disappointed in @theblaze.”
It was one of the more confusing moments in a story born to confuse. Coreco JaQuan Pearson’s profile had been growing well before the Twitter story, thanks to his precocious and silver-tongued video denunciations of the president.
The most successful had come just this month, when Pearson locked his eyes on a webcam and asked – rhetorically – why a president who so blatantly disrespected police officers had so quickly invited Texas teenager Ahmed Mohamed to the White House, after being disciplined for bringing to school a homemade clock that administrators mistook for a bomb.
“Mr President, when cops are being gunned down, you don’t invite their family to the White House,” Pearson said. “You never did. But when a Muslim kid builds a clock? Well, come on by.”
The video was viewed nearly two million times and inspired dozens of profiles, including one in The Washington Post.
People trying to understand the Pearson phenomenon got it quickly. Wunderkinds arise on the right with some frequency. In 2009, it was 13-year old Jonathan Krohn – also a Georgian – giving a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference and becoming a quasi-celebrity.
In 2013 it was Benji Backer, a 16-year old Wisconsinite whose story of high school administrators suppressing his political views got him onstage at CPAC and other conferences.
Neither Krohn nor Backer took to stardom. By 2012, Krohn was renouncing his old views in a series of interviews, and taking on a new life as a journalist. Backer’s exit was quicker: By 2015, he worried that a political life was making him “selfish.”
Pearson entered the political life with gusto, and no qualms. His first video, in February, was inspired by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ranting to a room of conservative donors (and a pre-presidential bid Scott Walker) that President Obama did not love America.
“I don’t want to be politically correct,” said Pearson. “I don’t care about being politically correct at this point. President Obama: You don’t love America. If you loved America, you would call ISIS what it is… if you loved America, President Obama, you wouldn’t try to take away what hard-working Americans have worked for their entire lives.”
That video scored two million views, success Pearson wouldn’t achieve on YouTube again until this month. But it was enough. By May, Pearson had a five-minute interview with Cruz that teed up the candidate’s favourite talking points.
“Have we not maintained our promise to the American people to repeal Obamacare?” Pearson asked.
“CJ,” said Cruz, “you’re exactly right.”
Pearson became a fervent Cruz supporter; in September, the Cruz campaign announced his new role as the head of “Teens for Ted,” and Pearson added a TedCruz.org email address to his Twitter profile. Simply by speaking his mind, Pearson had become a conservative star.
There was one catch. Pearson had done more than speak. He’d left the impression that his speech was being silenced. In March, after the Giuliani video went viral, Pearson’s Facebook account was closed.
He was 12 years old when he shot the video, and as Facebook told reporters, no one could have an account until age 13. Pearson was not having it.
He told a local Fox News affiliate that the First Amendment was “obviously not a big concern to the powers that be at Facebook.”
He told national Fox News that “time and time again, Facebook has shut down many conservative accounts after they decide to speak up.”
No one had really been denied access to Pearson’s speech, and he quickly solved the age problem by setting up a Facebook fan page and turning 13.
But just four months later, Pearson announced that he would “take a break from politics and commentary.” The reason was a complicated and quickly terminated fight with an obscure Twitter account with only (as of right now) 33 followers and no public profile.
Jon Richards, a blogger for Georgia’s PeachPundit, noticed that the most toxic aspect of the fight came from an account that egged it on with a racial slur. That account was easily traced back to Pearson.
Nothing came of either story, though, and Pearson started this week with more visibility than ever.
A spokesman for the Republican National Committee tweeted that he’d “love to discuss” a speaking role for Pearson. Business Insider upgraded him from a rising star to a “leading 13-year old pundit.” And then, Pearson tweeted what he claimed was a screenshot of @BarackObama blocking his account.
At first, no one questioned this. Twitchy, the conservative site that aggregates Twitter wars, reported that the White House was “afraid of a 13-year-old boy.”
The Daily Caller matter-of-factly reported that Pearson had been blocked, as did Breitbart, as did other conservative news sites. White House assistant press secretary Frank Benenati swiftly tweeted that Pearson was wrong, and that “nobody is or has ever been blocked from the @POTUS twitter account.”
That sent skeptics looking for cases where the account had blocked hostile accounts, and it inspired a new video from Pearson – which would be viewed half a million times – denouncing the White House for lying about him.
“They lied about Benghazi,” he said, in high dudgeon. “They lied about the IRS. They lie about every issue of importance to the American people.”
But other online sleuths could tell that something was off. First, a subsequent Pearson tweet revealed that he was still following @BarackObama.
Second, there was no timestamp or external information on the tweet, and the kerning on the standard text “learn more” was skewed. Coincidentally, a popular parody account had previously tweeted an identical image (now deleted) of an Obama “blocking,” with the same kerning.
Oliver Darcy, a reporter for the Blaze, dug into all of this and contacted Pearson. The wunderkind initially told him that he’d taken the shot on a Droid tablet.
In the video, Pearson had claimed that he saw the blocking when he “got home,” not specifying what device he’d used.
As more questions swirled online, Pearson warned his fans that the “incriminating” piece was coming, but never said publicly whether it could be trusted.
Then, two hours after Darcy’s piece went online, Pearson issued a fresh Facebook statement. “I’m not responding to fraudulent attacks on my character by the left nor RINOs,” Pearson wrote.
“My friend sent me the screenshot, since I accessed my account using his phone. I saw it with my own eyes. Time to move on.”
Benji Backer watched the events unfold with disgust. After a short conversation, he pointed to the tweetstorm he’d written after reading the Blaze piece, about how “young conservatives have made the movement look foolish.” He wasn’t a part of that, but he knew Pearson was headed for a fall.
“I tried to give CJ advice,” Backer wrote.
“And I know he’s going to lash out at me now. But we used to work together. I told him he had promise but that he had to keep it in perspective, truth [sic] and stay humble. Stardom can ruin those things and it did for him. CJ & I (when I was still in politics) were going to work on some things.
“But he didn’t like advice and he wanted ‘his brand’ to grow instead. People, including myself, tried to help CJ. I really thought he could do great things. But he wasn’t willing to listen. Most of all, CJ lied to me. Numerous times. And many people I know and love. That’s when I knew there was a problem.”
Reached on Twitter and at his campaign email account, Pearson did not respond to questions. According to Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler, CJ Pearson remains part of the campaign.
– The Washington Post
Yes, this news may sound familiar. WIRED reported back in 2011 that the Internet had run out of IP addresses, or more specifically, that an organization called Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) had run out of IPv4 addresses. Basically, IANA hands out blocks of IP addresses to regional organizations like ARIN and its counterparts around the world. So even after IANA ran out, many IPv4 addressees were still available. But now the regional organizations are running out, as well.
ARIN president John Curran explains that the organization isn’t entirely out of IPv4 addresses. Some are set aside for specific purposes, such as the exchange sites where connections between different Internet service providers’ networks meet. But providers that want new IP addresses will have to settle for IPv6 numbers unless old, unused IPv4 addresses are returned to the organization. ARIN has a waiting list for companies that want to get their hands on some of these recycled numbers.
Technologists have known for years that we would run out of IPv4 addresses, which is why the IPv6 standard was created in the late 1990s. While IPv4 was limited to just about 4 billion addresses, IPv6 will provide 340 undecillionaddresss (a one followed by thirty-six zeroes). That’s —enough to give 5×1028 addresses to every single person on the planet. And it’s already supported by all major operating systems.
The problem is that IPv4 and IPv6 aren’t entirely compatible. If you’re on an IPv6 network, you can’t browse a site running on a web server that uses only IPv4—such as WIRED’s site—without some sort of compatibility layer in between. Fortunately, Internet service providers have been working hard to update their infrastructure and support both standards.
Curran says Internet providers are doing a good job of the transition so far. In fact, most smart phones are already using IPv6, he says, and most people never notice. Just today Comcast, the largest Internet provider in the US, said its entire network now supports both IPv4 and IPv6.
The FBI has recovered personal and work-related e-mails from the private computer server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s success at salvaging personal e-mails that Clinton said had been deleted raises the possibility that the Democratic presidential candidate’s correspondence eventually could become public. The disclosure of such e-mails would likely fan the controversy over Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system for official business.
The FBI is investigating how and why classified information ended up on Clinton’s server. The probe probably will take at least several more months, according to the person, who described the matter on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing and deals with sensitive information.
A review by Clinton and her aides determined that about half of the 60,000 e-mails she exchanged during her four-year tenure as secretary of state were of a personal nature, the presidential candidate has said.
Those e-mails, she said, mostly dealt with planning for Chelsea’s wedding, yoga routines and condolence messages.
Clinton said the personal e-mails were deleted from the server and her staff turned over paper copies of the remaining work-related e-mails in December to the State Department for processing and archiving. The FBI obtained Clinton’s server from the Colorado-based company managing it.
Outside computer specialists have said the FBI has the technical capability to recover deleted e-mails. The exact number of personal e-mails recovered by the FBI could not be learned.
Once the e-mails have been extracted, a group of agents has been separating personal correspondence and passing along work-related messages to agents leading the investigation, the person said.
Since the existence of the e-mail system became public in March, Clinton has seen her standing in polls slide, particularly in regards to questions about her trustworthiness. She also has been heavily criticized by congressional Republicans who have raised questions over whether the private server jeopardized the security of sensitive data.
Internal government watchdogs have determined that classified information ended up on the system. Their findings sparked the FBI inquiry.
Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, did not respond to phone calls or e-mails seeking comment. Nick Merrill, a spokesman, said, “We’ve cooperated to date and will continue to do so, including answering any questions about this that anyone including the public may have.”
The bureau’s probe is expected to last at least several more months, according to the person. That timeline would push any final determination closer to the Democratic presidential primary calendar, which kicks off Feb. 1 with the Iowa caucuses.
A bureau spokeswoman, Carol Cratty, declined to discuss any aspect of the investigation. Emily Pierce, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, also declined to comment.
Clinton is not accused of any wrongdoing. She has said she is confident that material in her e-mails wasn’t marked as classified when it was sent and received through her server. For anyone who mishandled such information, prosecutors must prove that they knowingly did so to charge them with a crime.
The former secretary of state has said she decided to use a private e-mail address — email@example.com — to conduct all of her electronic correspondence as a matter of convenience, to avoid the need to carry two devices, one personal and one professional. She served from 2009 through 2013 as the nation’s top diplomat.
As the result of public information lawsuits, the State Department has posted almost 8,000 of those work-related e-mails on its website. The State Department has determined that dozens of the e-mails contained classified information.
Many of the work-related e-mails contain schedules, press clippings, staffing updates, speech notes, and requests to aides for tech support. Some e-mails are simply requests to speak with people over secure phone lines.
In 2013, the Clintons turned the private server over to a Colorado-based technology company to manage. The firm, Platte River Networks, installed the device in a New Jersey data center and managed and maintained it.
Andy Boian, a spokesman for the Platte River, said the FBI last month asked the company to hand over the server. Platte River asked the Clintons what it should do, and within 24 hours a representative for the Clintons told the company to provide the device to agents, Boian said.
There has been some question as to whether Clinton deleted her messages or took the more thorough and technical step of “wiping” the server. Boian said Tuesday that Platte River had “no knowledge of it being wiped.”
Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system is being examined by congressional committees that have the power to subpoena the FBI to obtain the messages. The e-mails also may be sought under public-information laws.
The FBI isn’t likely to hand over any such messages until its investigation has been completed. Even then, public records laws provide exceptions protecting personal information.
(Photo: Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook)
SAN FRANCISCO — WhatsApp has reached 900 million monthly active users, cementing Facebook’s dominance in mobile messaging.
Facebook owns the world’s two most popular apps: WhatsApp, which it bought for billions, and its homegrown app, Facebook Messenger, which recently announced it has 700 million monthly active users.
WhatsApp founder Jan Koum made the announcement on Facebook on Thursday evening.
Monthly active users isn’t the best way to measure activity on a messaging app. WhatsApp did not say how many messages are being sent each day, for example. But the growth is impressive. WhatsApp announced it had crossed 800 million in April. That is no small feat for either app: Smartphone owners spend more time in messaging apps than any other app.
Messenger is also surging in popularity. It’s now the second-most popular app in the U.S, surpassing Google-owned YouTube, according to a comScore report.
By way of comparison: Twitter has a bit more than 300 million monthly active users. Instagram, the photo and video sharing app owned by Facebook, also has about 300 million.
Still, WhatsApp faces fierce competition from Asian rivals. And those apps are making money from games, virtual goods and other in-app wares, moneymaking opportunities that Koum has rejected.
So far Facebook has not tried to milk WhatsApp and it’s still unclear how it plans to. In the first half of 2014, WhatsApp made $15 million from subscription fees on a loss of $232.5 million. WhatsApp was charging users $1 a year, with the first year free, before it was bought by Facebook.
Facebook’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg said during the company’s second-quarter earnings call that the company is not yet ready to turn on the moneymaking spigot with Messenger or WhatsApp.
Zuckerberg has said Facebook has “many clear ways” to make money from a product once it reaches one billion users.
“This may sound a little ridiculous to say, but for us, products don’t really get that interesting to turn into businesses until they have about 1 billion people using them,” Zuckerberg said in 2014.
One billion people, one out of seven on the planet, used Facebook on a single day in August .
“This was the first time we reached this milestone, and it’s just the beginning of connecting the whole world,” Zuckerberg wrote.