Kevin BeaumontOct 29
The management at my org is thankfully very good and gets it, but if you are struggling to explain to your management as to why they should stop sucking the GenAI marketing juice and chasing the AI laser pointer like a cat and instead do foundational security, explain it a way they'll understand: AI.
Show threadKevin BeaumontOct 29

Also, if your management has seen the widely reported "80% of Ransomware Attacks are AI-Driven" headline published by MIT, it was paid for by a vendor.

The paper is absolutely ridiculous. It describes almost every major ransomware group as using AI - without any evidence (it's also not true, I monitor many of them). It even talks about Emotet (which hasn't existed for many years) as being AI driven.

It cites things like CISA reports for GenAI usage.. but CISA never said AI anywhere.

Show threadKevin BeaumontOct 29

The PDF is here and is absolutely crackers, MIT should be ashamed of themselves for letting this out the door.

https://cams.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/Safe-CAMS-MIT-Article-Final-4-7-2025-Working-Paper.pdf

No, REvil don't use AI to set ransom demands, CISA never said that, none of the sources cited said that, and they were running before the GenAI craze. It's just absolute nonsense, every page is.

Show threadKevin BeaumontOct 29
If you want to know why MIT are working with Safe Security and what Safe Security are doing... they sell an AI product which they say is developed with MIT to solve the report they made up, after receiving 8 figures in VC funding.
Show threadKevin BeaumontNov 1
Update: MIT have removed the study after this thread.
Show threadRootWyrm 🇺🇦Nov 1
@GossiTheDog but, but, but MIT is a paragon of science and only takes the most intelligent people on Earth and would never participate in fraud!
Show threadK.C. BuddNov 1
@rootwyrm @GossiTheDog <laughs in "toroidal propeller" shapes>
Show threadTor Lillqvist
@phreakmonkey @rootwyrm @GossiTheDog Where can I find objective (and scientific) critique of toroidal propellers? I hadn't heard of them before. (I found some random Youtuber with a 3D printer making his own, just eyeballing their shape, but that doesn't sound like a scientifically valid test.)
Nov 1 at 10:38amWeb
Show threadBen AvelingNov 3

Maybe start here: https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-toroidal-propeller-and-could-it-change-the-future-of-drones-an-expert-explains-206498

@tml @phreakmonkey @rootwyrm @GossiTheDog

What is a ‘toroidal propeller’ and could it change the future of drones? An expert explains

Can one invention revolutionise propellers, whose basic design has been around for over 100 years? Not so fast.

The Conversation
Show threadK.C. BuddNov 3

@BenAveling @tml @rootwyrm @GossiTheDog Right, and you'll notiace that an "objective and scientific critique" this is *not*.

MIT's claims (and all the subsequent hype) around toroidal propellers being superior and quieter on drones were completely devoid of actual data or rigor, smelling almost entirely of snake-oil. Alternative propeller shapes have been in use for decades, this felt a lot like someone using MIT's name to push nonsense.

I've yet to find anything that substantiates it.