, ,

Scattered Spider Attacks Again

Scattered Spider Attacks Again
By Skeeter Wesinger
July 2, 2025

In yet another brazen display of cyber subterfuge, Scattered Spider, the slick, shape-shifting cyber gang with a knack for con artistry, has struck again—this time sinking its fangs into Qantas Airways, compromising data on as many as six million unsuspecting customers. It wasn’t some arcane bit of code that cracked the system. It was human weakness, exploited like a well-worn key.
The breach targeted a third-party customer service platform, proving once again that it’s not always your network that gets hacked—it’s your vendor’s.
A Familiar Pattern, a New Victim
Qantas now joins the growing list of high-profile victims stalked by Scattered Spider, a crew whose previous hits include MGM Resorts, Caesars, Hawaiian Airlines, and WestJet. Their calling card? Social engineering at scale—not brute force, but charm, guile, and just enough personal data to sound like they belong.
They impersonate. They coax. They wear your company’s name like a mask—and by the time IT realizes what’s happened, they’re already inside.
This time, they walked away with customer names, emails, phone numbers, birthdates, and frequent flyer numbers. No passwords or payment data were accessed—Qantas was quick to say—but that’s cold comfort in an age when a birthday and an email address is all that it takes to hijack your digital life.
“Trust, but Verify” is Dead, well, sort of.
As Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson issued the standard apology—support lines are open, regulators are notified, the sky is still safe. But the real damage isn’t operational. It’s existential. Trust doesn’t come back easy, especially when it’s breached by a whisper, not a weapon.
“We used to worry about firewalls and phishing links,” one insider told me. “Now it’s your own help desk that opens the front door.”
Scattered Spider doesn’t hack computers. They hack people—call center agents, IT support staff, even security teams—using their own policies and training scripts against them. Their English is fluent. Their confidence is absolute. Their patience is weaponized.
The Breach Beneath the Breach
What’s truly alarming isn’t just that Scattered Spider got in. It’s how.
They exploited a third-party vendor, the soft underbelly of every corporate tech stack. While Qantas brags about airline safety and digital transformation, it was a remote call-center platform—likely underpaid, overworked, and under-secured—that cracked first.
We’ve heard this story before. Optus. Medibank. Latitude. The names change. The failures rhyme.
And the hackers? They have evolved.
The Next Call May Already Be Happening
Scattered Spider is a ghost in the wires—a gang of young, highly skilled social engineers, some rumored to be based in the U.S., operating like a twisted start-up. Their tools aren’t viruses—they’re LinkedIn, ZoomInfo, and your own onboarding documents.
What you can do is rethink your threat model. Because the enemy isn’t always a shadowy figure in a hoodie. Sometimes it’s a cheerful voice saying, “Hi, I’m calling from IT—can you verify your employee ID?”
By then, it’s already too late. Need to hire an expert? Call me.

/0 Comments/by
, , , , , , ,

Scattered Spider

Scattered Spider: Impersonation, and Cybersecurity in the Age of Cloud Computing

By Skeeter Wesinger
June 29, 2025

In an era where companies have moved their infrastructure to the cloud and outsourced much of their IT, one old-fashioned tactic still defeats the most modern defenses: impersonation.
At the center of this threat is Scattered Spider, a cybercriminal collective that doesn’t exploit code—they exploit people. Their operations are quiet, persuasive, and dangerously effective. Instead of smashing through firewalls, they impersonate trusted employees—often convincingly enough to fool help desks, bypass multi-factor authentication, and gain access to critical systems without ever tripping an alarm.
This is the cybersecurity challenge of our time. Not ransomware. Not zero-days. But trust itself.
Who Is Scattered Spider?
Known to threat intelligence teams as UNC3944, Muddled Libra, or 0ktapus, Scattered Spider is an English-speaking group that has compromised some of the most security-aware companies in North America. Their breaches at MGM Resorts and Caesars Entertainment made headlines—not because they used sophisticated malware, but because they didn’t have to.
Their weapon of choice is the phone call. A help desk technician receives a request from someone claiming to be a senior executive who lost their device. The impersonator is articulate, knowledgeable, and urgent. They know internal jargon. They cite real names. Sometimes, they even use AI-generated voices.
And too often, it works. The attacker gets a password reset, reroutes MFA codes, and slips in undetected.
The Illusion of Familiarity
What makes these attackers so dangerous is their ability to sound familiar. They don’t just say the right things—they say them the right way. They mirror internal language. They speak with confidence. They understand hierarchy. They’re skilled impersonators, and they prey on a simple reflex: the desire to help.
In the past, we might have trusted our ears. “It sounded like them,” someone might say.
But in the age of AI, “sounding like them” is no longer proof of identity. It’s a liability.
When Cloud Isn’t the Cure
Many organizations have moved to cloud-based environments under the assumption that centralization and managed services will reduce their exposure. In some ways, they’re right: the cloud simplifies infrastructure and offloads security operations. But here’s the truth: you can’t outsource responsibility. The human layer remains—and that’s precisely where Scattered Spider operates.
They don’t need to breach Azure or AWS. They just need to impersonate someone with access to it.
It’s time we stop treating “trust but verify” as a cliché and start treating it as operational policy. Better yet: trust—but always verify. Every request. Every reset. Every exception.
Verification today means more than checking a box. It requires multi-channel authentication. It means never resetting MFA or passwords based solely on a phone call, no matter how credible the caller seems. It means locking down help desk protocols so impersonation doesn’t slip through the cracks.
Security teams must also monitor legitimate tools—like AnyDesk, TeamViewer, and ScreenConnect—that attackers often use once inside. These aren’t inherently malicious, but in the wrong hands, they’re devastating.
And above all, organizations must train their frontline personnel—especially support staff—to treat every identity request with healthy skepticism. If your instinct says something feels off, pause and verify through secure channels. Escalate. Slow down. Ask the questions attackers hope you won’t.
Scattered Spider doesn’t hack your servers. They hack your systems of trust. They bypass encryption by impersonating authority. And they exploit the one vulnerability no software can patch: assumption.
As we continue shifting toward remote work, outsourced IT, and cloud-based everything, the real threat isn’t technical—it’s personal. It’s the voice on the line. The urgent request. The person who “sounds right.”
In this world, cybersecurity isn’t just about what you build. It’s about what you believe—and what you’re willing to question.
Therefore, you have to train your teams. Harden your protocols. And remember in the age of the cloud, the most important firewall is still human.
Trust—but always verify!

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Burning the Future

Burning the Future: Why Waymo Robotaxis Are Being Targeted in Los Angeles

By Skeeter Wesinger
June 11, 2025

The future is burning in Los Angeles—and it’s driving itself into the flames.
In recent weeks, autonomous vehicles operated by Waymo, Alphabet’s self-driving subsidiary, have become a flashpoint in the city’s ongoing social unrest. What began as scattered protests against housing inequality and police overreach has turned sharply against the most visible emblem of Silicon Valley’s quiet conquest of urban life: the driverless car.
Waymo’s robotaxis—sleek, sensor-laden electric vehicles that glide through city streets with no one at the wheel—have been set on fire, spray-painted, disabled, and blocked. In some cases, protesters jumped on their hoods. In one instance, the vehicle’s lithium-ion battery ignited, blanketing an intersection in black smoke and toxic fumes. Five cars were torched in a single night near the Beverly Center. Waymo has since suspended service in key areas.
Why Waymo? Why now?

A Rolling Surveillance State
Part of the answer lies in optics. A Waymo car looks like what it is: a surveillance platform in motion. Packed with LiDAR, radar, and 360-degree cameras, each vehicle is effectively a roving sensor array collecting vast troves of visual and environmental data. Protesters increasingly believe that Waymo footage is being shared—or could be shared—with law enforcement. That makes the robotaxi a surveillance threat, especially in communities already skeptical of over-policing and state monitoring.
In an age when public space is contested ground, a driverless car is not just an anomaly—it’s a trespasser.

Automation as Class War
But the backlash isn’t only about privacy. For many in Los Angeles, Waymo represents something even more existential: job loss at the altar of automation.
The city’s economy still depends on tens of thousands of human drivers—Uber, Lyft, taxis, delivery vans, and commercial transport. Waymo’s expansion signals a not-so-distant future in which those workers are rendered obsolete. That future is arriving without public input, without protections, and with little concern for who gets left behind. The Teamsters and the LA County Federation of Labor have protested Waymo’s rollout since 2023. Their warnings are now finding a wider audience, and a louder voice.
If you’re looking for a symbol of job displacement and unaccountable tech governance, you won’t find a better target than a car that drives itself and costs a man his living.

Tech as the Face of Gentrification
There’s also the unavoidable truth that Waymo vehicles are highly visible in neighborhoods already under pressure from gentrification. The sleek, whirring robotaxis feel alien, indifferent—like emissaries of a world that values efficiency over community, and sensors over people. For longtime residents, they are reminders of a city being hollowed out, algorithm by algorithm, until only the surface remains.
In this context, setting a Waymo car on fire is not just an act of destruction. It is a political statement.

Spectacle and Strategy
And then there’s the media effect. A burning Waymo is headline gold. It’s instantly legible as a rejection of Big Tech, of automation, of surveillance, of the inequality that comes when luxury innovation is layered on top of public neglect. Images of charred autonomous vehicles make the evening news, circulate on social media, and galvanize protestors elsewhere.
It’s not unlike what the Luddites did in the 19th century—targeting the machines that symbolized their displacement. Only now the machine drives itself and livestreams the revolution.

A Dangerous Road Ahead
Waymo’s executives are right to be concerned. What’s being targeted isn’t just a brand—it’s a future that many people were never asked to vote on. One where machines replace people, where public spaces are privately surveilled, and where “innovation” often means exclusion.
The destruction of these vehicles may be unlawful, but the message is clear: you can’t automate your way out of accountability.
Until the tech industry confronts this unrest not with PR statements but with real dialogue, real reform, and a real respect for the communities it drives through, the streets will remain dangerous, not just for Waymos but for any vision of the future that forgets the people in the present.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

When Cybersecurity Is an Afterthought

When Cybersecurity Is an Afterthought: The Victoria’s Secret Breach and the Looming Threat to E-Commerce
By Skeeter Wesinger
May 30, 2025

Victoria’s Secret recently experienced a significant cybersecurity incident that led to the temporary shutdown of its U.S. website and the suspension of certain in-store services. The company stated, “We have taken down our website and some in-store services as a precaution,” emphasizing their commitment to restoring operations securely.
While the exact nature of the breach remains undisclosed, the incident aligns with a series of cyberattacks targeting major retailers. Notably, the threat group known as Scattered Spider has been linked to similar attacks on UK retailers, including Marks & Spencer and Harrods. Security experts suggest that the tactics employed in the Victoria’s Secret breach bear a resemblance to those used by this group.
The impact of the breach extended beyond the digital storefront. Reports indicate disruptions to internal operations, including employee email access and distribution center functions. Customers faced challenges in placing orders, redeeming coupons, and accessing customer service.
Financially, the incident had immediate repercussions. Victoria’s Secret’s stock experienced a decline of approximately 7%, reflecting investor concerns over the implications of the breach.
This event highlights a broader issue: the persistent vulnerability of retailers to cyber threats, which is often exacerbated by inadequate adherence to cybersecurity protocols. Despite the increasing frequency of such attacks, many organizations remain underprepared, lacking robust security measures and comprehensive response plans.
Furthermore, the reluctance of some companies to disclose breaches hampers collective efforts to understand and mitigate cyber threats. Transparency is crucial in fostering a collaborative defense against increasingly sophisticated cybercriminals.
In conclusion, the Victoria’s Secret breach serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of proactive cybersecurity measures. Retailers must prioritize the implementation of comprehensive security protocols, regular system audits, and employee training to safeguard against future incidents. The cost of inaction is not just financial but also erodes consumer trust and brand integrity.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

When the Dead Speak

When the Dead Speak: AI, Ethics, and the Voice of a Murder Victim
By Skeeter Wesinger
May 7, 2025

In a Phoenix courtroom not long ago, something happened that stopped time.

A voice echoed through the chamber—steady, direct, unmistakably human.

“To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me: it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances.”

It was the voice of Chris Pelkey, who had been dead for more than three years—killed in a road rage incident. What the judge, the defendant, and the grieving family were hearing was not a recording. It was a digital recreation of Chris, constructed using artificial intelligence from photos, voice samples, and memory fragments.

For the first time, a murder victim addressed their killer in court using AI.

Chris’s sister, Stacey Wales, had been collecting victim impact statements. Forty-nine in total. But one voice—the most important—was missing. So she turned to her husband Tim and a friend, Scott Yentzer, both experienced in emerging tech. Together, they undertook a painful and complicated process of stitching together an AI-generated likeness of Chris, complete with voice, expression, and tone.

There was no app. No packaged software. Just trial, error, and relentless care.

Stacey made a deliberate choice not to project her own grief into Chris’s words. “He said things that would never come out of my mouth,” she explained. “But I know would come out his.”

What came through wasn’t vengeance. It was grace.

“In another life, we probably could’ve been friends. I believe in forgiveness and in God who forgives. I always have and I still do.”

It left the courtroom stunned. Judge Todd Lang called it “genuine.” Chris’s brother John described it as waves of healing. “That was the man I knew,” he said.

I’ve written before about this phenomenon. In January, I covered the digital resurrection of John McAfee as a Web3 AI agent—an animated persona driven by blockchain and artificial intelligence. That project blurred the line between tribute and branding, sparking ethical questions about legacy, consent, and who has the right to speak for the dead.

But this—what happened in Phoenix—was different. No coin. No viral play. Just a family trying to give one man—a brother, a son, a victim—a voice in the only place it still mattered.

And that’s the line we need to watch.

AI is going to continue pushing into the past. We’ll see more digital likenesses, more synthesized voices, more synthetic presence. Some will be exploitative. Some will be powerful. But we owe it to the living—and the dead—to recognize the difference.

Sometimes, the most revolutionary thing AI can do isn’t about what’s next.

It’s about letting someone finally say goodbye.

Let’s talk:
➡ Should AI have a role in courtrooms?
➡ Who owns the voice of the deceased?
➡ Where should we draw the ethical boundary between tribute and manipulation?

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Beyond Euclidean Memory

Beyond Euclidean Memory: Quantum Storage Architectures Using 4D Hypercubes, Wormhole-Looped States, and Braided Qubit Paths

By Skeeter Wesinger
April 16, 2025

Abstract In the evolving landscape of quantum technology, traditional memory systems rooted in Euclidean geometry are hitting their limits. This post explores three radical constructs—4D hypercubes, wormhole-looped memory states, and braided qubit paths—that are redefining how information is stored, accessed, and preserved in quantum systems. Together, these approaches promise ultradense, energy-efficient, and fault-tolerant memory networks by moving beyond conventional spatial constraints.

  1. Introduction Classical memory architecture assumes linear addressability in a 2D or 3D layout—structures that struggle to scale in the face of today’s power, thermal, and quantum coherence constraints. Quantum memory design, on the other hand, opens the door to higher-dimensional and non-local models. This article outlines a new conceptual framework for memory as a dynamic, entangled fabric of computation, rather than a passive container of bits.
  2. The 4D Hypercube in Memory Design The tesseract, or 4D hypercube, expands traditional 3D memory lattices by adding a fourth spatial axis. This architecture allows non-linear adjacencies and exponential addressability.

2.1 Spatial Folding and Compression

  • Logical neighbors can occupy non-contiguous physical space
  • Memory density increases without amplifying thermal output
  • Redundant access paths collapse, reducing latency

2.2 Picobots and MCUs

  • Picobots manage navigation through hyperedges
  • Micro-Control Units (MCUs) translate 4D coordinates into executable memory requests
  1. Wormhole-Looped Memory States Quantum entanglement allows two distant memory nodes to behave as if adjacent, thanks to persistent tunneling paths—or wormhole-like bridges.

3.1 Topological Linking

  • Entangled nodes behave as spatially adjacent
  • Data can propagate with no traversal through intermediate nodes

3.2 Redundancy and Fault Recovery

  • Instant fallback routes minimize data loss during decoherence events
  • Eliminates thermal hotspots and failure zones
  1. Braided Qubit Paths Borrowed from topological quantum computing, braided qubit paths encode information not in particle states, but in the paths particles take.

4.1 Topological Encoding

  • Logical data is stored in the braid pattern
  • Immune to transient local noise and electromagnetic fluctuations

4.2 Persistent Logic Structures

  • Braids can be reconfigured without data corruption
  • Logical gates become pathways, not gates per se
  1. Non-Local 3D Topologies: The Execution Layer Memory in these architectures is not stored in a fixed location—it lives across a distributed, entangled field.

5.1 Flattening Physical Constraints

  • Logical proximity trumps physical distance
  • Reduces energy costs associated with moving data

5.2 Topological Meshes and Networked Tensors

  • MCUs dynamically reconfigure access paths based on context
  • Enables self-healing networks and true parallel data operations
  1. Conclusion Quantum systems built around 4D hypercubes, wormhole-bridged memory states, and braided qubit paths promise not just new efficiencies, but a reimagining of what memory is. These systems are not static repositories—they are active participants in computation itself. In escaping the confines of Euclidean layout, we may unlock memory architectures capable of evolving with the data they hold.

Welcome to memory without location.

Follow Skeeter Wesinger on Substack  For more deep dives into quantum systems, speculative computing, and post-classical architecture. Questions, insights, or counter-theories? Drop a comment below or reach me at skeeter@skeeter.com.

/1 Comment/by
,

A new phase of the Cold War has begun

BEIJING, China—In a capital swathed in the gray chill of economic anxiety, the Mandarins of the Chinese Communist Party convened once again, their faces impassive, their words forceful. A new phase of the Cold War has begun.

By Skeeter Wesinger
April 9. 2025

China, though publicly resolved to “fight to the end,” remains exposed—strategically, industrially, and geopolitically—before the full weight of Washington’s economic arsenal. President Donald Trump, in a maneuver reminiscent of early Cold War brinkmanship, has levied a stunning 104 percent tariff on Chinese goods. The effect is already being felt across the Eastern hemisphere and in the darkened boardrooms of Beijing.

However, the game did not begin with the Trump tariffs.

Long before the world turned its attention to tariffs and trade imbalances, Beijing had already moved its pieces. Silently. Systematically. Rare Earth Elements—that vital arsenal of modern industry, the invisible sinews of everything from smartphones to submarines—became the first pawns on China’s grand chessboard.

The Elements of Power
It was a move the West scarcely registered—at first.

China, holding over 90% of global production, began tightening its grip:

Light Rare Earth Elements (LREEs):
Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodymium,

Promethium (radioactive, rare even in commerce),

Samarium

Heavy Rare Earth Elements (HREEs):
Europium, Gadolinium, Terbium, Dysprosium,

Holmium, Erbium, Thulium, Ytterbium, Lutetium

Often grouped as well:
Scandium

Yttrium (considered a heavy REE)

These were not just minerals—they were the ore of empires.

The Timeline of Quiet Aggression
1990s–Early 2000s:
China outproduces the world. The West, disarmed by its own complacency, watches.

2006:
Export quotas are introduced. A whisper of resource conservation is offered. The real reason is leverage.

2009:
The screws tighten. Western firms are pushed to relocate operations to China or be cut off.

2010:
A chilling demonstration of power: after a maritime clash over the Senkaku Islands, China halts rare earth exports to Japan. Global prices skyrocket. Supply chains fracture.

2012:
The United States, Japan, and the EU awaken at last and file a case with the World Trade Organization.

2014:
The WTO rules against Beijing. A brief, Pyrrhic victory for the West.

2015:
China lifts quotas—but tightens internal production controls, maintaining dominance under the guise of environmental stewardship.

Strategic Impact: A Blade with No Sheath
The minerals most threatened:

Neodymium & Praseodymium – the iron sinew of high-strength magnets

Dysprosium & Terbium – the heart of heat-resistant alloys and phosphors

Yttrium & Europium – the bright blood of lasers, screens, and satellite optics

These are not raw materials; they are the nervous system of the modern state.

The New Front
Today, as Trump signals another 50% increase in tariffs, Beijing’s state media calls this confrontation a “strategic opportunity.” It may yet prove to be a grave miscalculation.

China’s Vice Premier Li Qiang has vowed that the nation is “fully confident” in its economic resilience. But confidence is not strength, and rhetoric is not steel. As Henry Gao, an expert in international trade law, notes grimly, “The Chinese economy has been significantly weakened since Trump’s first term.”

Last year, exports to the U.S. were $440 billion—nearly three times what flowed the other way. Much of it machinery, electronics, and consumer goods. Now, a glut looms in domestic markets already saturated.

“Certain products are specifically designed for American or European markets,”
says Tang Yao of Peking University.
“Redirecting them for domestic use will have only a limited effect.”

Even within the pages of the People’s Daily, one reads veiled admissions beneath the nationalist fervor: strategic opportunity is another word for forced pivot.

This is not merely a trade war.
It is the first cold salvo of a new global conflict, a technological standoff not unlike the arms races of the 20th century. This time, the launch codes are in silicon, not silos. The battleground is mineral, digital, and psychological.

And while Washington eyes the Indo-Pacific and Beijing rallies its internal engines, one truth echoes from the last great Cold War:

“He who controls the resources controls the future. He who controls the story controls the war.”

The minerals may be rare, but the struggle for power is not just a meme war on Trump’s tariffs today. There is a larger bolder strategy to this new Cold War.

/by
,

F-16 Block 70/72

It is a common misconception to regard the F-16 Block 70/72 as a 50-year-old aircraft simply because the original F-16 design dates back to the 1970s. In reality, the Block 70/72 represents a fundamentally modern fighter jet that only shares the general airframe shape and aerodynamic lineage of its predecessors. Everything else—from its avionics and radar to its flight controls and mission systems—has been redesigned, modernized, or newly developed. The result is an aircraft that meets or exceeds current 4.5-generation fighter standards.

New Build, Modern Airframe

The Block 70/72 variants are not upgrades of old airframes. They are newly manufactured aircraft, built on an advanced production line in Greenville, South Carolina. The new airframes are rated for 12,000 flight hours—50% longer than earlier F-16s—and incorporate structural enhancements that improve durability and survivability in modern combat environments.

21st-Century Avionics and Radar

One of the defining features of the Block 70/72 is the inclusion of the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. This radar brings the F-16 into the modern era with:

  • Faster target tracking

  • Greater detection range

  • Resistance to jamming and electronic warfare

  • Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) for high-resolution ground mapping

These capabilities are comparable to those found in fifth-generation fighters like the F-35 and ensure the aircraft can operate effectively in contested airspace.

State-of-the-Art Cockpit and Flight Controls

The cockpit of the Block 70/72 has been completely modernized. It features:

  • A glass cockpit with color multifunction displays

  • Digital flight instruments

  • Hands-on throttle and stick (HOTAS) controls

  • Compatibility with advanced helmet-mounted cueing systems

These updates dramatically improve pilot situational awareness, reduce workload, and enable faster reaction times in high-threat environments.

Modern Electronic Warfare and Survivability

The Block 70/72 is equipped with the Viper Shield electronic warfare suite. This system provides:

  • Threat detection

  • Radar warning

  • Electronic countermeasures

  • Decoy and jammer coordination

These defensive measures ensure survivability against modern surface-to-air missile systems and airborne threats.

Fully Compatible with Modern Weapons and Networks

The aircraft supports an extensive range of modern weaponry and is fully interoperable with NATO and allied forces. It includes:

  • Compatibility with precision-guided munitions (JDAM, SDB, etc.)

  • Air-to-air missiles like AIM-9X and AIM-120D

  • Advanced datalink and secure communications (including Link 16)

Conclusion

While the F-16’s design heritage traces back to the 1970s, the Block 70/72 is not a 50-year-old aircraft in any meaningful sense. It is a new-production, modern fighter jet incorporating the latest in radar, avionics, weapons, and survivability systems. Its combination of combat effectiveness, cost-efficiency, and global interoperability makes it a viable platform for 21st-century air forces.

By Skeeter Wesinger

April 4, 2025

/by
,

Cold War 2.0 in all but name

In recent remarks made by Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun, who criticized the United States for approving a proposed sale to the Philippines of 16 F-16C Block 70/72 fighter aircraft, four F-16D models, Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, radar systems, spare parts, and associated training support.

Guo’s pointed questions—“Who exactly is fueling the flames? Who exactly is instigating military confrontation? Who exactly is turning Asia into a ‘powder keg?’”—are emblematic of Beijing’s rhetorical strategy. These lines are crafted not merely for domestic consumption, but also to influence ASEAN neighbors and cast the U.S. as the aggressor, destabilizing the region. It is classic deflection: presenting China as the stabilizing force while accusing the United States of militarization.

In reality, the proposed sale reflects a growing demand from regional partners for credible deterrence in the face of China’s escalating assertiveness in the South China Sea. The inclusion of modern Block 70/72 F-16s, advanced radar, and Sidewinder missiles is not symbolic—it is strategic. These systems enable the Philippines to better monitor, patrol, and defend its exclusive economic zone and sovereign airspace. More importantly, the inclusion of training support suggests a deepening partnership and interoperability with U.S. forces, indicating that this is not a simple arms transaction but part of a long-term commitment.

China’s objections, particularly the phrase “regional countries are not blind,” are a not-so-subtle warning to its neighbors. But these nations are not blind. They see repeated Chinese incursions, coercive maritime tactics, and an ever-growing presence in disputed waters. In this context, the U.S. response is not only justified—it is measured.

This is Cold War 2.0 in all but name: a contest of influence, where China uses information operations and economic levers, while the United States reinforces alliances and deterrence postures. As history reminds us, arming the perimeter is not an act of aggression—it is an act of preparation.

By Skeeter Wesinger

April 3, 2025

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cold-war-20-all-name-skeeter-wesinger-z9kee

/by
, , ,

In a classic phishing move

In a classic phishing move: spoofing a legit security company like VadeSecure to make the email look trustworthy. Irony at its finest—phishers pretending to be the anti-phishing experts.

Here’s what’s likely going on:

  • vadesecure.com is being spoofed—the return address is faked to show their domain, but the email didn’t actually come from Vade’s servers.

  • Or the phishers are using a lookalike domain (e.g., vadesecure-support.com or vadesecure-mail.com) to trick people not paying close attention.

If you still have the email:

  • You can check the email headers to see the real “from” server (look for Return-Path and Received lines).

  • If the SPF/DKIM/DMARC checks fail in the headers, that’s confirmation it’s spoofed.

  • You can also report it to VadeSecure directly at: abuse@vadesecure.com

By Skeeter Wesinger

March 26, 2025

/by