Tech site says Signal-like app used by Trump adviser was hacked
The app, TeleMessage, which mimics Signal's functionality, was reportedly used by former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, as indicated by a Reuters photograph showing him using the app during a cabinet meeting. The vulnerability exploited by the hacker highlights potential security risks associated with using unofficial communication platforms for sensitive government discussions.
Waltz was ousted Thursday, several weeks after the eruption of a scandal over his creation of a Signal group to share realtime updates on U.S. military action in Yemen. The chat drew particular attention because Waltz, or someone using his account, accidentally added a prominent journalist to the group.
The revelation that Waltz was using TeleMessage, which appears to have a similar interface and functionality as Signal, has only heightened the concerns over the security of his communications.
404 Media quoted the hacker - who didn't identify themself - as saying that they had broken into TeleMessage's backend infrastructure and been able to intercept some of its users' messages. 404 Media said the hacker provided them with material, some of which the news site was able to independently verify.
The publication said that the hacker did not intercept messages from Waltz or other Trump cabinet officials.
Reuters could not independently verify the report. Messages seeking comment from TeleMessage and its corporate owner, Portland, Oregon-based Smarsh, were not immediately returned. Messages seeking comment from Waltz and the White House also weren't immediately returned.
Signal is an end-to-end encrypted messaging platform whose technology is meant to frustrate hostile surveillance.
Smarsh's product TeleMessage, which the company is in the process of rebranding as Capture Mobile, is designed to capture the messages once they've been decrypted so they can be preserved and stored. That kind of additional functionality can be useful for complying with government rules on document retention but if poorly implemented it can introduce security risks.
A Signal spokesperson told Reuters earlier this week that the company "cannot guarantee the privacy or security properties of unofficial versions of Signal."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Cracker Barrel unveils a new logo as part of wider rebrand efforts, sparking ire among some online
NEW YORK (AP) — Cracker Barrel is marching forward with an ongoing makeover. And to the dismay of some fans, the chain's new logo now ditches the barrel itself. Or rather, the drawing many have associated with Cracker Barrel over the years. The man leaning on that barrel is also gone, as are the words 'Old Country Store.' Instead, the new emblem features a simpler design with just 'Cracker Barrel' written on a gold background, which also has a semi-updated shape. 'Anchored in Cracker Barrel's signature gold and brown tones, the updated visuals will appear across menus and marketing collateral,' the Tennessee-based company wrote in a Tuesday announcement. Cracker Barrel added that its logo is 'now rooted even more closely to the iconic barrel shape and word mark that started it all.' According to Cracker Barrel, this latest look marks the brand's 'fifth evolution' of its logo to date. It was unveiled as part of a campaign from the company called 'All the More,' which also advertises some new fall menu items. Cracker Barrel has been working on a wider rebrand for some time. Beyond a new logo, that's included remodeling its country-style restaurants and retail stores. The company began ramping up this overhaul last year by swapping out older, more antique-filled designs with lighter paint and modern furniture. Founded in 1969, Cracker Barrel operates nearly 660 locations across the U.S. today. Those attached to the chain's previous look have been quick to express ire about both the new logo and restaurant remodels online. 'Our values haven't changed, and the heart and soul of Cracker Barrel haven't changed,' Cracker Barrel said in a statement sent to The Associated Press on Thursday. The company added that the man on its former logo, known as Uncle Herschel, 'remains front and center in our restaurants and on our menu,' as he represents 'The Herschel Way,' which is 'the foundation of how our 70,000 plus employees provide the country hospitality for which we are known.'
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Russia questions Zelensky's ‘legitimacy,' calls security guarantees ‘hopeless'
Russia questioned the legitimacy of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday and said the security guarantees under discussion for a potential peace deal are 'hopeless.' Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a press conference that Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to meet with Zelensky — a move backed by President Trump — but only if certain conditions are met first. 'Our president has repeatedly said that he is ready to meet, including with Mr. Zelensky, with the understanding that all issues that require consideration at the highest level will be well worked out,' Lavrov said, according to a translation of his remarks in The Associated Press. 'And, of course, with the understanding that when and if the matter — I hope when — comes to signing future agreements, the issue of the legitimacy of the person who will sign these agreements with the Ukrainian side will be resolved,' he continued. Putin has repeatedly suggested Zelensky is not a legitimate president, since his term was due to expire last year and martial law delayed elections. The Russian leader has claimed Zelensky lacks legal standing to sign any formal agreements. Lavrov has been noncommittal about whether Putin would join a bilateral meeting with Zelensky, saying on Tuesday that any summit between the leaders should be prepared 'step by step, gradually, starting from the expert level and then going through all the necessary stages.' Lavrov also said Thursday that security guarantees for Ukraine should be based on the terms discussed in the talks in Istanbul in 2022. Ukraine has rejected that proposal. 'All the different (ideas), all the unilateral (moves) are an absolutely hopeless venture,' Lavrov said, according to Reuters. 'As the current discussions between the West and the Ukrainian side are essentially linked to providing guarantees in the form of the foreign military intervention of a certain part of the Ukrainian territory,' he continued. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in charge of a new joint commission, made up of the U.S., European and Ukrainian officials, that will craft a security guarantees draft for Ukraine. Lavrov said Wednesday that discussions about potential Western security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a broader peace deal to end the war are a 'road to nowhere' unless Moscow is involved in the talks. 'We have already explained more than once that Russia does not overstate its interests, but we will ensure our legitimate interests firmly and harshly,' Lavrov said Wednesday. 'And I am sure that in the West and above all in the United States they understand perfectly well that seriously discussing security issues without the Russian Federation is an utopia, a road to nowhere.'
Business Insider
3 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Why does Mark Zuckerberg want our kids to use chatbots? And other unanswered questions.
Peter Kafka: Welcome back from vacation, Katie. You were out last week when Reuters broke a story I desperately wanted to ask you about: A Meta document had been telling the people in charge of building its chatbots that "It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual." It's a bonkers report. A Meta spokesperson told Business Insider it has since revised the document and that its policies prohibit content that sexualizes children. I have so many questions for you. But maybe we can start with this one: Why does Meta want us to use chatbots, anyway? Katie Notopoulos: It was a bonkers report! I imagine Meta sees what companies like or Replika are doing — these companion chatbots that people are sinking hours and hours and real money into using. If you're a company like Meta that makes consumer apps for fun and socializing, this seems like the next big thing. You want people to spend lots and lots of time on your apps doing fun stuff. Of course, the question is, "Are these chatbots a good thing?" Peter: You read my mind, Katie. I do want to get to the Is-This-A-Good-Idea-In-General question. Let's stick with the Is-It-Good-For-Meta question for another minute, though: There are lots of things that people like to do online, and if Meta wanted to, it could try doing lots of those things. But it doesn't. I think it's obvious why Meta doesn't offer, say, porn. (Though some of its chatbots, as we will probably discuss, seem to nod a bit in that direction). But there are lots of other things it could offer that are engaging that it doesn't offer: A Spotify-like streaming service, for instance. Or a Netflix-like streaming service, or… OK. I think I might have partially answered my own question: Those two ideas would involve paying other people a lot of money to stream their songs or movies. Meta loves the model it has when users supply it with content for free, which is basically what you're doing when you spend time talking to an imaginary person. Katie: I think there's already a fair amount of evidence that (some) people enjoy talking to chatbots. We also know how other big AI leaders like Sam Altman or Dario Amodei have these grand visions of how AI will change the world and remake society for good or evil, but they all really do still love the idea of the movie "Her." Remember the Scarlett Johansen/OpenAI voice fiasco? Peter: OK, OK. I'll admit that I kind of like it when I ask ChatGPT something and it tells me I asked a smart question. (I'm pretty sure that most people would like that). I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time talking to ChatGPT for that reason, but I get it, and I get why other people may really like it. It still strikes me that many of the people who will want to spend time talking to fake computer people might be very young. Which brings us to the Reuters story, which uncovered a wild Meta document that spells out just what kind of stuff a Meta-run chatbot can say to kids (or anyone). Stuff like this, as Jeff Horwitz reports: "It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: 'your youthful form is a work of art')," the standards state. The document also notes that it would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that "every inch of you is a masterpiece — a treasure I cherish deeply." But the guidelines put a limit on sexy talk: "It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: 'soft rounded curves invite my touch')." Horwitz notes that this wasn't the result of some hopped-up Meta engineers dreaming up ideas on a whiteboard. It's from a 200-page document containing rules that got the OK from "Meta's legal, public policy and engineering staff, including its chief ethicist," Horwitz writes. I've read the report multiple times, and I still don't get it: Meta says it is revising the document — presumably to get rid of the most embarrassing rules — but how did it get there in the first place? Is this the result of the Mark Zuckerberg-instituted vibe shift from the beginning of the year, when he said Meta was going to stop listening to Big Government and just build without constraints? Is there some other idea at work here? And why do I keep thinking about this meme? View this post on Instagram A post shared by Scene In Black (@sceneinblack) [A Meta spokesperson shared the statement they gave Reuters, which said: "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors. Separate from the policies, there are hundreds of examples, notes, and annotations that reflect teams grappling with different hypothetical scenarios. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed."] Katie: My real issue here is even if Meta makes it so that the chatbots won't talk sexy to kids — does that make it "safe" for kids? Just because it's not doing the most obviously harmful things (talking sex or violence or whatever), does that mean it's fine for kids to use? I think the answer isn't clear, and likely, "No." Peter: We both have kids, and it's natural to focus on the harms that new tech can have on kids. That's what politicians are most definitely doing in the wake of the Reuters report — which highlights one of the risks that Meta has anytime a kid uses their product. I think it's worth noting that we've seen other examples of AI chatbots — some accessed through Meta, some via other apps — that have confused other people, or worse. Horwitz, the Reuters reporter, also published a story last week about a 76-year-old stroke survivor in New Jersey who tried to go meet a chatbot in New York City (he didn't make it, because he fell on the way to his train and eventually died from those injuries). And talking about kids eventually becomes a (worthwhile) discussion about who's responsible for those kids — their parents, or the tech companies trying to get those kids to spend their time and money with them (short answer, imho: both). I'd suggest that we widen the lens beyond kids, though, to a much larger group of People Who Might Not Understand What A Chatbot Really Is. Katie: Have you seen the r/MyBoyfriendIsAI subreddit for women who have fallen in love with AI chatbots? I am trying to look at this stuff with an open mind and not be too judgmental. I can see how, for plenty of people, an AI romantic companion is harmless fun. But it also seems pretty obvious that it appeals to really lonely people, and I don't think that falling in love with an AI is a totally healthy behavior. So you've got this thing that appeals to either the very young, or people who don't understand AI, or people who are mentally unwell or chronically lonely. That might be a great demographic to get hooked on your product, but not if you're Meta and you don't want, say, Congress to yell at you. Is there anything - ANYTHING - Big Tech won't do for a quick buck? Now we learn Meta's chatbots were programmed to carry on explicit and 'sensual' talk with 8 year olds. It's sick. I'm launching a full investigation to get answers. Big Tech: Leave our kids alone — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) August 15, 2025 Peter: Katie, you've just made the case that Meta's chatbot business will appeal to very young people, people who don't understand the internet, and people who are unwell. That is, potentially, a very large audience. But I can't imagine that's the audience Meta really wants to lock down. So we're back where we started — I still don't know why Meta wants to pursue this, given what seems to be limited upside and plenty of downside. Katie: It leaves me scratching my head, too! These chatbots seem like a challenging business, and I'm skeptical about wide adoption. Of all the changes I can imagine AI bringing in the next few years, "We'll all have chatbot friends" — which Mark Zuckerberg has said! — just isn't the one I believe. It's giving metaverse, sorry!
