Connect with us

Tech

Save $150 on M5 MacBook Air 13-inch with 24GB RAM at B&H

Published

on

The upgraded M5 MacBook Air has 24GB of memory to boost performance, and it’s $150 off this weekend only.

B&H’s best-selling 13-inch MacBook Air configuration is $150 off as part of the Apple Authorized Reseller’s broader M5 MacBook Air sale. What makes this particular model especially appealing is its upgrade to 24GB of RAM.

Buy 13″ MacBook Air 24GB RAM for $1,349

Priced at $1,349 after the discount, the upgraded configuration in Silver features Apple’s M5 chip with a 10-core GPU and a bump up to 24GB of unified memory. Storage comes in at 512GB, but you can always add an external SSD if you’d like more space to store files.

Advertisement

According to B&H, limited supply is available at the reduced price, and we’ve seen other MacBook configurations sell out before the deals are set to end. Provided inventory holds, the $1,349 MacBook Air deal is set to expire on Aug. 9 at 11:59 p.m. EDT. B&H does close for 24 hours at sundown tonight, though, so if you’re planning on snapping up this offer, it’s best to shop early.

B&H is also throwing in free 2-day shipping within the contiguous U.S. so you won’t have to wait long for your new system, which is great if the laptop is a back-to-school purchase.

For even more offers and the latest availability, be sure to check out our M5 MacBook Air 13-inch Price Guide, which is updated throughout the day.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech

The BBC Tetris Companion | Hackaday

Published

on

[Leaded Solder] took on an interesting challenge. The BBC, apparently, produced a game console known as the BBC Bridge Companion that connected to your TV and helped you learn to play Bridge back in 1985. At £200, we doubt many were sold new, but there were nine ROM cartridges available, presumably at an additional cost. [Leaded Solder] doesn’t care about playing bridge, but decided to teach the computer itself to play Tetris.

Inside is what you might expect for 1985. A Z80 and TI video chip, although naturally enough, it is the PAL variant. With 16K of VRAM the machine would have been very capable for its day. Unlike some game systems, the Bridge Companion runs its own code before launching what’s on the ROM cartridge. That required a few evenings of reverse engineering to figure out the correct header. Meanwhile, the surplus real hardware needed a quick repair on its cartridge slot before he could test it with real metal.

There were more hurdles, including adapting the PAL output for a composite monitor. Don’t miss the second part of the series for more technical details, and we’ll be interested in following the posts to their conclusion later this month.

Advertisement

Oddly enough, we think this is the first time the BBC Bridge Companion has made an appearance on Hackaday. However, we’ve had no shortage of card shufflers.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

V2X Technology Gets a 5G Cellphone Network Solution

Published

on

The history of networking is full of tools that repurposed solutions to very different kinds of problems first. Wi-Fi’s origins trace back, in part, to a team of Australian radio astronomers trying to detect signals from evaporating black holes. But the data-processing tools they’d developed also proved capable at extracting clean messages from any chaotic, echoing signal environment. Echoes are echoes, after all, whether from distant star systems or from the far corner of the house.

I research vehicle communications networks, connecting cars to cars and to transportation infrastructure like traffic lights—for tomorrow’s vehicle-to-everthing (V2X) networks.

V2X research has long relied on models that assume “perfect” or “ideal” network conditions, which is a simplifying assumption that makes the math tractable. But this assumption doesn’t reflect how real wireless signals behave in a moving, obstructed, high-density environment. That gap is exactly the kind of real-world unpredictability that open radio access networks (a.k.a. O-RAN)—an open, programmable architecture behind some 4G and 5G cellular networks—were built to manage.

So why has the O-RAN standard—which is open and available to be applied well beyond 5G telecom—never been used for vehicle communications?

Advertisement

Solutions to the vehicle-to-everything (V2X) problem have to date relied on new networking protocols built from scratch—only to discover chicken-and-egg problems, thorny standards wars, and real signal congestion challenges at scale.

By contrast, O-RAN allows V2X engineers to reuse the networking protocols already developed for cellular communications. O-RAN was developed assuming cellphone towers are generally fixed in place. But, as can be seen below, O-RAN accommodates mobile “towers”—cars and trucks, in this case—with little additional effort.

Imagining a New Way to Connect Vehicles

Self-driving vehicle technology has largely been an each-car-for-itself endeavor. Tesla’s approach, for instance, relies heavily on powerful on-board banks of computers and suites of sensors spread around the car.

However, as an alternative to the “data center on wheels” model, this new O-RAN approach to V2X relies on each car’s nearby neighbors, wherever they are on the road. Each O-RAN–connected vehicle can then use a diversity of cars’ sensors and viewing angles for better group coordination and decision-making.

Advertisement

There is, to be clear, no O-RAN V2X test network operating in the world. Not yet.

It was just 10 years ago that the Third-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) released its initial cellular V2X standard. The 3GPP have refined V2X over three major releases since. In the U.S. and the EU, the FCC and related European agencies have put forward other standards for short-range wireless V2X communication protocols.

However, no consensus standard has yet emerged. So, lacking any clear, unambiguous guidance on the future of V2X networks, autonomous-car makers—like Waymo, Tesla, Zoox, and Cruise—have leaned more on self-reliance, bulking up each vehicle with as many sensors and GPUs as possible.

Here, though, is where O-RAN might be able to help.

Advertisement

A little like APIs (a.k.a. application program interfaces) connect one app to another on your smartphone, O-RAN serves as an API for the network itself. And because of O-RAN’s open standards, a wireless network becomes programmable, vendor-neutral, and open to custom applications called xApps.

To test our proof-of-concept framework, I have been part of a team simulating five minutes of O-RAN V2X network traffic over one square kilometer of urban area, using real buildings and real-world road layouts from OpenStreetMap and traffic patterns generated by the modeling package SUMO. The simulations assumed a traffic density of 50-70 vehicles per kilometer—not rush hour but not light traffic either. In our simulation, we assumed vehicles communicated via a millimeter-wave frequency of 28 gigahertz and that each component of our O-RAN V2X system had its own dedicated xApp.

Taken together, these inputs—real geometry, real traffic, and each vehicle’s live GPS position—constitute what network researchers call a digital twin of the urban environment. That’s a virtual replica detailed enough for the network to reason about the physical world in real time.

This virtual world gave us a real result, too.

Advertisement

The simulations, published recently in IEEE Network, revealed that existing V2X standards—in which cars uncoordinatedly spit out messages into the network—result in signals “talking” over each other some 80-100 percent of the time. However, using O-RAN signal coordination, the message “collision” rate dropped to near zero.

And that matters because a seized-up V2X network doesn’t just fail quietly. It can fail in ways that might make a road turn treacherous.

How O-RAN Can Coordinate V2X Traffic

High-frequency data links between cars are already difficult to maintain, even on a clear day with no buildings or city infrastructure getting in the way.

Yet, in this situation, existing V2X networks leave a car to conduct blind searches for each dropped signal beam. Traveling at highway speeds, that search takes long enough for the surrounding world to change completely.

Advertisement

An O-RAN network continuously tracks signal conditions across the network, and in O-RAN V2X simulations, we also gave the network access to a detailed map of the urban environment—building positions, road geometry, intersection layouts—combined with each vehicle’s GPS trajectory. Together, these parameters let the network’s control layer predict where and when a signal link is about to fail and instruct each car’s antenna to adjust before the connection drops.

Signal pointing is one failure mode. Losing the connection entirely—because no direct path exists at all—is another.

Consider, for instance, a crossroads of two busy streets, with a few alleys and parking lots adding to the list of potential dangers.

If a signal from car A cannot reach car B directly, or if the path length is too far for an individual beam to travel, the signal must find an intermediary car or stationary sensor nearby that can pass along the message. And existing V2X standards are slow and reactive—polling potential relay vehicles one-by-one: Are you available? Can you redirect this message?

Advertisement

By contrast, O-RAN keeps a running graph of optimized message routes, accounting for a range of real-world constraints. So when an O-RAN link fails (whether that link is direct from sender to receiver—or indirect), the system already has a reroute mapped out.

This is partly why we included “multi-hop routing” in the O-RAN V2X simulations.

Multi-hop V2X O-RAN routing complicated three separate elements of the simulation: for each signal’s middleman (some cars may be ideally positioned to relay a signal from car A to car B, but we made the simulation neglect any cars that were also overwhelmed with their own signals and signal-processing needs); for each signal’s strength (we required that every intermediate link be able to maintain a stable network connection, factoring in distance and traffic conditions); and for each signal’s latency (we required a realistic accounting for added signal latency time for each additional hop in a multi-hop routing).

And with each added complication, O-RAN V2X multi-hop routing continued to extend the network’s capacity from 25 percent of nearby cars connected (without multi-hop) to nearly 100 percent (with multi-hop).

Advertisement

These complications, at least at the simulation level, did not slow down the V2X network.

How Could O-RAN Ever Be Scaled Up for the Real World?

We are in touch with potential collaborators and institutions to develop testbeds, prototype hardware, and tester vehicles for potential proving grounds. The Institute of Science Tokyo, for instance, has already expressed interest in working on some of these early-stage problems.

To date, our published research on O-RAN V2X has centered around a computer simulation only. Real-world hardware will undoubtedly surface challenges our simulation could not. So, questions of network latency and the computational overhead needed for O-RAN V2X signaling remain as yet unresolved.

Plus, concerns about full interoperability and realistic security will each demand their own investigations. After all, no one will trust a V2X network to do anything if that network’s cyber vulnerabilities haven’t been anticipated and patched in advance.

Advertisement

Realizing the O-RAN V2X vision will require progress on multiple fronts simultaneously. On the standards side, O-RAN’s vehicular extensions—the interfaces that allow vehicles to participate in the network as managed elements rather than passive users—would ultimately need to be formally adopted by the O-RAN Alliance and recognized by 3GPP’s V2X specifications. That process takes years.

On the industry side, there is a more immediate problem that our architecture is already positioned to solve: interoperability.

Today, a car made by one manufacturer cannot necessarily parse V2X sensor data sent from a car made by another. Firmware is proprietary; data formats differ. But an O-RAN control layer would act as a universal translator—normalizing each vehicle’s data into a common format and accelerating a push toward true multi-platform vehicle-to-vehicle communications. A more widespread and truly universal standard would, by itself, represent a substantial step forward for V2X.

From Your Site Articles

Advertisement

Related Articles Around the Web

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Top Google minds quit to build AI that accelerates research

Published

on

Discovery Loop wants to advance the pace of scientific discovery using AI to address issues across domains.

Chief scientist Jeff Dean is leaving Google after a 27-year-long stint to start a new company called Discovery Loop that wants to accelerate research using AI.

Alphabet and Radical Ventures are backing the business as founding investors alongside funding from Khosla Ventures.

The founding team at Discovery Loop also includes Dean’s other departing Google colleagues – senior fellow Sanjay Ghemawat, research vice-president at DeepMind Oriol Vinyals and research scientist Quoc Le.

Advertisement

Together, they have helped develop multiple generations of core Google products – including Search, Ads, Translate, Tensor Processing Units, DeepMind’s life sciences model AlphaFold and Gemini AI, among several more technologies – and claim to number among some of the most-cited AI researchers.

The four want to begin by focusing on automating the process of machine learning (ML) research and engineering. “Historically, scientific progress has relied on these sequential human iterations. In many domains, this process remains incredibly slow and labour-intensive,” Discovery Loop’s website reads.

“By advancing the pace at which we conduct engineering and scientific discovery, we can bring the benefits of science and technology to the world much faster.

“Ultimately, our goal is to build AI systems that act as a deeply positive, empowering force for humanity, delivering technology solutions that improve people’s lives on a global scale.”

Advertisement

The start-up plans to experiment with the technology on its own systems before expanding into other scientific domains, with the hopes of developing AI systems capable of drug development or addressing environmental crises.

“Jeff and Sanjay helped to drive some of the most significant technology transitions, from our early search infrastructure to the neural networks that helped create the modern AI era,” said Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

“We’ll continue to work with them as a founding investor and cloud partner, and collaborate on a research framework for ML systems and related infrastructure advances.” Alphabet stocks dipped more than 4pc at market close yesterday (5 August).

The departures mark a continuation of a years-long shakeup in the tech industry, with top minds moving between rivals such as Meta, Amazon, Apple and Arm, or launching their own R&D-focused AI ventures.

Advertisement

For Google, the latest exits comes after parent company Alphabet recently posted a better-than-expected quarterly revenue of $119.8bn driven by an 82pc growth in its cloud business.

The company’s big-budget expenses seem to be working, according to Pichai, who told investors on last month’s earnings call that almost 90pc of Fortune 100 companies use Gemini Enterprise. The Gemini app now has more than 950m monthly users, according to Google.

The company announced a further $15bn in capital expenditures for the year on the heels of its successful quarter. CNBC reported that Google is investing more than almost any company in the world in data centres, chips and related infrastructure.

Alphabet had initially announced a 2026 capex of up to $185bn, doubling expenses since last year to meet customer demand. This number was revised to $190bn in April, before estimations were further raised to now hit $205bn.

Advertisement

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Sony Might Be Rebooting Its 2020 Flagship Headphones

Published

on

When you can’t bring prices down, turn back the clock.

How does a headphone maker respond to rising prices? Well, if you’re Sony, the answer might be to revive a model from six years ago and slap a cheaper price tag on it. According to reliable leaker billbil-kun on Dealabs (via 9to5Google), Sony is planning to launch a new version of the WH-1000XM4. It’s said to be called the WH-1000XM4C and could retail for around $250.

The new model is expected to be largely unchanged from the original XM4, which was Engadget’s pick for the best of its generation. In fact, the leak suggests that the only differences between the XM4C and its discontinued predecessor will be battery life and color options. Its foldable design, 40mm drivers and noise-canceling processor would all carry over.

The new model is reportedly rated for up to 34 hours without active noise cancellation (ANC) and 27 hours with ANC. Sony listed 38 and 30 hours, respectively, for the 2020 model, so that would be a slight dip. The XM4C’s supposed color options include black, platinum silver and a new lavender.

Advertisement

The leaker, who accurately predicted the PS5 Pro announcement in 2024, claims Sony will release the new XM4C on September 7. The XM4C will reportedly cost €250 in Europe and £220 in the UK.

For reference, the current WH-1000XM6 retails for $460 in the US and €470 in the EU. So, we could guess at a $240 to $250 price tag for US buyers. That would make it an odd duck in Sony’s lineup, since the last-gen XM5 is often discounted to around $250. (If those are indeed your choices, obviously get the XM5.)

Of course, take all of this with grains of salt. But if the rumor holds up, perhaps other companies will respond to rising prices in similar ways. AirPods Max 1C, anyone?

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Anthropic confirms plans to build own AI chips amid global shortage

Published

on

The Claude creator will also put together a new team in charge of designing the custom-made chips.

As first reported by the Business Insider, artificial intelligence company Anthropic has confirmed plans to design its own chips in response to a worldwide shortage and increased pressure to develop faster, more advanced AI systems.   

In April, it was reported by Reuters that the organisation was strongly considering building its own chips, as a means of having improved access to a steady supply and keeping pace with competitors Meta and OpenAI, both of which have similar projects underway.

The latter previously announced the development of the Broadcom-built Jalapeño chip, designed for inference workloads, while Meta has been developing its own ‘MTIA’ accelerators for AI workloads.

Advertisement

The timeline as to when Anthropic’s chip production might begin is unclear; however, the company is looking to add to its workforce in order to meet future AI development expectations. As per a recent job listing, Anthropic is seeking professionals eager to join a custom silicon team. 

It is currently unknown if the organisation will manufacture the chips by itself, but it has been previously reported that Anthropic may be looking at Samsung as a potential partner in the development of the chips. 

While building custom silicon is the next step in Anthropic’s ongoing AI and chip strategy, the company reportedly still intends to utilise a diversified hardware stack that includes technology from Amazon Web Services, Google, Nvidia and ​AMD. 

In late July, Anthropic announced plans to partner with AMD for 2GW of its latest-generation chips, in a bid to boost AI capacity and meet growing demands. The deal between the companies was reported to be worth “tens of billions of dollars”.

Advertisement

Anthropic is striving for dominance in the AI space ahead of a widely reported planned IPO, which is expected to value the company at more than $1trn. 

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Swiss government SharePoint breach compromised 200 accounts

Published

on

Switzerland flag

Switzerland’s federal IT office says hackers exploited vulnerabilities to breach its Microsoft SharePoint servers and compromised approximately 200 accounts.

The Federal Office for Information Technology and Telecommunication (BIT) detected the cyberattack after security specialists noticed unusual activity on its SharePoint servers on July 28.

After confirming the breach, BIT blocked external internet access to SharePoint, patched the suspected vulnerabilities, and reset the passwords for the affected accounts.

image

“During the analysis, security specialists discovered on Friday, July 31, that the login credentials for several accounts had been compromised,” BIT said.

The agency believes the attackers exploited SharePoint vulnerabilities disclosed by Microsoft in mid-July and fixed in the July Patch Tuesday updates. However, it has not disclosed which flaw was used.

Advertisement

The attack potentially involved either CVE-2026-56164, an actively exploited SharePoint privilege escalation vulnerability, or CVE-2026-50522, a critical remote code execution flaw later exploited to steal SharePoint machine keys and maintain access after servers were patched.

Both of these flaws were fixed as part of the July 2026 Patch Tuesday updates.

It remains unclear whether either vulnerability was used in the Swiss government attack or whether the attackers exploited another flaw fixed in the same updates.

BIT is investigating the incident with assistance from the Swiss Federal Office for Cyber Security and Microsoft.

Advertisement

So far, it has found no evidence that data was stolen beyond the compromised login credentials.

The agency said confidential information and particularly sensitive personal data are not permitted to be stored on the affected SharePoint platform.

BIT is reinstalling the compromised servers as a precaution, and external access will remain blocked until that work is completed.

Federal employees can continue accessing documents and sharing them with external personnel through alternative methods.

Advertisement

At this time, no ransomware or data extortion group has claimed responsibility for the breach.

BleepingComputer contacted BIT to ask which vulnerability was exploited and whether its investigation had uncovered evidence of data theft, but a response was not immediately available.


article image

Security teams log 54% of successful attacks and alert on just 14%. The rest move through your environment unseen.

The Picus whitepaper shows how breach and attack simulation tests your SIEM and EDR rules so threats stop slipping by detection.

Get the whitepaper

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Buc-ee’s Shies Away From John Oliver Challenge, Sues Tiny Ohio Convenience Store Instead

Published

on

from the cowards dept

Buc-ee’s trademark bullying ways continue! This company that has long been famous for its enormous gas station and convenience stores practically dripping in Americana is quickly building a national reputation for itself as a petulant trademark bully. It’s lawsuits are typically dumb and usually feature Buc-ee’s claim that it somehow owns every cartoon animal mascot depiction for convenience stores and gas stations, and even cartoon human mascots at times. It’s so bad that it even caught the attention of John Oliver recently, resulting in the show creating its own merchandise that is far more similar to the Buc-ee’s beaver than most of its lawsuit victims and Oliver literally begging them to file a lawsuit over it.

Well, the Buc-ee’s people appear to be cowards. Oliver made it clear that he and HBO have the willingness and legal war chest to do battle with Buc-ee’s. To date the company has not filed any lawsuit against Oliver or HBO. But it did just file another trademark suit against another small local convenience store after having just moved into the market.

Buc-ee’s, which opened its first location in Ohio earlier this year, is suing Beaver’s Mini Mart in Beavercreek for what they allege is trademark infringement. 

In the suit, filed days ago, Buc-ee’s alleges that the Mini Mart’s cartoon beaver mascot is too similar to their own, with its “wide eyes and a smile” that also “uses red as a predominant color,” and could cause confusion. 

The new Buc-ee’s location in Huber Heights, Ohio, is 16 miles from Beaver’s Mini Mart. Beaver’s Mini Mart customers say they have been shopping there for decades, while Buc-ee’s has existed in the Buckeye State only since April.

Advertisement

This is common practice for Buc-ee’s. The company expands into a new market and goes on a trademark suit blitz against anyone using one of these cartoon animal logos, beaver or otherwise. It doesn’t matter how long the victim company has been doing business there. It doesn’t matter how ingrained into the community they are. It doesn’t matter if every local in the area insists that there’s no confusion to be had between the two entities.

In this case, the Beaver’s Mini Mart has been around for decades. The entire community is awash in beaver-y iconography. I’ll let one of our anonymous commenters from our John Oliver post chime in here.

They are now trying to sue a place near where I grew up, the “Beavers MiniMart” convenience store in Beavercreek Ohio, where the local high school, Beavercreek High School, once had Bucky the Beaver as a mascot for their football team, the Battling Beavers, their cheerleaders are called the Beaverettes and there’s pep squad called the Beaver Patrol. There’s concrete statues that are 6-8 feet tall, all over the city. The city loves it’s fuckin’ beavers. Buc-ee’s probably doesn’t know what’s about to happen to them. It wont be pretty.

The signage from Buc-ee’s own lawsuit show just how unalike the branding for the two companies is.

From this, and wielding a trademark Buc-ee’s somehow has on the word “Beaver’s” Buc-ee’s alleges that there will be “confusion among consumers,” that the Mini Mart is trading on Buc-ee’s “goodwill,” and that all of this is causing “irreparable injury” to Buc-ee’s.

Ironically, it appears this very lawsuit is causing a dip in all of that supposed goodwill Buc-ee’s has in this particular community.

Advertisement

“Reading into it more that Buc-ee’s has gone after other companies over this… It just put a bad taste in my mouth because they just seem like such a fun company,” resident Sam Bryan told Nexstar’s WDTN. “To see this, that they’re coming after a small business like this, it upset me like it did a lot of Beavercreek residents.”

The town is named Beavercreek, the branding doesn’t look anything alike, and nobody is going to be confused about any of this. Buc-ee’s knows all of that. But trademark bullies typically just can’t help themselves and this is yet another in a long list of bullshit trademark lawsuits the company has filed.

If Beaver’s Mini Mart fights this, however, it would be an interesting move in its defense to point out that there is no similar lawsuit against John Oliver.

Filed Under: john oliver, trademark, trademark bullying

Companies: beaver’s mini mart, buc-ee’s, hbo

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Hedge fund cyberattacks tied to BlackFile-linked UNC6671 extortion group

Published

on

Extortion gang

Update: Added statement from Falcon extortion gang below.

A recent wave of cyberattacks targeting hedge funds, private-equity firms, and other financial organizations has been linked to UNC6671, an extortion group reportedly associated with the BlackFile threat actors.

The attribution comes after Reuters and Bloomberg reported that Point72 Asset Management, Millennium Management, Two Sigma Investments, Citadel, and several private-equity firms were targeted in recent attacks that relied on voice phishing (vishing) to trick employees into granting the attackers access to corporate systems.

image

Point72 reportedly told investors that it had been attacked but had not found evidence that client data was stolen, while Two Sigma said it had blocked an attempted intrusion and found no indication that its systems or data were affected.

Millennium declined to comment in response to questions from BleepingComputer. Citadel also declined to comment and referred BleepingComputer to Bloomberg’s reporting. Point72 and Two Sigma did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

In response to questions from BleepingComputer, Austin Larsen, a principal threat analyst at Google’s Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG), said the company tracks the vishing activity as UNC6671.

“While previously operating under the public brand ‘BlackFile,’ UNC6671 has diversified its extortion operations across multiple public brands, including Redact, Pink, Helix, and Falcon,” Larsen told BleepingComputer.

“GTIG assesses that a single core intrusion group is driving the helpdesk vishing and cloud data theft across these various public extortion brands.”

BlackFile is a data theft extortion group that first emerged in February 2025 when it conducted a wave of attacks targeting retail and hospitality organizations.

Advertisement

According to Mandiant’s report, the group’s targeting switched in July 2026 toward private-equity firms, hedge funds, major law firms, and financial-rating agencies after previously targeting organizations in the manufacturing, healthcare, real-estate, technology, transportation, and hospitality sectors.

“Between January and May 2026, GTIG tracked over $10.6 million USD in Bitcoin payments to group wallets. While initial demands reach upwards of $3 million, operators routinely settle for around $750,000 USD after negotiations,” Larsen said.

After publishing our story, the Falcon extortion group released a statement on their data leak site disputing some of Mandiant’s reporting.

“Falcon is a Redact affiliate. We are exclusively a Redact affiliate. We are not affiliated with, connected to, or under the same umbrella as Helix, Pink, or any other group named in Mandiant’s reporting,” the threat actors posted on their data leak site.

Advertisement

“We share no operators, infrastructure, tooling, negotiation channels, or proceeds with any group other than Redact.”

In May 2026, BlackFile announced on its data leak site that it was rebranding under the name Redact, under which it would continue its operations.

Vishing attacks target cloud environments

UNC6671 operators typically contact employees on their personal mobile phones while spoofing corporate helpdesks and claiming that workers need to enroll in passkeys or update their multi-factor authentication settings.

Victims are then directed to domains impersonating the targeted employee’s company that host adversary-in-the-middle phishing kits designed to steal credentials and session cookies in real time.

Advertisement

After stealing Microsoft 365 or Okta single-sign-on accounts, the attackers log into the SSO dashboard, which gives access to all the cloud platforms that are linked to the account.

Okta SSO account
Okta SSO dashboard with access to many cloud platforms

The hackers then use automated tools to steal data from all cloud services they gain access to and delete security notifications and password-reset emails from compromised inboxes.

Mandiant says the infrastructure and extortion network used in these attacks differ from those associated with Scattered Spider, which has historically employed similar helpdesk social-engineering tactics.

“While the helpdesk vishing and Adversary-in-the-Middle authentication interception share similarities with methods historically associated with Scattered Spider (UNC3944), GTIG tracks this specific infrastructure, domain registration pattern, and multi-brand extortion network as UNC6671,” Larsen told BleepingComputer.

Mandiant says it is currently assisting several dozen organizations compromised by UNC6671.

Advertisement

article image

Security teams log 54% of successful attacks and alert on just 14%. The rest move through your environment unseen.

The Picus whitepaper shows how breach and attack simulation tests your SIEM and EDR rules so threats stop slipping by detection.

Get the whitepaper

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Kalshi and Polymarket Bets On Clinical Trials Criticized As 'Ghastly'

Published

on

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: Billions of dollars are traded every week on the lightly regulated prediction market sites, where users bet on everything from movie reviews to elections to conflicts in the Middle East. Clinical trials are just the latest area where the industry’s rapid growth is raising ethical questions. Kalshi claims such bets will provide a new source of information about which drugs will get approved, and what clinical trials will show promising results, which the company says can help investors decide what new drugs to fund.

“If you want to ban profiting from the failure of clinical trials, you would start with the stock market, where the financial incentive for this type of profit is orders of magnitude larger,” said Kalshi spokesman Jack Such, pointing to stock market short sellers who have profited from clinical trial failures. “While Kalshi and the stock market are the same in this regard, they do differ in one important way: the stock market doesn’t give any valuable information to researchers,” Such said.

Drug trial researchers, though, are far from convinced. David Tsai, who runs clinical trials at a biotech company in the San Francisco Bay Area, started an online petition pushing for such betting to be banned, making the case that betting on drug trials “threatens the very foundation of trust and integrity in biotechnology.” Tsai is concerned that the prospect of betting provides those involved with a clinical trial a reason to tamper with the results for a prediction market payout. “If we were running a trial for an oncology drug that requires an infusion, a pharmacist who had placed a bet saying that it’s gonna work well, or doesn’t work well, could obviously adjust the infusion rate, could adjust the source temperature of the drug,” he said. “They could change any number of variables that could obviously have a direct impact [on] how the trial and the data and the patient safety would come out.”

Another skeptic is Nicholas Zaorsky, a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., who has helped run clinical trials and agrees that prediction markets can interfere with the advancement of life-saving drugs. “Prediction markets can be valuable in some settings because they aggregate information, but clinical trials are fundamentally different: investigators, coordinators, and sometimes even participants can directly influence aspects of the outcomes being wagered on,” Zaorsky said. “That creates financial incentives that risk undermining trial integrity.” Bettors should not be rooting for an experimental medicine to fail just to earn a buck, says Joshua Pederson, the father of a 12-year-old cancer patient enrolled in a clinical trial. “It’s a dark idea,” he said. “It’s quite ghastly.”

Advertisement

Kalshi, for its part, argues that its prediction markets could help patients track promising medical breakthroughs and clinical trials, enlisting experts including 23andMe founder Anne Wojcicki to make the case.

“Most patients don’t know about the choices available in clinical trials or which programs are most promising. The opportunity to have an open, transparent dataset about trial probabilities is extremely promising and empowering for people,” a white paper sponsored by Kalshi stated.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

3 V6 Engines With Shockingly Large Displacements

Published

on





Historically, miost of the largest-displacement engines in production today, only one is a six-cylinder. Even then, it’s an inline-6 rather than a V6. Historically, most of the largest six-cylinders in production have been of the inline variety. Oldsmobile’s giant 707 cu-in (11.6-liter) inline-six is a particularly gargantuan example, and it could be found in its flagship cars in the early 1910s. Two decades later, huge inline-six engines were still popular in luxury cars like the legendary Bentley 8 Litre, which wore its engine’s displacement as its nameplate.

In general, V6 engines don’t reach displacements anywhere close to their inline-six or V8 cousins. Many of the highest-horsepower modern V6 engines feature displacements in the 3.0-liter range, but there are a handful of older V6 engines that have boasted significantly higher displacement figures.

Many of those big V6 engines can be found under the hoods of trucks, but a few cars have also sported a high-displacement V6 in place of a traditional V8. These three engines are among the largest-displacement V6s to feature in production vehicles to date, with each one with the kind of displacement figure you’d expect to see in a V8 or V12 instead.

Advertisement

GM 4.3-liter Vortec V6

GM has a long history of making V6 engines for its trucks, with its Vortec V6 being a particularly notable chapter in that history. The automaker also fitted versions of the Vortec engine to cars like the Chevrolet Caprice and Chevrolet Monte Carlo, making it one of the largest V6 engines ever used in a passenger car. The 4.3-liter engine debuted in 1985 and was originally designed as an efficient workhorse, but in 1991, GM turned it into something very different.

Advertisement

The GMC Syclone was a high-performance pickup that was unlike anything else on the market, and it was powered by a turbocharged version of the Vortec V6. This factory-built hot rod produced 280 horsepower and sent it to all four wheels. As a result, it was very quick off the line. So quick, in fact, that Car and Driver famously pitted a Syclone against a V8-powered Ferrari 348 and found that the Syclone completed the quarter-mile 0.4 seconds faster. Adding insult to injury, the GMC also stopped faster than the Ferrari.

In the decades since, Ferrari has managed to squeeze far more horsepower out of its V6 engines than GMC did. The twin-turbocharged 3.0-liter V6 in the modern 296 GTB churns out 654 horsepower, and it’s assisted by an electric motor that increases the car’s combined power output to north of 800 horsepower. However, few V6 engines fitted to passenger cars have matched the Vortec’s 4.3-liter displacement.

Advertisement

GM 4.3-liter LV3 V6

The LV3 is another 4.3-liter V6 engine, and it was built to replace the previous 4.3-liter V6 that GM had been making for three decades. It shares its displacement with its predecessor, but not much else. That’s because the LV3’s design is related to GM’s latest V8 engines, including the LT-series V8s, while the older Vortec V6 was based on GM’s previous-generation V8 architecture.

In stock form, the LV3 made 285 horsepower and 305 lb-ft of torque at launch. Although it hasn’t received as much attention as the LT1 and LT2 V8 engines, some specialists have now built LV3 engines that make more than 1,000 horsepower. In early 2026, Scoggin-Dickey Parts Center (SDPC) showed off its latest LV3 project, which made 1,403 horsepower, with Hot Rod magazine an early look at the project. Another notable project saw a custom LV3 engine fitted to a Porsche 914. Both Chevrolet and GMC trucks have been fitted with the engine, although, unlike the older 4.3-liter V6, GM chose not to fit the LV3 into any passenger car models.

Advertisement

GMC 478 7.8-liter V6

Modern six-cylinder HD truck engines feature an inline-6 layout rather than a V6, but back in the ’60s, GMC offered a whole line of V6 engines. At the time of its launch in 1960, GM’s promotional material billed the engines as being longer-lasting than its previous truck engines, claiming that they would be able to cover 200,000 miles before needing a major overhaul.

The largest variant of the V6 engine measured 478 cu-in, or 7.8 liters. If that wasn’t enough, the same engine family also included a 275-horsepower Twin-Six V12 engine, which was later replaced by a 637 cu-in (10.4-liter) V8 engine. The record-breaking V6 was available in GMC’s 6500-series trucks, with diesel and gas variants available. Diesels were marketed as Toro-Flow engines and launched in 1964. Unfortunately, Toro-Flow engines became known for reliability issues, and they never became as popular as their gas-powered counterparts.

Advertisement



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025