Agencies warn Iranian hackers may still target US entities, networks
Several U.S. agencies warned Monday that hackers affiliated with Iran may still target U.S. entities and networks despite the current ceasefire between Israel and Iran.
Defense companies tied to Israeli research and defense firms face an 'increased risk,' the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center and National Security Agency noted.
'Despite a declared ceasefire and ongoing negotiations towards a permanent solution, Iranian-affiliated cyber actors and hacktivist groups may still conduct malicious cyber activity,' they wrote in a joint bulletin.
The agencies underscored that Iranian hackers often exploit 'targets of opportunity,' including the use of unpatched or outdated software and default or common passwords on devices connected to the internet.
They urged operators and owners of critical infrastructure, as well as other U.S. entities, to take steps to strengthen their cybersecurity, such as disconnecting certain systems from the public internet, updating passwords, adding multifactor authentication and applying software patches.
The Department of Homeland Security previously warned about the potential for 'low-level' cyberattacks against U.S. networks after President Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites earlier this month.
Iranian-aligned hackers claimed responsibility for a cyberattack on Trump's Truth Social platform, which saw a surge in reports of problems shortly after the U.S. strikes on Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
Tillis' departure signifies troubling shift. Can any Republican stand up to Trump?
I can't believe I'm saying this, but North Carolina voters deserve a moderate like Sen. Thom Tillis – someone who, when the time calls for it, will stand up to the president. We're more than a year out from midterm elections, and my home state's legislative slate is already getting a shake-up. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina, announced on Sunday, June 29, that he would not be seeking reelection in 2026, a day after he voted against advancing President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' to the Senate floor. The moderate senator said he would not support the bill based on how it would impact Medicaid recipients, leading Trump to say he was making a 'BIG MISTAKE' for the state and country and threatened to find someone to challenge him in the Republican primary next spring. 'In Washington over the last few years, it's become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,' Tillis said in the statement announcing his decision. I've never been one to feel warmly toward Tillis, but the reasoning behind his decision is shocking. If there is no room for moderates in the Republican Party, I'm worried about where the country is headed. Tillis didn't do me proud in North Carolina. But at least he spoke up. Tillis did a lot to earn my distrust while serving in the North Carolina Senate. There was Amendment One, the 2012 constitutional amendment that changed the state constitution so that only marriages between men and women would be recognized. There was the 2013 motorcycle safety bill he supported, which snuck draconian restrictions on abortion access into a bill that was supposed to cover increased safety for motorcyclists. As a U.S. senator, he has seldom been able to find his spine, like when he penned an entire op-ed for the Washington Post about how he was going to oppose Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, only to side with the Republicans when the time came. He condemned what happened on January 6, 2021, but voted against the creation of a commission and Trump's second impeachment. So yeah, I'm not Tillis' biggest fan. He may have come around on some issues in the past few years, like some of the bipartisan bills he worked on during President Joe Biden's tenure, but it doesn't erase the harm he's done. Yet even I know that someone willing to occasionally stand up to Trump is better than someone with unshakable loyalty to the president. If there's no room for someone with a lukewarm relationship with Trump in the party, one must imagine that the Republican who'd come after will be a fervent supporter of the MAGA agenda. Opinion: Planned Parenthood isn't the only loser in Supreme Court case. Women lose, too. Who will fill Tillis' Senate seat for NC? Of course, there's no guarantee that Tillis will be replaced by another Republican. North Carolina Democrats gained some ground in 2024, they could make even more gains in the midterms. There are rumors that former Gov. Roy Cooper, who has never lost a statewide race, will throw his hat in the ring. Currently, former Rep. Wiley Nickel is the only Democrat in the race. Opinion: Democrats don't need to move to the center. Mamdani proves progressives can win. Republicans, on the other hand, have a handful of Trump loyalists they could boost. There's Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law and onetime Republican National Committee co-chair. There's RNC chair Michael Whatley, the former chair of the state Republican Party, who proved his loyalty to Trump after Jan. 6. Either of them would likely be puppets to the Trump administration, refusing to do anything that might upset their standing with the president. North Carolina is a deeply purple state, one where split-ticket voting is as common as sweet tea. I can't believe I'm saying this, but the state's voters deserve a moderate like Tillis – someone who, when the time calls for it, will stand up to the president. The country deserves more legislators who are willing to go against their party. I fear that who we're about to get in Tillis' place is someone far more extreme. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
12 minutes ago
Appeals court hears arguments over Trump's invocation of Alien Enemies Act
A panel of judges at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the country's more conservative courts, heard arguments Monday over whether the Trump administration can invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants it considers to be part of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang. "This has been invoked three times only in major, major wars," argued ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt regarding the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th century wartime authority used to remove noncitizens with little-to-no due process. "The government is now suggesting you can invoke it with a gang." The Trump administration touched off a legal battle in March when it invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport two planeloads of alleged migrant gang members to the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador by arguing that Tren de Aragua is a "hybrid criminal state" that is invading the United States. In the multiple lawsuits the ACLU has helped bring against Trump's use of the AEA, the group has argued that the administration failed to prove that the presence of Tren de Aragua members amounts to a "predatory incursion" or a declared war as the text of the AEA outlines. "This was solely about war and serious military conflict at a size where we would respond with our military, and no one's suggesting that the military has or would respond here," Gelernt argued during Monday's hearing. The judges, however, seemed most concerned about whether or not they had the power to rule against a president's invocation of the act. "Can you give me a Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court has said you can, as a federal court, countermand the president of the United States in his determination that we're in an armed conflict?" one of the judges asked. Gelernt replied that he could not point to a specific case, but argued that if the court were to declare that the AEA requires a military conflict, "it would have to be able to take action to say, 'Well, does the proclamation on its face set forth a military conflict?'" "The government itself is not claiming there's a military conflict," he said. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign argued that the court did not have the power to second guess the president's authority to invoke the act. Ensign also claimed that Tren de Aragua had taken over "entire apartment buildings in which they exercise control" in areas across the country, and that the FBI had reason to believe that the gang would carry out assassinations in the United States. "The FBI has assessed that it's likely the TdA will try to carry out targeted assassinations of the Maduro regime in the next six to 18 months, as indeed, they have done in Chile -- they kidnapped and murdered a former Venezuelan army colonel who was a critic of the Maduro regime and had asylum in Chile," said Ensign. "So we think all of that evidence clearly supports the president's determination that an invasion and predatory incursion has occurred," Ensign said.
Fox News
13 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump, Paramount in 'advanced' settlement negotiations over '60 Minutes' lawsuit, court filing says
The latest court filing in President Donald Trump's lawsuit against Paramount Global signals a settlement is potentially in reach, possibly before the July 4th holiday weekend. Lawyers for both parties requested a pause of all proceedings "until July 3, 2025," according to Monday's filing. "The Parties respectfully submit that good cause to stay all proceedings exists because the Parties are engaged in good faith, advanced, settlement negotiations," the lawyers told a Texas judge. Paramount did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. Representatives for Trump's legal team declined to comment. Last week, it was reported that a mediator suggested a $20 million settlement that would include $17 million towards a presidential library in addition to paying legal fees and airing public service announcements on all Paramount networks about combating antisemitism. Trump previously rejected Paramount's $15 million settlement offer, demanding at least $25 million and an apology, something Paramount wasn't willing to give. "President Trump is committed to holding those who traffic in fake news, hoaxes, and lies to account," Trump attorney Ed Paltzik told Fox News Digital in a statement last week. "CBS and Paramount targeted the President in an attempt to harm his reputation while committing the worst kind of election interference and fraud in the closing days of the most important presidential election in history. President Trump will pursue this vital matter to its just and rightful conclusion." Last October, Trump sued CBS News and Paramount for $10 billion over allegations of election interference involving the "60 Minutes" interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris that aired weeks before the presidential election (the amount later jumped to $20 billion). The lawsuit alleges CBS News deceitfully edited an exchange Harris had with "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker, who asked her why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't "listening" to the Biden administration. Harris was widely mocked for the "word salad" answer that aired in a preview clip of the interview on "Face the Nation." However, when the same question aired during a primetime special on the network, Harris had a different, more concise response. Critics at the time accused CBS News of deceitfully editing Harris' "word salad" answer to shield the Democratic nominee from further backlash leading up to Election Day. The raw transcript and footage released earlier this year by the FCC showed that both sets of Harris' comments came from the same response, but CBS News had aired only the first half of her response in the "Face the Nation" preview clip and aired the second half during the primetime special. CBS News has denied any wrongdoing and stands by the broadcast and its reporting. Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder who recused herself from settlement discussions in February, made clear that she wanted to settle Trump's lawsuit in hopes of clearing the pathway for Paramount's multibillion-dollar planned merger with Skydance Media, which needs approval from the Trump administration's FCC. There has been newsroom drama in recent months involving Redstone's efforts to "keep tabs" on the network's reporting of Trump, at least until the merger closes. That led to the abrupt resignations of "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens, who claimed he could no longer maintain editorial independence, in April, and CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon in May.
