Mysterious international cyberhackers known as ‘Scattered Spider' now targeting airline industry: FBI
The mysterious gang, which has been linked to data breaches at insurance giant Aflac and several major retailers in the United Kingdom in recent years, now has its sights set on air travel, the feds said in an urgent warning posted online over the weekend.
'The FBI has recently observed the cybercriminal group Scattered Spider expanding its targeting to include the airline sector,' the agency said. 'These actors rely on social engineering techniques, often impersonating employees or contractors to deceive IT help desks into granting access.'
Advertisement
4 The international cybergang 'Scattered Spider' has hacked major corporations and is now targeting airlines, the FBI said.
Getty Images
4 The airline industry is next in line for the cyberhackers 'Scattered Spider,' the FBI warned this weekend.
John McAdorey – stock.adobe.com
'They target large corporations and their third-party IT providers, which means anyone in the airline ecosystem, including trusted vendors and contractors, could be at risk,' the FBI said.
Advertisement
The underground digital crooks — believed to be led by young hackers in the US and the UK — have wreaked havoc in recent years, stealing data from corporations and sometimes extorting them, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, said in a 2023 security alert about the group.
4 In an urgent alert on Friday, the FBI said an international cybergroup 'Scattered Spider' plans to disrupt airlines.
dima – stock.adobe.com
Earlier this month, Scattered Spider was suspected to be behind a major data breach at Aflac, potentially exposing Social Security numbers, insurance claims and health information of tens of millions of customers.
The crew was also believed to be behind similar breaches at Erie Insurance and Philadelphia Insurance Companies, and was linked to hacks at Marks & Spencer and other UK retailers.
Advertisement
Scattered Spider drew particular notoriety in September 2023 when the group broke into and locked up the networks of casino operators Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts International, and demanded hefty ransom payments.
Caesars was forced to pay about $15 million to restore its network.
4 'Scattered Spider' has been linked to data breaches at Aflac and at several Las Vegas casinos as far back as 2021.
Christopher Sadowski
Last year, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles charged five reputed members between the ages of 20 and 23 with allegedly hacking into 12 separate companies between September 2021 and April 2023.
Advertisement
Now, the FBI says Scattered Spider might be turning its sinister talents on the airlines.
'Once inside, Scattered Spider actors steal sensitive data for extortion and often deploy ransomware,' the agency's alert on Friday said. 'The FBI is actively working with aviation and industry partners to address this activity and assist victims. Early reporting allows the FBI to engage promptly, share intelligence across the industry, and prevent further compromise.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Social Security field offices report widespread staffing losses
Social Security field offices across the country may have lost a whopping 20 percent of their staff since March of last year, according to estimates by Axios and the Strategic Organizing Center, a coalition of labor unions. The unions estimated that field offices — where Americans can apply for benefits and deal with the agency face-to-face — had altogether lost about 5 percent of their staff by March. Hawaii (11 percent), Montana (14 percent), and New Mexico (10 percent) were among the states most impacted. Tack onto that the nearly 2,000 field workers who took the Trump administration's voluntary buyout, along with the reassignment of about 1,000 local call center representatives to staff the agency's overwhelmed national hotline. Axios estimated that the total reductions account for about 20 percent of the Social Security workforce from March 2024. The Social Security Administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Department of Government Efficiency has also looked to let lapse the leases of at least 26 field offices this year. Social Security said in a July press release that it had slashed average wait times at field offices to 23 minutes, down from 30 minutes last year. It also said it had dramatically reduced the average waiting time for a phone call to just six minutes this week, down from an 18-minute average for the rest of the year. The trust fund that supplies Social Security has also been accelerating towards insolvency, with latest estimates saying the agency may no longer be able to fulfill all claims as soon as late 2032.
Newsweek
a minute ago
- Newsweek
Social Security Warning Over Changes Issued by Bernie Sanders
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Bernie Sanders issued a warning about potential changes to Social Security implemented by the Trump administration on the program's 90th anniversary this week. A Social Security Administration (SSA) spokesperson told Newsweek on Friday: " As Commissioner Bisignano has repeatedly emphasized, ensuring the long-term financial health of these trust funds remains a top priority. The Social Security Administration is committed to working with Congress and other stakeholders to protect and strengthen these vital programs, ensuring that millions of Americans can continue to rely on Social Security for a secure retirement and support in times of disability—both now and in the future." Why It Matters August 14 marked the 90th anniversary of Social Security, relied on by millions of Americans who receive retirement, survivor and disability benefits. About 74 million people receive benefits administered by the SSA, the agency said in July. While the program remains broadly popular among Americans, the program has faced questions about whether it could become insolvent as soon as the 2030s without significant reform. Many Americans are concerned about potential cuts to the program or that individuals who are paying into Social Security may not receive benefits when they reach the age of retirement. Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, speaks during the Democratic National Convention on August 20, 2024. Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, speaks during the Democratic National Convention on August 20, 2024. CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, sounded the alarm about changes to the program in a video posted to X on Thursday. He warned that individuals like President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, the billionaire who led the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) before his falling out with Trump, have been "working overtime to try to dismantle Social Security and undermine the confidence that the American people have in it." "Since Trump took office, his administration has fired at least 7,000 employees at the Social Security Administration, shut down Social Security field offices and made it more difficult for seniors and the disabled to receive the benefits they have earned over the telephone," he said. SSA field offices lost nearly 5 percent of their staffs between March 2024 and March 2025, according to union data from the AFGE Social Security General Committee. Some states, however, saw more than 10 percent of SSA workers leave in that time. Sanders also ripped claims by DOGE that millions of Americans who had been marked deceased, some up to 360 years old, were still receiving benefits as an "unmitigated lie." "Our job today is to stop any and all efforts to destroy Social Security," Sanders said, touting new legislation that would reverse Trump administration cuts to the SSA and prevent the closure of field offices. Trump released a statement Thursday pledging to defend Social Security, "rewarding the men and women who make our country prosperous, and taking care of our own workers, families, seniors, and citizens first." He wrote that his efforts to "aggressively" root out waste and abuse, which includes "stopping payments to the deceased and eliminating benefits for those who do not legally qualify," will strengthen the program. "These measures will save American taxpayers billions of dollars every year and ensure that future generations receive the benefits they spent their lives paying into. At the same time, I am making the Social Security Administration more efficient, more responsive and more effective than ever before—reducing wait times and delivering the payments the American people worked hard to earn," Trump wrote. A YouGov poll released in March found that 54 percent of Americans believed Social Security cuts would have a negative effect on their financial security. Only 13 percent said it would have a positive effect, while 16 percent said it would have no effect. The poll surveyed 3,567 adults on March 12. What People Are Saying Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent: "In a world of complexity and uncertainty, Social Security has done exactly what its name implies. It has provided rock bottom security for our nation's elderly and disabled." Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, on X: "Right now, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are quietly creating problems for Social Security so they can later hand it off to their private equity buddies." Elon Musk told Fox News in March: "What we're doing will help their benefits. Legitimate people, as a result of the work of DOGE, will receive more Social Security, not less." What Happens Next Social Security remains a challenge that Americans will face over the coming years as lawmakers work to prevent the program from going insolvent.
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trade deals don't make Trump's emergency tariffs legal
President Trump has taken an expansive view of his authority to levy tariffs in his second term trade war with nearly every U.S. trading partner. Calling on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Trump administration has imposed tariffs at rates not seen since the 1930s, claiming to address a national emergency caused by fentanyl trafficked across the border and persistent trade deficits. Defending those actions, on Monday, Trump's Justice Department entered an extraordinary letter into the tariff litigation now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will soon issue a ruling. That letter points to a recurrent theme in Trump's trade approach, a weak legal foundation for his actions papered over with an even more flimsy rationale for preserving it. The letter from Solicitor General D. John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate claims that President Trump's July announcement of 'the largest trade agreement in history' with the European Union, plus other recent deals with Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and the United Kingdom, proved the tariffs should stay in place. That argument might make for a good press release. But in a court of law, it's entirely beside the point. The central question before the court isn't whether the president's tariffs have produced diplomatic headlines (even though they don't amount to much). It's whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president the authority to impose them in the first place. Congress passed the act to give presidents a way to address genuine national emergencies, things like hostile foreign actions, espionage or terrorism — not as a catch-all to impose peacetime tariffs whenever it might create negotiating leverage. In fact, the U.S. Court of International Trade, whose decision to vacate Trump's tariffs is now under appeal, held that the government's argument for using tariffs to 'pressure' countries to address the proclaimed emergencies 'does not comfortably meet the statutory definition of 'dealing with' the cited emergency.' It reached that stance because the argument would allow the president 'to take whatever actions he chooses simply by declaring them 'pressure' or 'leverage' tactics' to extract concessions unconnected to the declared threat. The Justice Department continues to push for an expansive reading of the president's authority to levy tariffs. But the letter takes this a step further. It offers a string of doomsday predictions: Without international emergency powers tariffs, 'trillions of dollars' from other countries won't be paid, the U.S. could see a '1929-style result,' millions might lose their homes and jobs, even Social Security and Medicare could be 'threatened.' That's not legal analysis. It's fearmongering. And it's untethered from any evidence in the record. Most of the so-called deals are not even written down, or available to review. Of the announcements made on the content of those deals, serious questions have been raised about the level of commitments, and their durability. Furthermore, the promised investment may not even be possible, and contradict the president's goal of lowering the trade deficit, which is central to his actions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It also contradicts the Justice Department's previous arguments for a stay of the lower court's ruling, claiming that the government could refund the tariffs if it lost the appeal. Even if the deals the president cites were, in fact, secured because of these tariffs, it still wouldn't make them legal. You don't get to break the law to make a deal, then point to the deal as proof the law should bend to fit your actions. That's bootstrapping, plain and simple. Nor is it true that the U.S. has no other trade tools at its disposal. There are various other trade authorities that the president could lean on. The president could also negotiate actual trade agreements with the support of Congress. The irony is that the Justice Department's own letter inadvertently proves the critics' point. If the president believes these tariffs are so essential, he should ask Congress for the authority to impose them. That's how the separation of powers works. In the meantime, the courts are there to ensure that even the most popular, politically expedient or 'powerful' policy stays within legal bounds. Tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were never legal. No amount of retroactive dealmaking can change that. Grasping at straws for a new rationale for Trump's self-inflicted tariff wound adds insult to that injury. The Court of Appeals should not be swayed by this desperate appeal. A clear and decisive ruling against the tariffs is necessary to stop further abuses of executive authority on trade, otherwise, this version of 'emergency powers' will become the new normal in U.S. trade law, and Americans will pay the price, not just in their wallets.
