I’d better not express what impression I’m getting from your words, dude.

Usually the common vulnerability is a combination of Outlook and Active Directory. Outlook will happily execute whatever users click upon and AD lets them steal their credentials, to simplify things.

While the exact contents of these transmissions cannot currently be determined, the sudden appearance of a new station with international rebroadcast characteristics warrants heightened situational awareness,

We can’t tell you what we’ve found, but believe us, it’s very, very wicked. Where have I heard that before?

Here’s one attempt to explain: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/03/joy-at-death-and-destruction/ (Craig Murray isn’t some crackpot pulling thoughts out of thin air, he’s a former British ambassador and fairly famous whistleblower).

You’re welcome. It was a pleasure to set someomes ideas about Mr Gates right.

Encryption alone won’t prevent ransomware to encrypt it again. The original files need to be readable after all, so they are either unencrypted at boot or appear unencrypted to the (infected) client by machine/session key management. Nevertheless, adding an addittional, "“hostile” encryption layer will make them unreadable. The reasonable thing would be not to use a monocultural, standard setup that is known to be vulnerable to that kind of attack and first of all to get rid of fucking Outlook which has always been a dumpster fire.

Wikipedia for a beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML I remember The Register having a more detailed (and pretty snarky) article about it back then, but I didn’t search for it yet.

Let me assure you that the original board that was voting for Open Office’s proposal was absolutely pissed off, short of dissolving but eventually unable to revert the decision because of it’s formal correctness.

…and bribed the represenatives of the “new” IETF members as well as their governments to vote for Microsoft’s standard. The latter was, of course, a matter strictly between “business partners” and probably barred behind NDAs, so “legal” as long as nobody would blow the wistle.

Ransomware attack are successful mostly against MS Active Directory and Ourlook based setups.

There are some people who míght learn from a ransomware attack. Only if it personally hits them, of course.

“bribed” is a gross simplifiction of the almost hilariously evil plot they pulled to get OOXML certified. They actually bribed a couple of smaller nation states to become IETF members and vote for Microsoft’s standard. It was a major scandal back in the day but formally legal.

This sound so horrible, I might finally “upgrade” to 11.

Merz is actually busy playing good poodle with Mister Trump. If you’re exoecting any bit of morale ethics or decent human behaviour from the 2m of useless vertical growth that is our chancellor, you’re hopelessly optimistic.

Hm. I don’t know that “god”, but he sure has weird friends.

“The assaults against Iran are in clear violation of international law.” Conservative politician Norbert Röttgen said, “but that can’t be the only argument dealing with a regime oppressing it’s own people”.

So international law is now officially no longer binding if you’re on the “right side”. What a spineless, opportunistic, double talking hypocrite. And he’s not the only one.

That implicated with bombing cities. What the fuck do people expect to happen if you’re throwing a couple tons of explosives on densely inhabited urban areas?

Even by Trump’s standards it seems quite unhinged, indeed. Sounds bat shit crazy, tbh.

Hundreds of FBI staff are focused on the issue – and multiple indictments have been brought against individuals linked to Beijing accused of espionage in the US – but investigators are “out-resourced by China in many areas,” he said.

…he said, concluding three paraphrases about how many, many Chinese agents are virtually everywhere. And to answer you second question, “we guys” are coming up with this crap by actually reading articles instead of just trolling around after taking a short look at the headlines.

Unless you’re finding the (not too) subtle “we need more police and intelligence because the Chinese are outnumberung us” spin in the article.