-
Menlo Park, India, 6th January 2026, CyberNewsWire
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
A new critical security vulnerability has been disclosed in n8n, an open-source workflow automation platform, that could enable an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary system commands on the underlying host. The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2025-68668, is rated 9.9 on the CVSS scoring system. It has been described as a case of a protection mechanism failure. It affects n8n versions from
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
Users of the “@adonisjs/bodyparser” npm package are being advised to update to the latest version following the disclosure of a critical security vulnerability that, if successfully exploited, could allow a remote attacker to write arbitrary files on the server. Tracked as CVE-2026-21440 (CVSS score: 9.2), the flaw has been described as a path traversal issue affecting the AdonisJS multipart
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
The Defense Department will attempt to downgrade Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s retirement rank and pay, seeking to punish him for making a video along with other Democrats in Congress, who told members of the military they didn’t need to follow illegal orders.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth originally threatened to recall Kelly from military retirement and court-martial him for his participation in the video, but announced Monday that the department would instead try to downgrade his rank of captain as well as his retirement pay.
“Captain Kelly has been provided notice of the basis for this action and has thirty days to submit a response,” Hegseth wrote in a social media post. “The retirement grade determination process directed by Secretary Hegseth will be completed within forty five days.”
Hegseth added that Kelly’s “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”
Kelly wrote in a social media post that he planned to challenge Hegseth’s attempt to alter his retirement rank and pay, arguing it’s an attempt to punish him for challenging the Trump administration.
“My rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife Gabby recovered from a gunshot wound to the head– all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder,” Kelly wrote. “Generations of servicemembers have made these same patriotic sacrifices for this country, earning the respect, appreciation, and rank they deserve.”
Kelly added that Hegseth’s goal with the process is to “send the message to every single retired servicemember that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn’t like, they will come after them the same way. It’s outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.”
Constitutional protection
Members of Congress are generally protected under the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that unless a lawmaker is involved in treason, felony and breach of the peace, they are “privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
The Defense Department letter of censure to Kelly alleged that his participation in the video undermined the military chain of command, counseled disobedience, created confusion about duty, brought discredit upon the Armed Forces and included conduct unbecoming of an officer.
Hegseth wrote in that letter that if Kelly continues “to engage in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, you may subject yourself to criminal prosecution or further administrative action.”
Allegations of misconduct
The Department of Defense posted in late November that officials were looking into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly for appearing in the video.
It didn’t detail how Kelly might have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice but stated that “a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.”
Hegseth referred the issue to Navy Secretary John Phelan for any “review, consideration, and disposition” he deemed appropriate. Hegseth then asked for a briefing on the outcome of the review “by no later than December 10.”
Kelly said during a press conference in early December the military’s investigation and a separate one by the FBI were designed to intimidate the six lawmakers in the video from speaking out against Trump.
The lawmakers in the video, who have backgrounds in the military or intelligence agencies, told members of those communities they “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”
“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”
The other Democrats in the video — Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander — are not subject to the military justice system.
Trump railed against the video a couple of days after it posted, saying the statements represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
This story was originally published by Stateline.
]]>¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
Security experts at Zenity Labs warn that Anthropic’s new agentic browser extension, Claude in Chrome, could bypass traditional web security, exposing private data and login tokens to potential hijackers.
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
The Russia-aligned threat actor known as UAC-0184 has been observed targeting Ukrainian military and government entities by leveraging the Viber messaging platform to deliver malicious ZIP archives. “This organization has continued to conduct high-intensity intelligence gathering activities against Ukrainian military and government departments in 2025,” the 360 Threat Intelligence Center said in
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
·
An image circulated over media the weekend of Jan. 3 and 4 was meant to convey dominance: Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, blindfolded and handcuffed aboard a U.S. naval vessel. Shortly after the operation that seized Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would now “run” Venezuela until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” could be arranged.The Trump administration’s move is not an aberration; it reflects a broader trend in U.S. foreign policy I described here some six years ago as “America the Bully.”
Washington increasingly relies on coercion – military, economic and political – not only to deter adversaries but to compel compliance from weaker nations. This may deliver short-term obedience, but it is counterproductive as a strategy for building durable power, which depends on legitimacy and capacity. When coercion is applied to governance, it can harden resistance, narrow diplomatic options and transform local political failures into contests of national pride.
There is no dispute that Maduro’s dictatorship led to Venezuela’s catastrophic collapse. Under his rule, Venezuela’s economy imploded, democratic institutions were hollowed out, criminal networks fused with the state, and millions fled the country – many for the United States.
But removing a leader – even a brutal and incompetent one – is not the same as advancing a legitimate political order.
By declaring its intent to govern Venezuela, the United States is creating a governance trap of its own making – one in which external force is mistakenly treated as a substitute for domestic legitimacy.
I write as a scholar of international security, civil wars, and U.S. foreign policy, and as author of Dying by the Sword, which examines why states repeatedly reach for military solutions, and why such interventions rarely produce durable peace.
The core finding of that research is straightforward: Force can topple rulers, but it cannot generate political authority.
When violence and what I have described elsewhere as “kinetic diplomacy” become a substitute for full-spectrum action – which includes diplomacy, economics and what the late political scientist Joseph Nye called “soft power” – it tends to deepen instability rather than resolve it.
The Venezuela episode reflects this broader shift in how the United States uses its power. My co-author Sidita Kushi and I document this by analyzing detailed data from the new Military Intervention Project. We show that since the end of the Cold War, the United States has sharply increased the frequency of military interventions while systematically underinvesting in diplomacy and other tools of statecraft.
One striking feature of the trends we uncover is that if Americans tended to justify excessive military intervention during the Cold War between 1945–1989 due to the perception that the Soviet Union was an existential threat, what we would expect is far fewer military interventions following the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse. That has not happened.
Even more striking, the mission profile has changed. Interventions that once aimed at short-term stabilization now routinely expand into prolonged governance and security management, as they did in both Iraq after 2003 and Afghanistan after 2001.
This pattern is reinforced by institutional imbalance. In 2026, for every dollar the United States invests in the diplomatic “scalpel” of the State Department to prevent conflict, it allocates $28 to the military “hammer” of the Department of Defense, effectively ensuring that force becomes a first rather than last resort.
“Kinetic diplomacy” – in the Venezuela case, regime change by force – becomes the default not because it is more effective, but because it is the only tool of statecraft immediately available. On Jan. 4, Trump told The Atlantic magazine that if Delcy Rodríguez, the acting leader of Venezuela, “doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.”
The consequences of this imbalance are visible across the past quarter-century.
In Afghanistan, the U.S.-led attempt to engineer authority built on external force alone proved brittle by its very nature. The U.S. had invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to topple the Taliban regime, deemed responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But the subsequent two decades of foreign-backed state-building collapsed almost instantly once U.S. forces withdrew in 2021. No amount of reconstruction spending could compensate for the absence of a political order rooted in domestic consent.
Following the invasion by the U.S. and surrender of Iraq’s armed forces in 2003, both the U.S. Department of State and the Department of Defense proposed plans for Iraq’s transition to a stable democratic nation. President George W. Bush gave the nod to the Defense Department’s plan.
That plan, unlike the State Department’s, ignored key cultural, social and historical conditions. Instead, it proposed an approach that assumed a credible threat to use coercion, supplemented by private contractors, would prove sufficient to lead to a rapid and effective transition to a democratic Iraq. The United States became responsible not only for security, but also for electricity, water, jobs and political reconciliation – tasks no foreign power can perform without becoming, as the United States did, an object of resistance.
Libya demonstrated a different failure mode. There, intervention by a U.S.-backed NATO force in 2011 and removal of dictator Moammar Gadhafi and his regime were not followed by governance at all. The result was civil war, fragmentation, militia rule and a prolonged struggle over sovereignty and economic development that continues today.
The common thread across all three cases is hubris: the belief that American management – either limited or oppressive – could replace political legitimacy.
Venezuela’s infrastructure is already in ruins. If the United States assumes responsibility for governance, it will be blamed for every blackout, every food shortage and every bureaucratic failure. The liberator will quickly become the occupier.
Taking on governance in Venezuela would also carry broader strategic costs, even if those costs are not the primary reason the strategy would fail.
A military attack followed by foreign administration is a combination that undermines the principles of sovereignty and nonintervention that underpin the international order the United States claims to support. It complicates alliance diplomacy by forcing partners to reconcile U.S. actions with the very rules they are trying to defend elsewhere.
The United States has historically been strongest when it anchored an open sphere built on collaboration with allies, shared rules and voluntary alignment. Launching a military operation and then assuming responsibility for governance shifts Washington toward a closed, coercive model of power – one that relies on force to establish authority and is prohibitively costly to sustain over time.
These signals are read not only in Berlin, London and Paris. They are watched closely in Taipei, Tokyo and Seoul — and just as carefully in Beijing and Moscow.
When the United States attacks a sovereign state and then claims the right to administer it, it weakens its ability to contest rival arguments that force alone, rather than legitimacy, determines political authority.
Beijing needs only to point to U.S. behavior to argue that great powers rule as they please where they can – an argument that can justify the takeover of Taiwan. Moscow, likewise, can cite such precedent to justify the use of force in its near abroad and not just in Ukraine.
This matters in practice, not theory. The more the United States normalizes unilateral governance, the easier it becomes for rivals to dismiss American appeals to sovereignty as selective and self-serving, and the more difficult it becomes for allies to justify their ties to the U.S.
That erosion of credibility does not produce dramatic rupture, but it steadily narrows the space for cooperation over time and the advancement of U.S. interests and capabilities.
Force is fast. Legitimacy is slow. But legitimacy is the only currency that buys durable peace and stability – both of which remain enduring U.S. interests.
If Washington governs by force in Venezuela, it will repeat the failures of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya: Power can topple regimes, but it cannot create political authority. Outside rule invites resistance, not stability.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
]]>
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
The botnet known as Kimwolf has infected more than 2 million Android devices by tunneling through residential proxy networks, according to findings from Synthient. “Key actors involved in the Kimwolf botnet are observed monetizing the botnet through app installs, selling residential proxy bandwidth, and selling its DDoS functionality,” the company said in an analysis published last week. Kimwolf
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
·
U.S. captures Maduro, Trump vows to run Venezuela. An ensemble of CIA and Army special forces abducted Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife in a daring raid overnight early Saturday, sending shockwaves around the globe just hours before U.S. President Donald Trump praised the operation as an exciting opportunity for American oil companies while millions of Venezuelans were left in uncharted territory with no clear leader and a nearly unprecedented armada of American naval assets watching from the waters just outside their national border. On Saturday morning, Trump released a photo on his social media account showing a blind-folded Maduro aboard an aircraft bound for the U.S., where this week he’s expected to face new federal charges in a New York City courtroom.“We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition,” Trump said Saturday, without mentioning the man who beat Maduro in Venezuela’s 2024 elections, former diplomat Edmundo González. “We don't want to be involved with, uh, having somebody else get in and we have the same situation that we had for the last long period of years,” Trump said. “So we are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.”
Who is running Venezuela today? It’s hard to say. González has said it’s himself. But 56-year-old Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro’s vice president and the country’s finance and oil minister, is now the country’s acting president. Reuters has a bit more on her bio. She released a cautious statement on Instagram after Maduro’s capture: “Our people and our region deserve peace and dialogue, not war. That has always been President Nicolás Maduro’s position, and it is the position of all Venezuelans right now,” she said, adding in what observers interpreted as a subtle rebuke of Trump, “Our country aspires to live without external threats.”
Trump declared Sunday night, “We’re in charge,” when asked directly if he had spoken with Rodríguez yet. He added, “No, I haven't, but other people have,” and said “at the right time, I will” speak with her.
In justifying the operation on Saturday, Trump alleged Maduro “personally oversaw the vicious cartel known as Cartel de los Soles, which flooded our nation with lethal poison responsible for the deaths of countless Americans, the many, many Americans, hundreds of thousands over the years, of Americans died because of him. Maduro and his wife will soon face the full might of American justice and stand trial on American soil.”
Trump on Venezuela’s oil: “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”
By the way: At least 16 sanctioned oil tankers are reportedly defying Trump’s naval blockade, “using fake ship names and misrepresenting their positions” via GPS spoofing, the New York Times reported Monday.
It’s been two weeks since we last landed in your inbox, and there’s a lot of ground to cover. Welcome to our first D Brief of 2026. If you’re new here, this is a newsletter focused on developments affecting the future of U.S. national security, brought to you by Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston. It’s more important than ever to stay informed, so we’d like to take a moment to thank you for reading. Share your tips and feedback here. And if you’re not already subscribed, you can do that here. On this day in 1861, Star of the West sailed from New York with supplies for besieged Union troops at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. The ship would be met with Confederate cannonballs, the first exchange of fire between North and South, though the Civil War would not begin for another four months.
Trump threatened further military action in Venezuela if things don’t go as he wants. “We are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so,” he told reporters on Saturday. “We have a much bigger wave that we probably won't have to do. This partnership of Venezuela with the United States of America, a country that everybody wants to be involved with because of what we're able to do and accomplish, will make the people of Venezuela rich, independent, and safe,” Trump said.
Worth noting: Trump did not consult Congress before the abduction in Caracas, which observers noted appeared to violate international law. Relatedly, former President George Bush also did not consult Congress before launching Operation Just Cause in late 1989, which eventually captured Panamanian ruler Gen. Manuel Noriega on the same day as Maduro’s abduction, Jan. 3.
On Capitol Hill, the Senate is set to vote this week on a war powers resolution that could block Trump from taking additional military action inside Venezuela. In addition to co-sponsor Rand Paul, R-Ky., “Three more Republicans would need to vote for it to give it the 51 votes needed to pass,” The Hill reports. Those numbers strongly suggest the resolution would lack the veto-proof majority needed should it later advance through the House, which already failed to pass a similar resolution last month.
Big-picture consideration: “The operation is less a challenge to international law than an instance of total disregard for it,” Graeme Wood of The Atlantic wrote on Saturday. “It is an indulgence in precisely the behavior that international law theoretically constrains, namely the crossing of borders and use of force to meddle in what could plausibly be considered another country’s internal affairs.”
After developments in Caracas, many around the world wonder who’s next in Trump’s sights. Perhaps the most vocal among those concerned is Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who released a statement on Sunday warning Trump against trying to seize Greenland—a threat he first issued just days after taking office for his second term last year. “It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the US needing to take over Greenland. The US has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish kingdom,” she said.
- For what it’s worth, last Monday, the Pentagon’s arms-export agency announced the sale of three P-8A surveillance aircraft to Denmark for $1.8 billion.
But Trump again affirmed his imperial ambitions for Greenland, telling reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday that he believes the U.S. must take control of it to enhance America’s national security. “It's so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security. And Denmark is not gonna be able to do it, I can tell you.” (He repeated this goal in a separate interview with The Atlantic on Sunday.) Nevertheless, “We'll worry about Greenland in about two months. Let's talk about Greenland in 20 days,” Trump told reporters.
Greenland’s prime minister took a sharper tone on Monday. “Threats, pressure and talk of annexation have no place between friends,” said Jens-Frederik Nielsen. “That is not how you speak to a people who have shown responsibility, stability and loyalty time and again. Enough is enough. No more pressure. No more innuendo. No more fantasies about annexation.” Finland’s president also threw his nation’s support behind Denmark and Greenland. “No one decides for Greenland and Denmark but Greenland and Denmark themselves,” President Alexander Stubb wrote on social media. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, too, threw his support behind Denmark and Greenland—emphasizing in his remarks with Sky News that Copenhagen plays a key role in the NATO alliance.
Trump also said Colombia could be next. Colombia is “run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States,” Trump said regarding President Gustavo Petro. “He’s not going to be doing it for very long,” Trump told reporters. When asked if Trump may target Colombia like he did in Venezuela, he replied, “It sounds good to me.” Earlier on Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio—the son of Cuban immigrants—told NBC that Cuba is the “next target” because the government there “is a huge problem.” However, Trump said later that day, “I don’t think we need any action” in Cuba. “It looks like it’s going down” at least in part because he said the Cubans “got all their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil.”
Trump also threatened Iran with more U.S. military attacks as the country reels from protests over worsening economic conditions. “If they start killing people like they have in the past, I think they’re going to get hit very hard by the United States,” Trump said.
Many Ukrainians saw a double-standard in Trump’s actions against Maduro, according to Andrew Kramer of the Times, reporting Sunday from Kyiv. After all, there was evidence Russian leader Vladimir Putin also rigged elections in his country, yet Trump had the U.S. military literally roll out the red carpet for Putin during his visit to a military base in Alaska this past August.
Back in 2019, former National Security Council Senior Director Fiona Hill testified to Congress in 2019 regarding the Trump administration’s attention on Venezuela during his first term. Hill told investigators there seemed to have been an agreement in the works to leave Ukraine to Putin in exchange for inaction on Venezuela. “The Russians at this particular juncture were signaling very strongly that they wanted to somehow make some very strange swap arrangement between Venezuela and Ukraine,” Hill recounted in her testimony. “In other words,” she said, “to preempt what they were obviously taking to be some kind of U.S. military action, they were basically signaling: You know, you have your Monroe doctrine. You want us out of your backyard. Well, you know, we have our own version of this. You're in our backyard in Ukraine. And we were getting that sent to us, you know, kind of informally through channels.” Obviously, no U.S. military action took place then. And it’d be another three years before Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
For what it’s worth, the raid elicited a raft of false claims and AI-generated imagery on social media. The BBC’s Shayan Sardarizadeh rounded up as much as he could find of all that slop in a social media thread here.
Also: The Maduro capture operation took place early on Jan. 3, which was also the legal deadline for the Justice Department to send Congress a written justification for redacting and withholding documents from the Epstein files.
Boat strike update: There have been at least six more attacks on alleged drug-trafficking boats since our last newsletter just before Christmas. Those strikes occurred on Dec. 29 (one boat destroyed), Dec. 30 (three destroyed) and Dec. 31 (two destroyed boats).
Those strikes raised the U.S. military’s death toll in these strikes to at least 115 people, with an unspecified number of additional survivors reportedly left in the water during the Tuesday strikes, according to military officials at Southern Command.
Additional reading:
- “Cuba says 32 Cuban officers were killed in US operation in Venezuela,” the Associated Press reported Sunday from Havana;
- ICYMI the “C.I.A. Conducted [a] Drone Strike on Port in Venezuela,” the New York Times reported one week ago on what is believed to have been the first U.S. strike inside Venezuela;
- And don’t miss before the raid, “How Oil, Drugs and Immigration Fueled Trump’s Venezuela Campaign,” also via the Times reporting Dec. 27.
Strikes in Nigeria
Gunmen kill dozens of villagers in Nigeria, a week after U.S. forces launched air strikes against alleged ISIS targets. NYT: “Dozens of people were killed and several abducted when unidentified gunmen attacked two neighboring villages in Nigeria, government officials said on Sunday.”
That followed Christmas Day strikes on what U.S. officials said were ISIS targets. More than a dozen Tomahawk missiles were fired at two alleged IS camps in an effort to protect Christians in Nigeria, U.S. officials told the NYT. Trump told Politico the following day that he had chosen the date. “They were going to do it earlier,” the president said. “And I said, ‘nope, let’s give a Christmas present.’”
Update: At least one Tomahawk fell miles away from apparent terrorist activity, the Times reports from the northwest Nigerian village of Jabo.
The Trump administration carried out attacks in at least eight countries in 2025, journalist Wesley Morgan noted in a year-end tally posted to social media. That included more than 1,000 strikes inside Yemen—where a spat has broken out between Saudi Arabia and the UAE as their proxies fight over contested territory in the south.
And ICYMI, nine capital cities around the world were attacked by other countries in 2025, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Paul Stares pointed out in our latest Defense One Radio podcast. Stares recently released CFR’s annual “Conflicts to Watch” forecast for 2026, which you can review here.
Troops in US cities
SCOTUS rejects Trump on National Guard in Chicago. Two days before Christmas, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's argument over federalizing National Guard troops around Chicago. “At this preliminary stage,” the court said, “the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.”
Expert reax: National security law professor Steve Vladeck called the SCOTUS National Guard decision “without question, the most significant setback for the Trump administration at the Supreme Court at least since the justices repudiated its effort to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 for summary, mass removals back in April.” Read more from his analysis, here.
One week later, Trump announced that he ordered troops out of Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland. However, he vowed, “We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again – Only a question of time!” That same day (Dec. 31), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals returned control of 300 California National Guard troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Notable: The National Guard is still deployed in Washington, New Orleans and Memphis.
Additional reading:
- “64 days in Chicago: The story of Operation Midway Blitz,” via the Guardian reporting Dec. 28;
- “ICE plans $100 million ‘wartime recruitment’ push targeting gun shows, military fans for hires,” the Washington Post reported Wednesday;
- And the “US removal of panels honoring Black soldiers at WWII cemetery in the Netherlands draws backlash,” AP reported Tuesday on location.
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
-
A hacker using the alias 1011 has claimed to breach a NordVPN development server, posting what appears to…
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
¶¶¶¶¶
