THIS IS ANOTHER BONUS EDITION of Digital Politics. I'm Mark Scott, and I've been scratching my head about the United Kingdom's stance on tech — ever since the new government, under the Labour Party's Keir Starmer, took over in July, 2024.

I'll be unpacking that and a whole bunch more on Jan 30 when Ben Whitelaw (from the Everything in Moderation newsletter), Georgia Iacovou (and her Horrific/Terrific newsletter) and I host a discussion/drinks in central London.

If that sounds like your cup of tea (see what I did there?), please RSVP here.

What's clear is that London is taking a 'cake and eat it' approach to everything from platform governance to artificial intelligence oversight. That's not a strategy that will stand the country in good stead in the years to come.

Click here for my take on France and here for my views on Germany. I'll be in Washington in March, so expect another postcard from the Beltway then.

Let's get started:

What does the UK government want from tech?

EVEN THOUGH I LIVE IN LONDON, I feel like an outsider when it comes to UK tech policy. In truth, much of what has happened in the country — from its Online Safety Actto its Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act to its attempt to rewrite the UK's General Data Protection Regulation — has been overshadowed by developments in both the European Union and the United States. That's no shade on what London wants to do on tech. It's just the realpolitik for a country no longer viewed as part of the top geopolitical tier.

The new(ish) Labour government has now been in power for seven months. Its priorities, above all, are to turn around a sluggish domestic economy to meet local politicians' pledge to make it the fastest growing of any G7 country. A stuttering national health service – still on its knees in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic — and an increasingly polarized electorate — spurred on, to a degree, by Elon Musk — have captured much of Westminster's attention. In short, tech, and tech policy, has barely resonated.

That's starting to change. Earlier this month, the UK government unveiled an "AI Opportunities Action Plan" aimed at harnessing the emerging technology to bolster the country's economy and well-being. That included plans to double down on domestic technical infrastructure; open up public datasets for commercial use (cue: heckles about data protection abuses); and train a new generation of scientists to commercialize these new-founded "AI opportunities."

Thanks for reading Digital Politics. If you've been forwarded this newsletter (and like what you've read), please sign up here. For those already subscribed, reach out on digitalpolitics@protonmail.com

I read these statements and couldn't help but ask: what is the UK trying to achieve? I've covered global tech policy for more than a decade, and I have always viewed the country's approach to digital very much similar to that of Israel. And that is, above all, to direct as much foreign direct investment into the local tech industry — still one of the largest globally, see charts below — as possible.

Questions around the need for further regulation, online safety provisions and digital competition safeguards often capture the public's (and politicians') imagination. But I've never understood what is the guiding principle for London when it comes to tackling these often complex and thorny issues. This goes beyond domestic partisan politics. I would say the same for the previous Conservative Party-led government as I would for the new Labour one.

In short: what is the UK trying to achieve when it comes to digital policymaking?

The UK remains Europe's largest tech player

Source: DealRoom

A country without a vision

On that question, I hold up my hands and say 'I don't know.' London has passed some of the most progressive digital rules across the West, especially when it comes to digital competition. But just as you think there's a groundswell of political buy-in to do something innovative and forward-looking, the UK government shifts gears in ways that undermine what it has already achieved.

Let's take the country's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), or local competition regulator. On Jan 14, the agency started an investigation into Google under new powers that allow it to give certain tech giants a so-called "strategic markets status designation." If a company is deemed to meet such a threshold (basically, confirming it holds a dominant position), then the CMA can subsequently develop a bespoke ex ante oversight regime — in this case, for Google — to ensure the search giant doesn't subsequently abuse its existing powers.

It's a middle ground between the EU's one-size-fits-all approach, under the bloc's Digital Markets Act, and the let-the-courts-decide strategy in the US. For me, it's a smart way to tackle a difficult policy area. If done well, it could position the UK as a global regulatory leader and incentivize other countries to follow suit.

But then, only days later, the agency announced it had appointed Doug Gurr, a former Amazon executive, as its interim chair with a mandate to "support growth for the UK." I don't know Gurr personally — he was previously the tech giant's UK country manager and one-time president of Amazon China. But his appointment came after Rachel Reeves, the UK's finance minister, or Chancellor, suggested Gurr's predecessor, Marcus Bokkerink, did not share "the strategic direction this government is taking."

Translation: the CMA's previous leadership was not signed up to boosting economic growth, above all. Time will now tell if a former Amazon executive is willing to use all the powers available to the agency, under the UK's new digital competition regime, to stop digital anticompetitive practices.

The list goes on. The country's newly-minted AI Safety Institute — the first of its kind, and aimed at providing quantifiable oversight to the most advanced foundation models — was met with great fanfare when it was announced during the UK's AI Safety Summit in 2023. With an initial multi-million dollar budget, the agency had great hopes of testing the latest wares of the likes of Google's Deepmind, OpenAI and others before they were released to the public.

Yet a mixture of limited actual powers (few AI companies signed up for oversight); a shifting political landscape (which moved from AI safety to AI innovation); and no clear legislative agenda to pass AI-related rules has left the UK's AI Safety Institute in a difficult position. It hired world-leading experts — and is still hiring now. But it's mostly beholden to its US namesake whose ability to bring the biggest American AI companies to the table is just not something its British counterpart has any power to do.

UK's Online Safety Act: what comes next

Source: Ofcom

What London should do on digital policy

WHEN I TALK TO OFFICIALS, POLITICIANS and others within the UK's tech policy scene, there remains a disconnect between the short-term policy objectives around the country's litany of new digital rules and the lack of a long-term strategy about what the actual point of these efforts are. There are a lot of well-meaning policymakers beavering away. But there's no political leadership to frame the UK's ambitions on tech.

My fear, given the shifting geopolitical winds and London's traditional willingness to bend to whatever Washington's agenda may be, is that the country's new generation of digital rules — borne out of a desire to offer greater online protections, akin to those of the EU, but with greater Anglo-Saxon flexibility — are sacrificed on the altar of transatlantic relations.

But here's the thing. There is a way forward. One that could potentially position the UK as a leader in practical — and replicable — digital regulation that marries a principles-based approach to greater oversight with regulatory certainty that boosts Britain's world-leading tech industry. It would allow the country to mirror what the EU is attempting, via its alphabet soup of new digital rules, but in a way that is more market-friendly and more flexible.

Dare I say it: it would be a potential opportunity to benefit from Brexit by forging a middle way that combines Europe-style online protections with American-style market economics.

So what would that look like? First, the Labour government should double down on existing digital rules as part of what the UK has to offer, both to its citizens and the wider world. The likes of the Online Safety Act and Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act could be gold-standards to be copied by other countries. To do that, they need to be implemented in a way that demonstrates benefits to both people and UK Inc.

Sign up for Digital Politics

Thanks for getting this far. Enjoyed what you've read? Why not receive weekly updates on how the worlds of technology and politics are colliding like never before.

Subscribe
Email sent! Check your inbox to complete your signup.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

If done well, such rules could position the country as a "RegTech" superpower by demonstrating the benefits of what well-designed, principles-based online oversight can accomplish. That could include turning the country into a "sand box" to allow firms to test out their new digital services/products within a digital regulatory regime open to such innovation. To date, no one is offering that globally.

Second, the UK has what few in the world can boast of: a vibrant domestic tech sector — and not just an outsourced call center for US tech giants (sorry, Ireland!). Make use of it via greater public sector funding and commercial incentives for pension funds and other long-term investors to invest in homegrown companies. The country's financial services industry, including the FTSE100, also needs to do a better job at keeping these UK tech companies within the country, and not see them scamper off to the US whenever they want to go public.

Third, don't give up on digital rules. Regulation isn't there just for the sake of it. The UK has crafted some of the most innovative efforts to corral online abuses, even if such legislation developed without a meaningful long-term plan. British leaders shouldn't now give up on that, just because of shifting geopolitical winds. If greater online safety, privacy and competition protections were a worthwhile aim a few years ago, what has changed now to potentially roll back on that agenda? London, be confident in your approach to digital policymaking.

Alas, I don't see a game plan for any of this coming from the UK's Labour government. That is a shame. And not because I'm a cheerleader for the country where I live. But because a British alternative on tech policy — compared to those offered by the EU, US and China — makes others, elsewhere, up their game in the global crucible of ideas around platform governance, digital competition and artificial intelligence.

For now, London is missing a trick by failing to outline, clearly, what it wants to achieve on digital. That is a disservice, both to the UK and its allies worldwide.

digitalpolitics.co/newsletter0…

Una nuova minaccia mette in allarme aziende e organizzazioni di tutto il mondo: una vulnerabilità zero-day critica, identificata come CVE-2025-23006, sta venendo sfruttata attivamente contro le appliance SonicWall Secure Mobile Access (SMA) 1000 Series. Questo exploit rappresenta un rischio significativo per tutte le realtà che utilizzano questa soluzione per garantire l’accesso remoto sicuro ai propri dipendenti.

La vulnerabilità CVE-2025-23006

La falla, individuata nel Management Console (AMC) e nella Central Management Console (CMC) delle appliance SMA 1000, sfrutta una vulnerabilità di deserializzazione di dati non affidabili. Questo consente a un attaccante remoto non autenticato di eseguire comandi arbitrari sul sistema operativo, qualora vengano soddisfatte determinate condizioni (attualmente non specificate).

Ma perché la deserializzazione è così pericolosa? Questo processo, se non adeguatamente gestito, consente di trasformare dati potenzialmente malevoli in oggetti o istruzioni eseguibili, aprendo la strada a compromissioni profonde dei sistemi.

Il colosso della tecnologia Microsoft Threat Intelligence Center (MSTIC) ha segnalato questa criticità al team di sicurezza di SonicWall (PSIRT), confermando che la vulnerabilità è attivamente sfruttata in attacchi reali. Questo dato è preoccupante e suggerisce l’interesse di gruppi criminali avanzati, forse sponsorizzati da stati, verso questa falla.

Chi è a rischio?

Sono coinvolti tutti i dispositivi con versioni del firmware 12.4.3-02804 (platform-hotfix) e precedenti. SonicWall ha rilasciato un aggiornamento di sicurezza risolutivo nella versione 12.4.3-02854 (platform-hotfix) e raccomanda caldamente di effettuare l’upgrade immediato per mitigare i rischi.

La vulnerabilità non interessa i dispositivi SMA 100 series né i Firewall SonicWall, ma per chi utilizza gli appliance SMA 1000, i rischi sono tutt’altro che trascurabili.

Attacchi in corso

La conferma di attacchi attivi rende questa situazione estremamente critica. Sebbene i dettagli sugli attacchi non siano stati divulgati, è plausibile che gli attori coinvolti mirino a rubare dati sensibili o installare backdoor per future operazioni malevole.

L’assenza di informazioni specifiche sulle condizioni necessarie per sfruttare la falla aumenta l’incertezza e il pericolo per le organizzazioni, che rischiano di diventare bersagli di campagne mirate.

Cosa fare per proteggersi

SonicWall ha fornito indicazioni chiare per mitigare il rischio legato a CVE-2025-23006:

1. Aggiornamento immediato: Installare l’aggiornamento alla versione 12.4.3-02854 (platform-hotfix) o successive.
2. Restrizioni agli accessi: Limitare l’accesso alla Appliance Management Console (AMC) e alla Central Management Console (CMC) a fonti affidabili.
3. Monitoraggio continuo: Implementare un monitoraggio attivo del traffico di rete e dei log per rilevare eventuali attività sospette.
4. Zero Trust: Adottare un approccio che limiti al massimo i privilegi di accesso, minimizzando l’esposizione delle infrastrutture critiche.

Conclusione

Questa vulnerabilità mette in evidenza l’importanza di una gestione proattiva della sicurezza informatica. Le appliance come le SMA 1000, fondamentali per le aziende moderne, sono bersagli sempre più ambiti. L’approccio zero trust non è più una semplice raccomandazione, ma una necessità per prevenire compromissioni catastrofiche. Le aziende che utilizzano SonicWall SMA 1000 devono agire immediatamente. Ogni ritardo nell’aggiornamento o nel rafforzamento delle difese potrebbe aprire la porta a scenari di compromissione irreparabili. Ignorare una vulnerabilità zero-day non è solo una negligenza: è un invito agli attaccanti.

L'articolo SonicWall SMA 1000 sotto attacco: scoperta vulnerabilità Zero-Day critica (CVE-2025-23006) proviene da il blog della sicurezza informatica.

Back in November we first brought you word of a slicing technique by which the final strength of 3D printed parts could be considerably improved by adjusting the first layer height of each wall so that subsequent layers would interlock like bricks. It was relatively easy to implement, didn’t require anything special on the printer to accomplish, and testing showed it was effective enough to pursue further. Unfortunately, there was some patent concerns, and it seemed like nobody wanted to be the first to step up and actually implement the feature.

Well, as of today, [Roman Tenger] has decided to answer the call. As explained in the announcement video below, the company that currently holds the US patent for this tech hasn’t filed a European counterpart, so he feels he’s in a fairly safe spot compared to other creators in the community. We salute his bravery, and wish him nothing but the best of luck should any lawyer come knocking.

So how does it work? Right now the script supports PrusaSlicer and OrcaSlicer, and the installation is the same in both cases — just download the Python file, and go into your slicer’s settings under “Post-Processing Scripts” and enter in its path. As of right now you’ll have to provide the target layer height as an option to the script, but we’re willing to bet that’s going to be one of the first things that gets improved as the community starts sending in pull requests for the GPL v3 licensed script.

There was a lot of interest in this technique when we covered it last, and we’re very excited to see an open source implementation break cover. Now that it’s out in the wild, we’d love to hear about it in the comments if you try it out.

youtube.com/embed/EqRdQOoK5hc?…

Thanks to [greg_bear] in the Hackaday Discord for the tip.

hackaday.com/2025/01/23/brick-…

Il fondatore di BreachForums Conor Fitzpatrick tornerà in tribunale per un’udienza di nuova sentenza dopo che la Corte d’appello ha annullato una decisione del tribunale distrettuale che gli ha permesso di essere rilasciato dopo 17 giorni di prigione.

Conor Fitzpatrick è stato arrestato nel 2023. Durante gli interrogatori ha ammesso che sotto lo pseudonimo di “pompompurin” gestiva la piattaforma BreachForums. Il sito forniva accesso a milioni di dati personali rubati di cittadini statunitensi ed era utilizzato per vendere informazioni rubate a seguito di attacchi informatici, inclusi attacchi ai database dell’FBI e del sistema sanitario della contea di Washington.

Dopo il suo arresto, Fitzpatrick non è stato incarcerato ma trattenuto su cauzione di 300.000 dollari con ulteriori restrizioni come nessun accesso al computer, nessun contatto con minori, nessun accesso a siti Web di fuga di dati e nessun utilizzo di VPN.

Fitzpatrick ha ripetutamente violato i termini della sua supervisione. Ha utilizzato Internet, VPN e Discord per partecipare a chat room online in cui discuteva di attività illegali, inclusa la vendita di dati a paesi stranieri. Inoltre, Fitzpatrick ha negato la sua colpevolezza, definendo “ingiusto” l’accordo con la giustizia.

Nel gennaio 2024, Fitzpatrick è stato nuovamente arrestato per aver violato le condizioni del suo rilascio.

Tuttavia, il tribunale di prima istanza ha mostrato ancora una volta clemenza, imponendo 17 giorni di reclusione, già scontati al momento della sentenza, e 20 anni di libertà vigilata. La corte ha fatto riferimento alle conclusioni di due medici secondo cui Fitzpatrick non sarebbe recidivo per sfruttamento sessuale.

Una pena sospesa invece del carcere è stata assegnata in base alla sua età – 21 anni – e alla diagnosi di disturbo dello spettro autistico. Secondo la corte, la permanenza in carcere potrebbe portare ad un peggioramento delle condizioni dell’adolescente. Tuttavia, la corte d’appello ha ritenuto tale decisione infondata e ha rilevato che la conclusione era chiaramente sproporzionata rispetto alla gravità dei crimini, e ha deciso inoltre di rinviare il caso a un nuovo processo.

La corte d’appello ha sottolineato che il verdetto originale ignorava aspetti chiave del caso, inclusa la portata delle attività di BreachForums, che è diventata la più grande piattaforma in lingua inglese per lo scambio di dati rubati. Secondo il fascicolo del caso, Fitzpatrick ha guadagnato personalmente circa 700.000 dollari mediando accordi sulla piattaforma. Il giudice ha inoltre osservato che l’imputato possedeva almeno 600 immagini di pornografia infantile e visualizzava regolarmente contenuti che coinvolgevano minori.

Il giudice ha criticato le conclusioni del tribunale distrettuale secondo cui i genitori di Fitzpatrick sarebbero in grado di fornire la necessaria supervisione. Il giudice ha ricordato che proprio sotto la supervisione dei suoi genitori l’imputato ha continuato a commettere azioni illegali. Inoltre, la sentenza si è discostata in modo significativo dagli standard e potrebbe costituire un precedente per decisioni irragionevolmente clementi in casi simili.

BreachForums è stato creato nel marzo 2022 per sostituire il RaidForum precedentemente chiuso. La piattaforma è stata utilizzata attivamente dagli hacker per vendere i dati rubati a seguito di fughe di notizie. Fitzpatrick ha avuto un ruolo chiave nella creazione e gestione della piattaforma che, secondo gli investigatori, conteneva oltre 14 miliardi di record. Il caso verrà ora trasferito per una nuova sentenza, che dovrà tenere conto di tutte le circostanze del delitto e dell’entità del danno causato.

L'articolo Il Caso BreachForums si Aggrava: Fitzpatrick Potrebbe Rischiare una Condanna Più Pesante proviene da il blog della sicurezza informatica.

Some retro games need a little help running on modern systems, and it’s not always straightforward. SimCity 2000 Special Edition is one such game and [araxestroy]’s sc2kfix bugfix DLL shows that the process can require a nontrivial amount of skill and finesse. The result? A SimCity 2000 Special Edition that can run without crash or compromise on modern Windows machines, surpassing previous fixes.

SimCity 2000 Special Edition was a release for Windows 95 that allowed the game to work in windowed glory. The executable is capable of running under modern Windows systems (and at high resolutions!) but it’s got a few problems lurking under the hood.

There are crash issues during save/load dialog boxes, and a big visual problem. Animations rely on palette swapping for the game’s animations, and the technique originally used simply does not work right on modern displays. A fellow named [Guspaz] created SC2KRepainter to partially deal with this by forcing window redraws, but it’s an imperfect fix with a few side effects of it’s own.

[araxestroy]’s new solution eliminates dialog crashes and restores the animations, letting them look exactly as they should even on modern systems. It does this elegantly not by patching the executable or running a separate process, but by making the changes in memory at runtime with the help of a specially-crafted .dll file. Just grab winmm.dll from the latest release and put it into the same folder as simcity.exe, then launch the game to enjoy it as the designers intended!

Patching old games is a scene that helps ensure not only that classics never die, but also helps them be appreciated in new ways. Heck, even E.T. for the Atari 2600 has gotten tweaked, highlighting the misunderstood nature of the game in the process.

hackaday.com/2025/01/23/its-ne…