The company is suspending the feature after security researchers discovered how easy it was to access sensitive information shared with the AI assistant.

When it comes to cyberattacks that shut down power grids, drinking-water systems, and other critical infrastructure, AI doesn’t – yet – turn script kiddies into sophisticated, nation-state attackers. But “the potential is there,” according to operational technology (OT) security experts. "One thing that we've relied on for years is security by obscurity when it comes to utilities," said Steve Swick, former chief information security officer at American Electric Power. "The knowledge needed to do some of that stuff is getting less likely to be necessary," Swick added during a media panel ahead of the publication of Frenos' State of AI in Security report. AI makes it easier and faster for human attackers to target critical infrastructure, gain access to utilities and manufacturing plants, and perform OT system reconnaissance. “Basic access can recon documentation, and distill through that documentation very quickly to find out critical design features of your plant and facility,” said Paul Shaver, head of OT at Armadin, during the panel. “I can download the manual for almost any automation controller, parse through that very quickly, and come up with ways that I can exploit a dedicated feature of something that was not secure by design.” Armadin is Kevin Mandia’s new security startup that uses swarms of autonomous AI agents to simulate real-world cyberattacks. Prior to joining Armadin, Shaver spent six years as the global OT practice leader at Mandia’s earlier company, Mandiant, which Google acquired in 2022. “I will fly my Mandiant flag for a second and try to steer away from the fear, uncertainty, and death of the world is coming to an end, and every script kiddie is now a very sophisticated nation-state adversary. But I’m not going to say the potential is not there, because the tools are improving such that the access to information is so much quicker.” At Armadin, and with an AI assist, “I'm very quickly building tools in days that would normally have taken me months,” Shaver said. “If it can do that for me, it's doing something similar for the folks that have a very basic skill set. I wouldn't go so far as to script kiddies yet, but as the models improve, that becomes more of a possibility in this space.” Plus, as AI lowers the technical barriers to would-be OT hackers, “it advances the timeline,” said Harry Thomas, chief technology officer and co-founder of Frenos, a security company that does AI pentesting for OT environments. “If a better-than-average script kiddie can now perform attacks,” Thomas said, “You have more threat actors out there. There's an acceleration in timeline, more attacks could be happening, and from a defensive position, you might not know who your threat actor is anymore.” Testing the power of LLMs to help plan attacks The Frenos report, published Wednesday, examined the extent to which AI could help someone plan an attack on industrial systems. To do this, it ran several AI models through 16,980 tests between October 2025 and September 2026. These included 13,884 decision attempts, 2,520 planning attempts, and 576 simulated attacks. The company won’t disclose the models or providers’ names, but said it tested six frontier models, two US open weight models, and two foreign open weight models, on three kinds of tasks: choosing one action, planning the steps to a goal, and working through a simulated scenario. Each test gave the model background information and a set of attack actions to choose from. Before choosing, each model received details about assets, networks, and known weaknesses, plus the access each action required. Frenos then checked whether the model’s choice matched the required outcome. Depending on the model, between 6 percent and 47 percent of the choices passed. These tests found that the strongest three frontier models succeeded in about 90 percent of their planning attempts – meaning they produced a workable attack plan – but these same models weren’t consistent: 60 percent, 62.9 percent, and 74.3 percent of the attack plans passed every repeat. “A plan can look sensible and still leave out something essential,” according to the report. “The models had information about the task, but some answers skipped a step or assumed access that the plan had not established.” Meanwhile, the most successful of the four open weight models – a non-US model – achieved a 36.2 percent overall success rate. That figure, however, was still higher than the overall success rates of three other US frontier models, which scored 31.9 percent, 18.8 percent, and 17.9 percent, respectively. “We're seeing that even though AI models help us accelerate our tooling, accelerate our access and knowledge transfer, they are still prone to hallucinations – aka mistakes,” Thomas said. “We still think human judgment remains essential for these AI models to make the threat actors achieve whatever mission or goal they're trying to achieve.” In these tests, no humans asked the models to correct their plans, whereas in a real-life attack, a miscreant who understood the target could spot a gap in the AI’s plan, provide more information, and ask the model to revise its answer. “On top of that, when we were testing the AI models, we used a harness that was pretty simple: Here's some information. Here's the context. Give me an answer,” Thomas said. “A more capable harness could have given these AI models more of an edge.” Based on the findings, Frenos recommends actions for OT defenders to take, starting with a layered defense. This involves segmenting networks, limiting remote access and user permissions, and testing recovery steps. “We have our business continuity plans and disaster recovery plans for a reason,” Thomas said. “Let's execute them.” ®

The European Commission has opened an investigation under the Digital Services Act into whether Booking.com is doing enough to stop fraudsters running scams, phishing and smishing on its platform. Officials told The Register the probe, which opened Wednesday, covers a very large online platform (one with more than 45 million EU users) and has three strands. The first is whether Booking.com is failing to prevent fraudulent and non-compliant listings. "This is very much about people portraying themselves as the owner of premises and putting it up for rent while they are not the real owner," an EC spokesperson said. The second is whether it does enough to counter phishing and smishing (SMS phishing), and social engineering. "Scammers take over the account of a property owner and… portray themselves as the property owner, but also take over the contact details," she said. "So they start sending messages that people need to pay additional amounts." The Commission also suspects Booking.com is not sufficiently protecting the data of its consumers and business users. The third strand is advertising transparency: whether the platform clearly distinguishes ads from organic results, and whether it is clear about boosted listings, where property owners pay for higher ranking. Officials cited Booking.com's own admission in June 2024 of a 500-900 percent jump in travel scams over the previous 18 months. "What made us concerned is the very high figures," an official said. In the Netherlands alone, more than 1,000 fraud notifications were made in the first part of 2026, causing damage of €82,000, a tenfold increase on the previous year. “This is a real problem, and this is only the Dutch element,” the official said. “We have reports like that almost from all member states… So, we have clear elements where we find that the risk assessment was not sufficient, and as you know, the risk assessment is a key tool for us.” The Commission acknowledges that Booking.com assesses fraud using cases on its own platform and external reports, and takes internal measures in response. But “we feel that what they have done is absolutely substandard,” the official said. “Although they take measures, they could go much further, and they could have much more solid systems to prevent fraud.” “In the future we expect Booking.com to do a more diligent risk assessment,” she added. That could include addressing abuse of the reservation system, rapidly removing listings when fraud is reported, checking licenses, and changing how property owners are onboarded. A spokesperson at Booking.com told The Register: "We are cooperating fully with the European Commission and engaging constructively on its questions under the Digital Services Act (DSA). Security, trust and the protection of personal information are top priorities at Booking.com. We remain committed to working with relevant governments, regulators, law enforcement and industry partners to combat cybercrime and online fraud and protect travelers and partners." ®

To escape the chaos of her Russian childhood, Lili Infante became an American law enforcement prodigy. She pioneered the DEA’s investigations of the dark web—never suspecting who she’d find hiding there.

Tragically simple private keys used by a certification authority based in India have been compromised, meaning the 60-million-plus certs it has issued can’t be trusted and necessitating a massive clean-up job. The CA of concern in this case is called eMudhra, which boasts of having issued over 60 million digital certificates to help usher in a world of digital trust. The company has instead panicked the world. News of the company’s errors appeared on Tuesday in a post by Dennis Jackson, a member of Mozilla’s cryptography engineering team. “On Saturday, October 17, at 20:06 UTC, Mozilla received a report from a community member that private keys associated with eight eMudhra intermediate certificates had been compromised,” he wrote. “These keys could allow attackers to issue fraudulent HTTPS certificates for websites they do not control.” Or as Cloudflare put it, “an attacker can create a forged certificate for any domain and use it to impersonate servers to intercept or modify traffic.” Jackson has since elaborated on the incident and the response, which has thankfully seen Mozilla, Chrome, and Apple remediate the issue so their browsers won’t rely on the certificates – at least after users install an update. He also reports that eMudhra has revoked the certs, and lists many FOSS projects that have issued updates that mean they won’t recognize certs from eMudhra. That’s welcome, but sadly certs signed with these private keys are still out there and many services rely on them. Browser makers are set up to detect and reject bad certs. Others who relied on them may not be, and will likely need to dig into their environments to see if they rely on certs signed by eMudhra. Developer Geoffrey Huntley has offered some advice on automating that process. At the time of writing, eMudhra has not responded to The Register’s inquiries about the incident and its security practices. The latter question is of great interest because security researcher Scott Helme analyzed eMudhra’s certs and found one the private keys it used “is the number 4.” “Not a number that starts with 4, or the number 4 followed by a few hundred random digits, just, 4... Another one is 56, and another is 115. I know, because I recovered all of them from their public certificates on my laptop just now, and it took less than a second,” Helme wrote. Other researchers have found private keys including the numbers 66, 155, 156, 230 and 237. Those are vastly inadequate keys, because they’re easy to guess, making all certs issued by eMudhra susceptible to brute force attacks. As Helme put it: “A P-384 private key should be a random 384-bit number, which gives you 2³⁸⁴ possibilities (or roughly 10¹¹⁵), so nobody is ever going to search that.” This is a developing story and The Register will update it as more information becomes available. ®

An "avalanche of vulnerability reports" is forcing curl to move lower-severity cases into public view, reserving private handling for high and critical flaws. From October 26, low and medium-severity reports should be filed in the open source data transfer tool's public GitHub repository, maintainer Daniel Stenberg said. "Security researchers in doubt can still submit the issue on HackerOne and we can tell them what severity we deem it to be. Over the last few years, over 90 percent of all submissions could quickly be assessed to be less than HIGH." Stenberg already shuttered curl's bug bounty scheme this year as AI-generated submissions piled work onto its security team. Stenberg has previously acknowledged that not all AI-assisted reports are bad, but the workload now demands another response. "This policy change is entirely triggered by the current avalanche of vulnerability reports that keep pouring in. We see no end to them and we do not anticipate this flood to decrease within the next several months. "We are struggling as a project as all key maintainers feel strained, overloaded and brought to the brink of what we can muster. We must act to survive. This is our next step in a survival strategy. It might not be our last. We aim to not drown." Public handling would let more people assess reports, develop fixes, write advisories, and check for related problems before releases ship, Stenberg said. Handling vulnerability reports publicly won't reduce the work per report, he admits, though it could spread the load and make the resulting lessons and documentation easier to find. At least that's the theory. Public disclosure also gives attackers more time to exploit flaws before fixes arrive. The maintainer agrees this is unfortunate yet unavoidable. "We limit this practice to less than HIGH for this reason: at least these problems are not terrible." Stenberg said researchers using AI are generating unusual option combinations unlikely to occur in real applications, then treating minor discrepancies as vulnerabilities. "We can't continue down this spiraling path with our sanity intact. We don't have the bandwidth, manpower or even will to handle a never-ending vulnerability reporting stream at this pace. I believe few software projects can stand this kind of prolonged high volume deluge for extended periods. Something needs to give way." ®

Bullhorn is the latest tech giant finding itself on the wrong end of a cyberattack, forcing the recruitment software provider to shut down its platform while it investigates. The US-based company, which serves more than 10,000 customers worldwide, says its systems are now back online in the UK, US, and Australia. Unfortunately for customers hoping to get back to work, online doesn't necessarily mean working. In its latest status update, published on Tuesday, Bullhorn confirmed that some users were still struggling with single sign-on (SSO), password resets, and customizations, while several products continued to report degraded performance. Things started going sideways on Friday, October 16, when Bullhorn flagged problems getting job postings onto Indeed. By the following morning, the platform was suffering a full-blown outage, and Bullhorn confirmed later that day that it was dealing with something rather more serious than a technical hiccup. "We have detected a cyber incident on the Bullhorn Platform. We have temporarily disabled access to our systems in order to contain the activity while we investigate further," the company said, noting that it had roped in cybersecurity specialists from CrowdStrike to help investigate the attack and restore its services. For recruitment agencies using Bullhorn, the outage meant losing access to candidate records, job applications, placements and, in some cases, the systems used to get people paid. Services began returning on Monday, but recovery has been anything but seamless. As of Tuesday morning, Bullhorn's status page still listed degraded performance across several products, including its automation tools, Talent Platform, Onboarding365 and Time & Expense. While Bullhorn is making progress getting customers back into their accounts, it has yet to answer arguably the bigger question: whether the attackers stole anything. In its customer FAQ, it said a forensic investigation is ongoing, and has not yet determined whether attackers exfiltrated customer data. Bullhorn says it will contact affected customers if the investigation finds their information was compromised, and it also warned people to watch out for opportunistic crooks looking to exploit the chaos. "Threat actors may pose as Bullhorn personnel via email, text, or phone calls, using the incident as a pretext to request credentials or sensitive information," it warned on Tuesday, stressing that its employees would never ask customers to disclose passwords, multi-factor authentication codes, or verification tokens. The company has also required password resets for users who don’t log in through SSO, while customers using API integrations have been instructed to rotate their credentials. The cause of the intrusion remains unknown, and Bullhorn has not publicly identified the attackers or confirmed whether ransomware was involved. The company didn’t respond to The Register’s questions at publication time. The outage may be coming to an end, but Bullhorn's investigation into what the attackers actually did is far from over. ®

The UK public sector has reached a cyber resilience inflection point. A new Prime Minister has taken office, and significant machinery-of-government changes have already been announced, including the scrapping of DSIT, the department that had become the center of government digital, technology and cyber policy. Its responsibilities are now being redistributed across other parts of Whitehall, creating a new policy and delivery landscape for public sector leaders to navigate. For years, cyber security was treated as a specialist operational discipline that was essential but largely delegated to technical teams. That model is no longer sustainable. Pressure is now coming from three directions at once, as policy raises expectations for boards and senior leaders, organizational reform reshapes how services, systems and suppliers connect, and technology change, from cloud and hybrid work to AI, expands both opportunity and exposure. Together, these forces mean cyber resilience can no longer sit below board level. Public services, from healthcare and benefits to transport, education, local government and emergency response, are now so digitally dependent that a cyber incident is not simply an IT outage. It is a risk to public trust, public safety and the continuity of government itself. Recent history shows what this means in practice. The 2024 ransomware attack on Synnovis, a pathology services provider to parts of the NHS, significantly reduced the capacity to process blood, urine and specimen tests, caused disruption across south-east London and contributed to delays affecting more than 11,000 outpatient and elective procedure appointments. Incidents like this turn abstract cyber risk into real-world service disruption, making resilience a boardroom issue rather than a back-office concern. Cyber resilience is no longer a technical aspiration, but a leadership obligation shaped by policy, organizational and technology change. Policy change has made cyber resilience a leadership obligation The direction from government and the National Cyber Security Centre is clear. The Cyber Resilience Pledge asks organizations to make cyber security a board-level responsibility, register for NCSC Early Warning and take a risk-based approach to Cyber Essentials across their supply chains. The NCSC’s Cyber Governance Code of Practice reinforces the point that cyber risk must be governed like any other material organizational risk. The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill will further expand expectations across essential and digital services, strengthening incident reporting and bringing more critical suppliers into scope. This matters because the scale and impact of cyber threats facing the UK are increasing sharply. The NCSC handled 204 nationally significant cyber incidents in the year to September 2025, up from 89 the previous year. That means the UK is now experiencing an average of four nationally significant cyber attacks every week. Policy has therefore changed the boardroom question. Leaders should no longer ask only whether an organization has invested in security tools. They need to ask whether they can prove resilience, evidence accountability and continue delivering critical services when systems are under pressure, suppliers are compromised, data access is disrupted or attackers are already inside the network. Organisational change is creating hidden cyber risk The second force is organizational change. Local Government Reorganisation is redrawing structures and responsibilities across England. Rail renationalization and other shifts in public ownership are changing who owns, manages and secures critical data and systems. Departmental priorities and delivery models are also evolving under a new Prime Minister, with DSIT being dismantled and functions including digital transformation, public sector AI adoption, information resilience and online harms moving into different departments and central government structures. Every one of these transitions creates potential gaps. Systems need to be integrated. Identity and access privileges need to be reassessed. Data needs to move between teams, agencies and suppliers. Contracts and responsibilities need to be redefined. During periods of change, the attack surface expands, and accountability can become blurred. This is why cyber resilience must be built into public sector reform from the outset. The question is not simply how to restructure services efficiently. It is how to ensure citizens can continue to access those services securely throughout the transition. Reorganization without resilience is a risk to the public. Technology change demands continuous assurance The third force is technology change. Public sector work now happens across hybrid environments, shared services, cloud platforms, partner ecosystems and complex supply chains. Traditional security models were built for a more stable world of fixed offices, predictable networks, known users and clearly defined organizational boundaries. That world no longer exists. AI makes this problem more urgent. AI is already being used across the public sector to improve productivity, analyze information and support better service delivery. But without governance, organizations can quickly lose track of which tools are being used, what data they can access and whether sensitive information is being exposed. Shadow AI is not a future risk. It is a present governance challenge. Resilience in this environment requires continuous assurance. Access should not be granted simply because a user is on a trusted network. Every request should be verified based on identity, context, device posture and risk. Users should only receive the access they need, when they need it. Applications should be protected from unnecessary exposure. Data should be segmented so that compromise in one area does not automatically spread across the organization. What public sector boards should do now Making cyber resilience a board-level priority does not mean every director needs to become a technical expert. It means senior leaders need the right governance, evidence and accountability to respond to the three forces reshaping risk across the public sector. That starts with treating cyber resilience as a standing board agenda item, linked directly to service continuity, citizen trust, regulatory exposure and reform delivery. It also requires boards to understand which critical services depend on which systems, suppliers and datasets, where single points of failure exist, and how disruption in one part of the ecosystem could affect citizens’ ability to access essential services. Supply chain assurance must be part of that same conversation. Public services are delivered through ecosystems, so resilience cannot stop at the boundary of a single department, council, agency or trust. Cyber Essentials, supplier checks, contractual obligations and clear incident reporting expectations should be embedded into procurement and contract management. At the same time, public bodies need to move away from implicit trust based on networks or locations and towards continuous verification based on identity, context, device posture and risk. Users should have only the access they need, when they need it, and AI adoption should be governed before it scales so innovation does not create unmanaged routes to sensitive information. Resilience is now a test of public sector leadership The UK’s policy environment has changed. Public sector organizations are changing. Technology is changing even faster. The only way to manage that complexity is to build cyber resilience into the way public services are governed, transformed and delivered. The public sector cannot afford to treat resilience as something to retrofit after legislation tightens, reform programs are complete or AI adoption has already accelerated. It must be designed in from the outset, measured at leadership level and tested continuously. Cyber resilience is not just about protecting systems. It is about protecting the public’s ability to rely on government when policy, organizations and technology are all changing at once. That makes it a board-level priority by definition. More Information on how Zscaler supports public organizations can be found here. Contributed by Zscaler

The US Department of Homeland Security on Monday issued an order directing federal civilian agencies not to use technology products from Chinese AI lab DeepSeek, and to remove any existing implementations. The order [PDF] is broad, as it requires agencies to ditch "all DeepSeek and DeepSeek-affiliate products, and third-party products and services developed using DeepSeek implementations." Complying will be tricky as it is not clear which third-party products and services have been developed using DeepSeek's wares. Nor is it clear whether "developed using" means providing ongoing access to DeepSeek models via API or simply refers to any app vibe-coded with the help of DeepSeek. It also leaves open the question of AI gateways. Services such as OpenRouter and Vercel AI Gateway make DeepSeek's models available through APIs. And those using gateway services may find themselves using DeepSeek models without meaning to do so. OpenRouter, for example, "routes requests to the best available providers for your model." It selects what the service deems to be the best fit provider of AI services. Vercel AI Gateway does the same by default. So federal civilian agencies could be using DeepSeek models inadvertently, if they haven't taken steps to constrain their AI providers. A DHS spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. US officials have contemplated a ban on DeepSeek since the China-based AI lab released DeepSeek-R1 in early 2025. On February 6, 2025, US Representative Darin LaHood (R-IL) and US Representative Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) introduced the No DeepSeek on Government Devices Act. The lawmakers characterised DeepSeek as a national security threat because its AI models purportedly capture data on US citizens and provide it to the Chinese government. The bill never made it out of committee, but various government agencies followed through. The US Defense community and lawmakers have already exiled DeepSeek. The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) started blocking DeepSeek on the Pentagon’s IT networks in January 2025. The US Navy, NASA, and the US House of Representatives took similar steps. So did various US states. While the DHS announcement has taken a long time to reach civilian agencies, its timing may be a boon for American AI companies which, like Anthropic, hope to soon go public. That's because open weight models represent competition, and those from China have proven particularly popular both in terms of capabilities and cost. Government agencies that cannot deploy such models (and the taxpayers who fund those agencies) may be stuck paying the prices set by favored US model makers. Concerns about the security and privacy of DeepSeek's iOS mobile app surfaced shortly after DeepSeek-R1 debuted. Several months later, a December 2025 report on the DeekSeek mobile app for Android and iOS cited similar concerns, including plaintext information leaks, links to servers run by Chinese tech firms, and shortcomings like lack of SSL pinning. These issues, however, are mainly mobile security problems that afflict many apps, particularly those that integrate third-party advertising SDKs from companies based outside the US. They don't really address the additional risks posed by the capture of text prompts and responses, or how local secrets and other sensitive information can be ingested by AI agents. Katie Moussouris, founder and CEO of Luta Security, told The Register in an email that while there are legitimate national security reasons to keep DeepSeek's app and servers away from government systems, the way this particular order is written exceeds that requirement in ways that aren't practical. "Banning DeepSeek's own app and API is workable," said Moussouris. "The problem is the ban on 'third-party products and services developed using DeepSeek implementations.' The order doesn't say what 'developed using' means. It could technically cover any model derived from DeepSeek and more importantly, any software whose developers used DeepSeek to write or test code. An AI software bill of materials doesn't record which tools developers used, so it would be no real help. Every vendor would have to attest that nothing it relies on ever touched DeepSeek. There's no practical way to verify that." Moussouris also took issue with the breadth of the order, noting that applying the rules to US-hosted versions of DeepSeek's models goes too far. "The risks the order cites are mostly about data flowing to DeepSeek's servers in China, its data collection, and its app," she said. "US hosting avoids most of those. "For the model itself, the order says only that it may contain malware or vulnerabilities, which is true of all software. NIST found DeepSeek more vulnerable to prompt injection than US models, though every model has that problem. NIST also found it easier to jailbreak, but jailbreak guardrails often get in the way of defenders." ®

Dutch grocery giant Ahold Delhaize, which operates US supermarket chains Food Lion, Giant Food, and Stop & Shop, said it proactively took IT systems offline following a cyberattack, affecting most of its US and European brands. The multinational chain originally disclosed the incident on October 12. “Ahold Delhaize is experiencing a security issue within its network,” it said at the time, adding that security teams, working to mitigate the issues, took “some” IT systems offline. On Monday, the company confirmed that it proactively took certain IT systems, including websites and apps, offline, affecting most of its brands, and said that “malicious actions of others” caused the security issue. “Taking systems offline to help protect them was a precautionary measure that affected most of our brands across Europe and the United States,” Frans Muller, president and CEO of Ahold Delhaize, said in a Monday statement. “The investigation to date confirms this was the right decision.” At this time, all of the physical stores remain open, and the investigation hasn’t uncovered any evidence to suggest the miscreants stole any “sensitive customer, associate, or partner data,” the disclosure said. The company last week notified the Dutch National Cyber Security Centre about the digital intruders, and on Monday filed a report with the Dutch police, according to the statement. Albert Heijn’s website and app are back online, and the company expects home deliveries to resume on Friday. Belgian e-commerce is fully operational, and e-commerce services at Ahold Delhaize’s American brands (Food Lion, Giant Food, Martin’s, Hannaford, and Stop & Shop) are expected to work “in the coming days.” The Etos and Gall & Gall websites are also up and running, along with the “majority of websites and apps” across brands serving central and southeastern Europe. Ahold Delhaize did not immediately respond to The Register’s questions about the cyberattack, including whether it was linked to attacks on refrigeration controllers at hundreds of French supermarkets beginning October 11. The attacks reportedly pushed temperatures as high as 122°F (50°C), spoiling food and causing fires at some locations. This latest cyberattack is Ahold Delhaize’s second in two years. A November 2024 digital break-in disrupted brands across the organization, with some Stop & Shop stores struggling to fill prescriptions, while Food Lion employees reported delayed and missing deliveries. INC Ransom claimed responsibility for the attack at the time and leaked some documents reportedly taken from the retailer's systems. Ahold Delhaize ultimately determined more than 2.2 million people’s data - including personal, financial, and health details - had been compromised. ®

A judge ordered Abdulrahman Alfozan to remain in custody, likening the Saudi government’s offer to secure the former OpenAI engineer’s release to a “blank check.”

Around 80 pages on WhatsApp’s website exposed instructions that were designed for its chatbot, including “WHAT NOT TO SAY.” Meta says a bug caused the issue.

No matter where you live in the U.S., AI-driven scams and deceptive content are increasingly filling our feeds, alerts, and inboxes with moments that make us stop and ask: “Is this real?”

But the scams and threats Americans encounter aren’t the same everywhere. Where you live can shape the types of scams reaching your devices, how often you encounter them, and even how those experiences affect the way you behave online.

This 50-state breakdown combines McAfee consumer research with McAfee Labs data to show how Americans are experiencing scams, how those experiences are affecting trust and behavior online, and which text-based scams are reaching devices across the country.

The consumer findings come from a nationally representative survey of 5,000 U.S. adults, with 100 respondents in each state. The survey explores people’s exposure to scams, financial losses, changing online behaviors, concerns about AI and the mental effort involved in deciding what to trust online.

Alongside those findings, McAfee Labs analyzed text-based scam activity across the U.S. from May through July 2026. That data provides a view into the volume, concentration and types of scam texts McAfee observed in each state during the three-month analysis period.

Together, the two datasets offer different views of the same problem: what people say they are experiencing and how it affects them, alongside the scam activity McAfee is seeing in the wild.

Alabama

Key takeaway: Alabama had the highest scam-text rate per device in McAfee’s analysis, while scam concerns are also changing how residents behave online.

• 66% say figuring out what’s real online takes more mental energy than it did a year ago.
• 60% check whether something online is legitimate at least weekly.
• 19% say they do that checking several times a day.
• 45% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 83% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 64% have avoided an unfamiliar retailer because of scam concerns.
• 42% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email because they feared a scam.
• 41% have avoided trying a new app, website or service.
• 39% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• Investment and cryptocurrency scams were the leading text-scam category detected in Alabama.

McAfee detected 5.14 scam texts per device, the highest rate in the country.

Alaska

Key takeaway: Alaska has one of the widest gaps between rising trust fatigue and active checking: 54% report more mental effort, but only 44% verify online content at least weekly.

• 54% say figuring out what’s real online takes more mental energy than a year ago.
• 44% check online legitimacy at least weekly.
• 13% say they check several times a day.
• 44% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 82% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 48% have avoided an unfamiliar retailer.
• 39% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 40% have avoided trying a new app, website or service.
• 34% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams were the leading text-scam category detected in Alaska.

Arizona

Key takeaway: Arizonans are feeling a pronounced trust burden, with 65% saying it now takes more mental energy to decide what’s real online.

• 65% report greater mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 60% check online legitimacy at least weekly.
• 17% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 44% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 31% have avoided trying a new app, website or service.
• 39% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Arizona’s text-scam volume.

Arkansas

Key takeaway: Arkansas residents are relatively active verifiers: 64% check online legitimacy at least weekly even though only about half report greater mental strain.

• 51% say figuring out what’s real online takes more mental energy.
• 64% verify online content at least weekly.
• 22% check several times a day.
• 38% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 77% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 46% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 42% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided trying a new app, website or service.
• 32% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Arkansas text-scam volume.

California

Key takeaway: California has one of the heaviest trust burdens in the survey: 72% say figuring out what’s real online now takes more mental energy.

• 72% report greater mental effort deciding what’s real online.
• 58% verify online content at least weekly.
• 20% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 83% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 49% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 43% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided trying a new app, website or service.
• 38% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• Among Californians surveyed who lost money to scams, 72% recovered none of it.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led California’s  text-scam volume. 

Colorado

Key takeaway: Colorado’s clearest signal is concern about AI-enabled scams, shared by 85% of residents surveyed.

• 59% report greater mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 56% verify online content at least weekly.
• 15% check several times a day.
• 38% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 42% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 45% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 35% have avoided trying a new app, website or service.
• 34% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Colorado’s text-scam volume.

Connecticut

Key takeaway: Connecticut residents report rising trust fatigue, yet fewer than half say they verify online content every week.

• 57% say figuring out what’s real takes more mental energy.
• 47% verify online content at least weekly.
• 18% check several times a day.
• 35% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 79% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 33% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 36% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 26% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 24% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Connecticut’s text-scam volume.

Delaware

Key takeaway: Delaware stands out for exposure to synthetic imagery, with 46% encountering an AI-generated image presented as real.

• 53% report greater mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 53% verify online content at least weekly.
• 8% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 80% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 47% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 34% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 30% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 33% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Delaware’s text-scam volume.

Florida

Key takeaway: Floridians are active online reality-checkers, with 63% verifying messages, offers, websites or people at least weekly.

• 56% report greater mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 63% verify online content at least weekly.
• 18% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 42% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 27% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Florida text-scam volume.

Georgia

Key takeaway: Georgia had the second-highest scam-text-per-device rate highlighted by McAfee, at 4.67.

• 59% report greater mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 60% verify online content at least weekly.
• 25% check several times a day.
• 33% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 80% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 40% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 27% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 35% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• McAfee detected an average of 4.67 scam texts per device.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Georgia’s text-scam volume. 

Hawaii

Key takeaway: Hawaii had the country’s highest scam intensity among affected devices: those receiving at least one scam text averaged 8.45 over three months.

• 56% report greater mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 54% verify online content at least weekly.
• 13% check several times a day.
• 38% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 47% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 38% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 37% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 37% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• Affected devices averaged 8.45 scam texts, the highest figure nationally.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Hawaii’s text-scam volume. 

Idaho

Key takeaway: Idaho shows a sizeable trust gap: 62% report greater mental effort deciding what’s real, while 49% verify online content weekly.

• 62% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 49% verify online content at least weekly.
• 13% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 82% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 48% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 35% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 40% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 38% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Idaho’s text-scam volume.

Illinois

Key takeaway: Two-thirds of Illinois residents say deciding what’s real online is taking more mental energy than a year ago.

• 66% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 59% verify online content at least weekly.
• 18% check several times a day.
• 39% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 75% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 40% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 26% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 24% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Illinois text-scam volume.

Indiana

Key takeaway: Indiana’s scam anxiety is translating into caution: 81% are concerned about AI making scams harder to recognize and 60% verify online content weekly.

• 62% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 60% verify online content at least weekly.
• 18% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 38% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 41% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 35% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 35% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Indiana text-scam volume.

Iowa

Key takeaway: Iowa residents report relatively restrained checking behavior: 47% verify online content at least weekly despite 55% reporting greater mental effort.

• 55% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 47% verify online content at least weekly.
• 17% check several times a day.
• 33% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 32% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 33% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 34% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Iowa text-scam volume.

Kansas

Key takeaway: Kansas has one of the bleakest recovery pictures in the survey: 75% of scam victims who lost money recovered none of it.

• 61% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 51% verify online content at least weekly.
• 10% check several times a day.
• 40% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 80% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 42% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 39% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 40% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 32% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 75% of victims who lost money said they recovered none of it.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Kansas text-scam volume.

Kentucky

Key takeaway: Kentucky is the standout verification state: 76% say they check whether online content is legitimate at least weekly.

• 62% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 76% verify online content at least weekly.
• 19% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 83% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 46% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 30% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 39% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 25% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Kentucky text-scam volume.

Louisiana

Key takeaway: Louisiana combines comparatively low trust fatigue with severe financial consequences: 73% of victims who lost money recovered none of it.

• 45% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 54% verify online content at least weekly.
• 13% check several times a day.
• 35% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 75% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 30% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 73% of victims who lost money said they recovered none of it.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Louisiana text-scam volume.

Maine

Key takeaway: Maine is one of only two states where toll and traffic scams, rather than investment and crypto scams, ranked first in McAfee’s text telemetry.

• 64% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 59% verify online content at least weekly.
• 13% check several times a day.
• 39% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 46% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 34% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 34% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 30% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Toll and traffic violation scams were Maine’s leading text-scam category.

Maryland

Key takeaway: Marylanders show particularly high concern about AI-enabled fraud, with 86% saying AI is making scams harder to recognize.

• 65% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 60% verify online content at least weekly.
• 25% check several times a day.
• 45% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 86% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 46% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 45% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 37% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 44% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Maryland text-scam volume.

Massachusetts

Key takeaway: Massachusetts has a striking trust gap: 65% report more mental effort deciding what’s real, but only 48% verify online content at least weekly.

• 65% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 48% verify online content at least weekly.
• 15% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 86% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 47% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 35% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 37% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 38% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Massachusetts text-scam volume.

Michigan

Key takeaway: Michigan joins Maine as the only state where toll and traffic scams outranked investment and cryptocurrency scams.

• 71% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 52% verify online content at least weekly.
• 21% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 71% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 40% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 35% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 34% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 32% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Toll and traffic violation scams were Michigan’s leading text-scam category.

Minnesota

Key takeaway: Minnesota records the highest AI-scam concern in the state crosstabs, at 91%.

• 60% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 59% verify online content at least weekly.
• 10% check several times a day.
• 47% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 91% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 44% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 44% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 38% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 34% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Minnesota text-scam volume.

Mississippi

Key takeaway: Mississippi had one of the heaviest scam-text loads in McAfee’s analysis, averaging roughly 4.64 scam texts per device.

• 55% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 54% verify online content at least weekly.
• 17% check several times a day.
• 32% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 82% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 34% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 34% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 35% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• McAfee detected roughly 4.64 scam texts per device.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Mississippi text-scam volume.

Missouri

Key takeaway: Missouri residents show a confidence problem around AI scams: 13% said they were not at all confident spotting AI-created or AI-enhanced fraud.

• 63% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 60% verify online content at least weekly.
• 16% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 40% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 39% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 35% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 13% said they’re not at all confident they could spot a scam enhanced by AI

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Missouri text-scam volume.

Montana

Key takeaway: Montana has the highest reported exposure to AI-generated images presented as real, at 51%.

• 63% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 49% verify online content at least weekly.
• 11% check several times a day.
• 51% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 84% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 47% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 44% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 43% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 37% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Montana text-scam volume.

Nebraska

Key takeaway: Nebraska’s strongest signal is AI concern: 87% say AI is making online scams harder to recognize.

• 56% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 50% verify online content at least weekly.
• 8% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 87% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 41% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 35% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 40% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 29% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Nebraska text-scam volume.

Nevada

Key takeaway: Nevada has the broadest reported scam exposure in the survey, with 95% encountering at least one type of scam in the past year.

• 60% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 66% verify online content at least weekly.
• 18% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 82% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 45% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 33% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 33% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 95% encountered at least one type of scam in the past year.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Nevada text-scam volume.

New Hampshire

Key takeaway: New Hampshire shows another trust gap: 59% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real, while 46% verify online content weekly.

• 59% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 46% verify online content at least weekly.
• 10% check several times a day.
• 48% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 50% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 34% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 37% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 33% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led New Hampshire text-scam volume.

New Jersey

Key takeaway: New Jersey residents report unusually frequent scam exposure, with 30% saying they encounter four or more scam attempts on a typical day.

• 61% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 61% verify online content at least weekly.
• 18% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 82% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 49% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 34% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 37% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 36% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 30% report encountering at least four scam attempts on a typical day.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led New Jersey text-scam volume.

New Mexico

Key takeaway: New Mexico has one of the toughest scam-recovery pictures: 72% of victims who lost money recovered none of it.

• 65% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 59% verify online content at least weekly.
• 16% check several times a day.
• 39% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 79% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 42% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 48% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 38% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 44% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 72% of victims who lost money said they recovered none of it.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led New Mexico text-scam volume.

New York

Key takeaway: New York’s most striking behavioral signal is comparatively low retailer avoidance: 33% have stayed away from unfamiliar sellers because of scam concerns.

• 59% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 58% verify online content at least weekly.
• 19% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 78% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 33% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 27% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 27% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led New York text-scam volume.

North Carolina

Key takeaway: North Carolina stands out on recovery: 42% of scam victims who lost money said they recovered all of it.

• 53% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 65% verify online content at least weekly.
• 17% check several times a day.
• 33% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 69% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 38% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 38% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 29% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 29% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 42% of victims who lost money reported recovering all of it.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led North Carolina text-scam volume.

North Dakota

Key takeaway: North Dakota had the country’s highest concentration of scams in analyzed text traffic, at 2.8%.

• 61% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 55% verify online content at least weekly.
• 13% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 83% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 48% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 40% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 40% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 37% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 2.8% of analyzed text traffic was classified as scams, the highest share nationally.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led North Dakota text-scam volume.

Ohio

Key takeaway: Ohio stands out for financial harm: 41% of respondents say they lost money to an online scam in the past year.

• 59% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 63% verify online content at least weekly.
• 20% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 73% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 44% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 33% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 33% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 30% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 41% report losing money to an online scam in the past year.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Ohio text-scam volume.

Oklahoma

Key takeaway: Oklahoma consumers are feeling the mental load of navigating AI-powered scams: 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize, while half say figuring out what’s real online requires more mental effort.

• 56% verify online content at least weekly.
• 19% check several times a day.
• 47% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 50% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 46% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 39% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 43% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 10% say they never spend time checking whether online content is legitimate.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Oklahoma text-scam volume.

Oregon

Key takeaway: Oregon scam concerns are spilling into ordinary digital life, with 45% avoiding new apps, websites or services.

• 57% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 49% verify online content at least weekly.
• 17% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 52% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 45% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 45% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 39% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Oregon text-scam volume.

Pennsylvania

Key takeaway: Pennsylvania has one of the heavier trust burdens in the survey, with 67% saying figuring out what’s real takes more mental energy.

• 67% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 54% verify online content at least weekly.
• 14% check several times a day.
• 39% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 48% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 38% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 37% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 31% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Pennsylvania text-scam volume.

Rhode Island

Key takeaway: Rhode Island scam concerns are affecting legitimate online behavior: 42% have avoided clicking a real message or link.

• 58% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 57% verify online content at least weekly.
• 11% check several times a day.
• 45% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 84% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 40% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 36% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 42% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Rhode Island text-scam volume.

South Carolina

Key takeaway: South Carolina has a confidence problem around AI scams: 13% say they are not at all confident identifying AI-created or AI-enhanced fraud.

• 57% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 47% verify online content at least weekly.
• 12% check several times a day.
• 44% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 79% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 42% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 38% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 39% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 13% say they are not at all confident identifying AI-created or AI-enhanced fraud.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led South Carolina text-scam volume.

South Dakota

Key takeaway: South Dakota’s scam response is relatively restrained compared with many states, with 35% avoiding unfamiliar retailers and 29% avoiding legitimate links.

• 55% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 52% verify online content at least weekly.
• 11% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 78% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 35% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 38% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 29% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led South Dakota text-scam volume.

Tennessee

Key takeaway: Tennessee residents report rising trust fatigue without matching verification habits: 59% feel more mental strain, but 48% verify weekly.

• 59% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 48% verify online content at least weekly.
• 15% check several times a day.
• 40% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 80% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 48% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 33% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 35% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 37% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Tennessee text-scam volume.

Texas

Key takeaway: Texas is one of the more active verification states, with 62% checking online legitimacy at least weekly.

• 61% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 62% verify online content at least weekly.
• 22% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 41% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 30% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 30% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Texas text-scam volume.

Utah

Key takeaway: Utah has one of the highest levels of exposure to AI-generated imagery, with 49% seeing an AI image presented as real.

• 58% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 50% verify online content at least weekly.
• 8% check several times a day.
• 49% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 40% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 43% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 32% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Utah text-scam volume.

Vermont

Key takeaway: Vermont has a sizeable trust-versus-action gap: 58% report more mental effort online while 47% verify content weekly.

• 58% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 47% verify online content at least weekly.
• 12% check several times a day.
• 45% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 79% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 47% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 28% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 30% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Vermont text-scam volume.

Virginia

Key takeaway: Virginia reports comparatively low exposure to AI-generated images presented as real, at 34%, even as concern about AI scams remains high.

• 58% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 54% verify online content at least weekly.
• 15% check several times a day.
• 34% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 83% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 40% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 33% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 39% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 30% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Virginia text-scam volume.

Washington

Key takeaway: Washington has one of the highest levels of AI-scam concern in the survey, at 86%.

• 62% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 55% verify online content at least weekly.
• 15% check several times a day.
• 40% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 86% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 50% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 36% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 34% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 36% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Washington text-scam volume.

West Virginia

Key takeaway: West Virginia has one of the lower weekly verification rates in the survey, at 45%, despite a majority reporting greater trust fatigue.

• 55% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 45% verify online content at least weekly.
• 12% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 41% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 25% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 29% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 31% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led West Virginia text-scam volume.

Wisconsin

Key takeaway: Wisconsin shows relatively high exposure to synthetic imagery: 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.

• 56% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 49% verify online content at least weekly.
• 15% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 39% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 35% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 26% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 26% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Wisconsin text-scam volume.

Wyoming

Key takeaway: Wyoming has the most distressing scam-loss recovery story in the survey: 76% of victims who lost money recovered none of it.

• 64% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 52% verify online content at least weekly.
• 11% check several times a day.
• 49% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 78% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 44% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 41% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 43% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 31% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 76% of victims who lost money said they recovered none of it.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Wyoming text-scam volume.

The post What Scams Look Like in Your State: A 50-State Breakdown appeared first on McAfee Blog.

There is a small tax many of us pay in our everyday interactions without even realizing it.

A package notification arrives, and we stop to check whether we actually ordered something. A recruiter reaches out about a job, but before replying, we research the person and the company. A bank alert appears, and instead of tapping the link, we open the banking app ourselves.

These are sensible habits. But McAfee’s latest research suggests the effort behind them is increasing the average American’s every day mental load.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans (74%) say they feel the need to double-check most things online before trusting them. Sixty-two percent say figuring out what is real takes more mental energy than it did a year ago.

That growing burden is one reason McAfee is introducing a new brand and product experience built around a broader idea of what protection should do. Good security shouldn’t demand more of people’s attention. It should help give some of it back.

That’s why the new McAfee experience is designed to do more than protect individual devices. It helps protect the things people rely on every day, their personal information, connections, devices, and accounts, all while making it clearer what’s safe, what needs attention, and what McAfee can handle for them.

Get quick alerts and easily update protections in McAfee’s app

That matters at a moment when attention is already stretched thin. AI is everywhere, and it has made it easier to produce convincing content at an enormous scale, adding to an already crowded attention economy. Increasingly, ordinary moments come with an extra question: Is this real?

And those questions have consequences. Our research found that 82% of Americans have changed how they behave online because of scams. Some have stopped buying from unfamiliar retailers. Others have ignored communications that turned out to be legitimate. Eighteen percent say scam concerns have even caused them to avoid responding to a job opportunity.

“I’ve accused my doctor’s office of being an AI,” says McAfee Threat Researcher Charles McFarland, recounting a time when even he thought something legitimate was fraudulent. “I had to apologize.”

Financial losses remain a serious part of the picture. Nearly one-third of Americans (31%) reported losing money to a scam in the past year. But measuring scams only in dollars misses something important. Scams are also making trust more expensive.

This report examines that growing cost: the attention Americans are spending figuring out what to trust, how the scam experience differs across all 50 states, and what protection should look like when staying safe increasingly competes for the same limited time and attention as everything else we do online.

Key Findings

McAfee’s research combines a nationally representative survey of 5,000 U.S. adults, with 100 respondents in every state, and McAfee Labs analysis of text-based scam activity across the U.S.

Together, the findings show how scams are affecting not only Americans’ wallets, but also their attention, trust and behavior online.

Scams are placing a growing burden on Americans’ attention. Nearly three-quarters (74%) say they feel the need to double-check most things online before trusting them, while 62% say figuring out what is real takes more mental energy than it did a year ago. (Survey)

That uncertainty is changing legitimate online behavior. Eighty-two percent say scam concerns have changed something they do online. Forty-four percent have avoided buying from an unfamiliar retailer, 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email, 34% have avoided a new app, website or service, 33% have avoided a legitimate link and 25% have abandoned an online purchase. (Survey)

Scams can make real opportunities harder to trust. Twenty-seven percent encountered a fake recruiter or job opportunity in the past year. At the same time, 18% say scam concerns have caused them to avoid responding to a job opportunity. (Survey)

Financial losses are widespread, and getting money back can be difficult. Nearly one-third of Americans (31%) report losing money to a scam in the past year. Among those who lost money, 53% recovered none. In Wyoming, Kansas, Louisiana, California and New Mexico, more than 70% of victims who lost money recovered nothing. (Survey)

Investment and cryptocurrency scams dominate text-based scam activity. McAfee Labs found them to be the leading scam-text category by volume in 47 of 50 states from May through July 2026. Maine, North Dakota and Michigan were the exceptions. In Maine and North Dakota, toll and traffic scams ranked first. Meanwhile, in North Dakota, loan and investment scams ranked first. (McAfee Labs)

The volume and intensity of scam texts varies considerably by state. Alabama averaged 5.14 scam texts per device, the highest in McAfee’s analysis. In North Dakota, scams represented 2.8% of analyzed text traffic, the highest concentration nationally. In Hawaii, devices receiving at least one scam text averaged 8.45 scam messages during the three-month analysis period. (McAfee Labs)

Some states experience especially high exposure or financial consequences. Ninety-five percent of Nevada respondents encountered at least one type of scam in the past year. In Ohio, 41% reported losing money to a scam. Thirty percent of New Jersey respondents say they encounter four or more scam attempts on a typical day. North Carolina stood out in the other direction: 42% of victims who lost money said they recovered all of it. (Survey)

Many scam texts are designed to begin a conversation rather than complete the scam immediately. Joining or clicking through to a WhatsApp group was the most common requested action in the scam texts McAfee analyzed, driven largely by investment and cryptocurrency schemes. The initial message may be only the first step in a longer attempt to build trust before asking for money. (McAfee Labs)

Displays the number of scams seen per unique device

The New Scam Landscape

Scams no longer occupy some separate, obviously suspicious corner of the internet. Increasingly, they imitate the ordinary business of being online.

In its analysis of U.S. text-based scams from May through July 2026, McAfee Labs identified 49 leading scam topics across 23 broader categories. They touched nearly every part of daily life: package deliveries and bank accounts, job offers and investments, shopping and subscriptions, health and utilities, relationships and family emergencies.

Example of one of the many types of delivery text scams consumers face

The full list spans Cloud Storage & Payment; Package & Delivery; Banking & Financial; Toll & Traffic Violation; Tax & IRS; Legal Threat & Law Enforcement; Government Impersonation; Tech Support & Security; Prize & Lottery; Romance & Relationship; Employment & Job Offer; Subscription & Service; Account Verification & Account Alerts; Investment & Cryptocurrency; Charity & Donation; Utility & Bill Payment; Health & Pharmacy; Family & Friend Emergency; Retail & Shopping; Loan & Debt Relief; Buying Property & Real Estate; Context-Free Links & Phone Numbers; and Other.

That breadth matters. The more scams resemble the normal messages people receive every day, the more ordinary life requires verification.

One category nevertheless dominated. Investment and cryptocurrency scams were the largest text-scam category by volume in 47 of 50 states. Only Maine, North Dakota and Michigan broke the pattern, with toll and traffic violation scams as well as loan and investments ranking first.

The prevalence of investment scams is important because many are not trying to steal money with a single text. They are trying to start a relationship.

The most common action requested in the scam texts analyzed by McAfee was clicking or joining a WhatsApp group, driven heavily by investment and cryptocurrency schemes. A message might promote an investing community or offer access to financial advice.

Example of a scam text attempting to move users to WhatsApp

Moving the recipient into a group or private conversation gives the scammer more time to establish credibility before money enters the picture. Plus, for many of us, social apps feel more personal and we more easily let our guard down when we move a conversation to these messaging platforms.

That helps explain why an unsolicited text that looks relatively harmless can still be the beginning of a much longer scam.

Other prominent scams rely on a different tactic: urgency. Fake account alerts can suggest that something needs immediate attention. Toll and traffic scams warn of an unpaid charge or violation. McAfee Labs also saw scammers impersonating T-Mobile with fake reward offers among the largest individual scam topics.

Example of scammers exploiting trusted brands like T-Mobile to dupe customers

The stories change, but the underlying objective is often the same. Scammers want people to act before they have time to question what they are seeing. And there is a lot to question.

Across the United States

McAfee’s analysis found meaningful differences in the amount of scam traffic reaching consumers around the country during the three month analysis period. Alabama recorded an average of 5.14 scam texts per device, the highest in the analysis. Georgia followed at 4.67, with Mississippi close behind at 4.64.

North Dakota stood out in a different way. There, scams represented 2.8% of all text traffic McAfee analyzed, the highest concentration in the country. Hawaii showed another pattern: among devices that received at least one scam text, the average was 8.45 scam messages during the three-month period. That was about 15% higher than Alabama, which ranked second at 7.35 scam texts per exposed device.

Rank	State	Scams per device	State	Scams per device scammed
1	Alabama	5.14	Hawaii	8.45
2	Georgia	4.67	Alabama	7.35
3	Mississippi	4.64	Ohio	7.29
4	Nevada	4.54	Florida	7.29
5	Tennessee	4.50	North Dakota	7.28

A third measure shows how concentrated scam traffic was within people’s overall text messages. North Dakota had the highest concentration in the country, with scams accounting for 2.8% of all text traffic McAfee analyzed.

These measures capture different dimensions of the same problem. The all-device average shows how many scam texts reached devices across a state overall. The exposed-device average shows how persistent scam activity was for devices that received at least one scam. And the share of total text traffic shows how prominent scam messages were within the broader messaging environment.

This shows each states top scam category by volume if Investments & Cryptocurrency scams are ignored. Notice these colors don’t necessarily match the colors from the previous graph.

For consumers, those distinctions may be invisible. What they experience is repetition: another message asking for attention and another decision about whether it deserves it.

AI raises the stakes further. It can make convincing scam content cheaper and faster to produce, while people are simultaneously encountering more AI-generated material in everyday online life. The result is an environment where the old advice to simply “look for something suspicious” becomes harder to apply reliably. Sometimes the suspicious thing looks perfectly ordinary.

That is why the next phase of consumer protection cannot depend on people becoming infinitely better at scrutinizing everything themselves.

America’s Scam Reality

McAfee’s consumer research shows what happens when that scam environment meets everyday life.

Most Americans are encountering scams regularly. Eighty-eight percent say they experienced at least one type of scam in the past year, and one in five say they typically encounter four or more scam attempts in a single day.

Yet frequency tells only part of the story. The more consequential finding may be what people are doing in response.

Eighty-two percent say scam concerns have changed their online behavior. Forty-four percent have avoided an unfamiliar retailer. Thirty-seven percent have ignored a legitimate call, text or email because they suspected a scam. Thirty-three percent have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

These are not examples of people falling for scams. They are examples of people trying not to.

Job scams make that tradeoff particularly tangible. Twenty-seven percent of Americans say they encountered a fake recruiter or job opportunity in the past year. Eighteen percent say concerns about scams have caused them to avoid responding to a job opportunity.

The financial consequences remain substantial when a scam does succeed. Nearly one-third of Americans (31%) report losing money to a scam in the past year. Among those victims, 53% recovered none of what they lost.

From our McAfee Labs Research: This shows approximate location of all the scams received

But a national average can obscure how differently people experience the problem.

Our full 50-state scam breakdown examines the data state by state, combining McAfee’s consumer survey with Labs telemetry to show where scam exposure is highest, where financial recovery is hardest, how concerns affect behavior, and which types of text scams McAfee is seeing across the country.

Across those differences, one finding remains remarkably consistent: Americans are adapting. They are checking more carefully and approaching unfamiliar interactions with greater caution, or even avoiding them altogether.

Those behaviors can help keep people safe. But that puts the mental load on back onto the everyday user. There is a limit to how much vigilance we should expect people to supply on their own.

The better question is how technology can take on more of that work for them. And that is the thinking behind McAfee’s new brand and product experience, beginning its rollout in the U.S. today.

How McAfee is Changing to Meet the Moment

McAfee’s new consumer experience is designed to make protection simpler to understand and easier to act on, while helping people navigate the moments where scams and other threats increasingly create uncertainty.

We’ll let you know if something seems suspicious and could put you at risk.

The experience is built to spot risks earlier, guide people clearly, and act when protection can be handled automatically. That means flagging suspicious messages, links, sites, exposed data, or unsafe connections; explaining what matters in plain language; and helping people take the right next step without requiring them to become security experts.

McAfee can alert you when your information appears in a data breach, help identify suspicious messages and links, protect your connection on risky Wi-Fi, monitor for exposed personal information, and help keep your devices and accounts safer.

Just as importantly, we’ve worked to make those protections understandable.

Instead of expecting people to know cybersecurity terminology or hunt through settings, the experience is designed to surface what matters and help people understand what to do next.

Because good protection shouldn’t create another job for you.

The refreshed McAfee experience makes it easier to see what needs your attention and how you’re protected.

What We’re Unveiling

That idea, making protection do more of the work, is built into the new McAfee experience we’re unveiling today.

We’ve brought protection for personal information, connections, and devices into one connected experience across PC, Mac, mobile, and tablet. Instead of asking people to piece together what’s protected or search for what needs attention, McAfee makes it easier to see both in one place.

The experience is also more personal. McAfee can alert you when your information or devices may be at risk and provide guided actions, that explain what needs your attention in plain language. The goal is not to give people more security information. It’s to help them understand what matters to them and what they can do about it.

And over time, the experience is designed to become more personal and relevant to each person, proactively identifying risks, alerting in the moment, and guiding when action is needed for the protections that matter most based on their digital life.

We’ve also made improvements to privacy tools like Online Account Cleanup, which now helps people prioritize higher-risk accounts, and Personal Data Cleanup, which makes it easier to see the personal information being found and removed on their behalf.

Taken together, these changes reflect where we believe consumer safety needs to go: less hunting through settings, less deciphering security alerts, and less relying on people to spot every threat themselves.

More protection that understands what matters, explains what needs attention, and works proactively in the background.

Here to give you peace of mind and lighten the mental load of life online.

Conclusion

The findings in this report suggest that the impact of scams extends beyond exposure and financial loss.

Every scam adds another small decision to an already crowded digital day: Is this message real? Is this link safe? Is this person who they say they are? As those decisions multiply, staying safe online becomes not just a security challenge, but a growing mental burden.

As people encounter more attempts to imitate legitimate messages, businesses and opportunities, the effort required to establish trust becomes a consequence in its own right.

That makes reducing the burden of verification an increasingly important part of consumer protection. People should not have to devote more of their limited attention to staying safe simply because scams are becoming harder to distinguish from everyday life online. That’s where McAfee comes in.

The post Your State’s Scam Reality: What New Research Reveals Across All 50 States appeared first on McAfee Blog.

The best ways to protect your child from identity theft include freezing their credit, limiting exposure of personal information, monitoring for suspicious activity, securing family devices, and teaching safe online habits. Because children often don’t discover identity theft for years, taking preventive action early can help protect their credit, finances, and future opportunities.

Child identity theft is one of the fastest-growing forms of fraud, and many families don’t discover it until years after the damage is done. But child identity theft has surged in recent years, with 38% of U.S. survey participants reporting that a child or family member’s child had been victimized in 2025, jumping from 23% the year prior.

This guide explains how child identity theft happens, what warning signs to watch for, and the eight most effective ways to protect your child’s future.

Key Takeaways

• Children are prime targets because their Social Security numbers or national ID equivalents are a blank slate, allowing fraud to go undetected for years.
• Data breaches, phishing scams, social media oversharing, and AI-powered fraud are making child identity theft more common and harder to detect.
• In 2025, the FTC received 22,782 identity theft reports involving people 19 and under in the United States.
• AI-driven scams are making it faster and cheaper to target families and steal children’s data at scale.
• Freezing your child’s credit, monitoring for suspicious activity, and teaching safe online habits are among the most effective protective measures parents can take.

What is Child Identity Theft?

Child identity theft is a crime in which someone steals a minor’s personal information, most commonly the minor’s name, date of birth, and Social Security number (SSN) or equivalent national identifier, to commit fraud. The thief might open credit card accounts, take out loans, rent housing, file fraudulent tax returns, or claim government benefits, all in the child’s name. A 2021 Javelin Strategy study found that this crime affects one in every 50 children and costs U.S. families nearly $1 billion annually.

Why Child Identity Theft Is So Dangerous

The crime is made uniquely dangerous by the silence. Because children typically do not start applying for credit until they are 16 to 18, a thief can have more than a decade of undetected activity. As a result, by the time the victim becomes an adult, they may face:

• Damaged credit scores
• Debt collection notices
• Loan denials
• Difficulties renting housing

The crime is not confined to the United States, either. One documentary tells the story of Renata Furst Galvão, a native of Brazil, whose identity was stolen at age six and used to amass more than $400,000 in debt.

How Criminals Get Access to Children’s Information

To protect your child effectively, it helps to understand exactly who is targeting them, how they are getting in, and why the threat is accelerating. Even the most security-conscious household can be exposed through no fault of its own. In reality, information is often exposed through organizations that collect and store children’s data.

Common sources include:

1. Data breaches at retailers, healthcare providers, schools, and financial institutions could expose children’s information alongside adults’.
2. Social-engineering scams and phishing attacks may target parents directly to extract children’s details.
3. Social media profiles are prime targets for identity thieves to monitor, which is why a child posting their birthday, school name, and city in separate posts creates genuine risks. Minimize the personal details shared online and in photos.
4. Online games and apps that over-collect data, including a child’s full name, birthdate, and town, create additional opportunities for personal data exposure.

New Risks: AI Scams and Synthetic Identities

A December 2025 survey found that reports of ID theft rose from 43% in 2024 to 78% in 2025, a single-year spike that reflects how AI-powered tools have made it faster and cheaper for criminals to generate convincing phishing messages and fake identities at scale.

Synthetic identity fraud is particularly dangerous for children. It pairs a real Social Security number belonging to a minor unlikely to use it anytime soon with a fictitious name and address. The resulting fake identity can then build a credit history, take out loans, and disappear before anyone connects the dots.

Warning Signs Your Child’s Identity May Be Stolen

Catching this crime early makes the recovery process far less painful. Knowing what to look for means you will not dismiss the very clues that trigger a fast response.

Unexpected Mail, Bills and Collection Calls

The most common early indicators arrive in your mailbox or by phone, including:

• Pre-approved credit card offers in your child’s name
• Collection agencies calling to speak with your child
• Court notices or bills for accounts your child never opened

Any business mail addressed to a young child should trigger an immediate investigation.

Rejected Applications, Benefit Denials, Suspicious Debt

Many families first discover the theft during pivotal life moments. Examples include:

• A teen may be denied a learner’s permit due to fraudulent driving violations.
• A young adult may be denied an apartment because of unpaid debt on their credit report.
• Stolen Social Security numbers can interfere with access to government benefits.

Unexplained Credit Activity

Children typically should not have a credit history, so potential warning signs of identity theft include:

• A credit report exists under your child’s name
• Credit accounts appear that your family never opened
• Loan applications are associated with your child’s Social Security number
• Debt appears on your child’s credit file

If your child has a credit record before they are old enough to use credit, it may indicate identity theft.

The 8-Step Protection Plan for Parents

You can follow these steps while seeking guidance from financial educators, credit authorities, and consumer protection experts. Start small by choosing two or three today, then build from there.

Step 1: Check and Freeze Your Child’s Credit

A credit freeze is one of the most effective ways to protect your child from identity theft. If your child is under 16, request a free credit freeze from Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. This prevents anyone from opening new financial accounts in your child’s name without your authorization. Once in place, the freeze remains active until you ask the credit bureau to temporarily lift or remove it.

Because minors typically don’t have established credit files, the process for placing a freeze differs from that for adults. Each of the three major credit bureaus provides specific instructions for parents and guardians. Follow the guidance from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion to place a freeze on your child’s credit file.

Step 2: Enable Fraud Alerts and Social Security Reports

In addition to a credit freeze, it’s smart to watch for signs that someone is using your child’s identity. Ensure that you:

• File a fraud alert with each credit bureau to prompt verification checks if someone attempts to open an account in your child’s name.
• Request an earnings report from the Social Security Administration to confirm whether wages are being reported under your child’s SSN.
• Once your child is old enough to have a legitimate credit file, teach them to stagger their use of free credit reports from the AnnualCreditReport website, checking one bureau every four months.

Step 3: Educate Your Kids about Identity Theft & Private Information

In an honest, age-appropriate conversation, explain to them that personal information is the master key to their financial future and should not be shared with online strangers. Role-playing helps: ask your child what they would do if someone they met in a game asked for their full name and home address. Empowered kids are less likely to overshare and more likely to alert you when something feels off.

Step 4: Get Fierce about Protecting Your Child’s Data

Draw a very thick line around your child’s details. Reiterate that sharing them should be limited only when truly necessary, such as school enrollment or medical forms, and only with verified institutions. Ask why it is needed, how it will be stored, and if an alternative identifier is acceptable. Keep important documents in a locked safe and shred papers with your child’s information before disposal.

Step 5: Lock Down Devices, Accounts, and Online Habits

Talk with your kids about safe internet habits. Instruct them to stay skeptical of quizzes, free offers or apps, and unbelievable promos that request personal details. Set their social media accounts to private and limit follower or friend lists to people they know in real life. Use strong, unique passwords for family accounts and enable multifactor authentication on email, school portals, and social media apps used by older children.

Step 6: Monitor for Early Warning Signs

Regularly check your household mail for notices addressed to your child. If you spot anything suspicious, contact the company directly using the contact details on its official website. Do not call the number printed on the suspicious document, as it could redirect you to the thief who sent it. Consider using an identity monitoring service that scans for your child’s data in data breaches or on the dark web and alerts you when their information surfaces.

Step 7: Get Full-Device and Network Security

Many identity theft incidents start with a compromised family device. To reduce this risk, keep operating systems, browsers, and apps fully updated. Secure your home Wi-Fi with a strong password and WPA3 encryption to prevent data interception. Comprehensive security software, such as McAfee+ Family Plans, can help you block malware, keyloggers, and phishing sites that harvest personal data from every device in your home, including the tablets and phones your children use most.

Step 8: Act Quickly If Theft Happens

If you discover or suspect your child’s identity has been stolen, immediately contact the company where the fraudulent account was opened, close the account, and request written confirmation that your child bears no liability. Report the theft to IdentityTheft.gov, follow the personalized recovery plan, and file a police report to create an official record that will help resolve disputes with creditors.

Next, contact each credit bureau to cancel fraudulent accounts, inquiries, and collection notices linked to your child’s SSN. Keep detailed records of every call, letter, and case number throughout the process. Reporting the incident to the authorities helps your family recover and supports broader enforcement efforts that protect other families.

Final Thoughts

Child identity theft is a fast-growing, serious threat worldwide, but it is also one of the more preventable forms of fraud when families take proactive steps early. Start this week by spending 10 minutes to safely lock away your child’s physical documents, then call the major credit bureaus to request a freeze on your child’s credit. Build toward the full eight-step plan over the next month to close every door that leads to potential harm.

Beyond the 8-step sprint, add a recurring data safety day to your family calendar each year to recheck credit freezes and fraud alerts, review your children’s online accounts and platform settings, update devices and passwords, and discuss emerging threats. A family that combines strong protective habits with smart security tools is a much harder target for any kind of cybercrime.

The post 8 Steps to Protect Your Child From Identity Theft appeared first on McAfee Blog.

SaaS-for-managed services providers ConnectWise has initiated a “service interruption” for its some of its offerings after detecting unauthorized access. ConnectWise offers ERP tailored to the needs of managed services providers (MSPs), plus tools they can use to manage their customers’ environments. Cloud Backup is one of those tools and does what it says on the tin for data stored on-prem, in the cloud, or in SaaS services like M365 and Google Workspace. On October 16, the company published an advisory revealing that on the 15th it “identified unauthorized access to application identities within the ConnectWise Cloud Backup environment.” “The service interruption affects partners and customers using Cloud Backup, formerly known as SkyKick. Because SaaS Security and Cloud Management are integrated with Cloud Backup, those services have also been suspended out of an abundance of caution while our investigation and remediation continue,” the company advised. The suspension does not mean MSPs, or their customers, should assume that their environments were compromised, just that ConnectWise isn’t confident it can operate its services safely at this time. As of 16:00 UTC on October 18, the services remain unavailable, which means end-users can’t back up data, access their archives, or restore data. “Existing archives remain encrypted, isolated, and preserved, with no evidence of unauthorized access. Our teams continue monitoring affected environments, conducting forensic analysis and threat hunting, and carrying out remediation activities,” the company’s veep of security operations, Jason Ferguson, wrote on Reddit. ConnectWise has not offered much detail on the incident, other than to publish some indicators of compromise it thinks are tied to a handful of IP addresses and integrations with third-party apps. It has also disabled some integrations between Cloud Backup and Exchange, Teams, SharePoint Online, and its own products. Security outfit Huntress offered a starker view and wrote “A Microsoft 365 credential (API secret) belonging to ConnectWise Cloud Backup has been compromised, and Huntress has confirmed it is being used to gain unauthorized access to customers' M365 environments.” “In one Huntress partner tenant, a second ConnectWise application, ConnectWise Cloud Management - MS Teams (Application ID 24205314-2b89-4e07-a2a4-579e898a5640), gave itself Global Administrator and then added new credentials to two other applications in that tenant, one of them being a single-tenant Huntress application unique to this partner.” “Disabling M365 apps, including the abused ConnectWise apps will not remove credentials that were already added,” the firm warns. “You must review the credentials on all of your M365 applications.” ConnectWise says it “cannot discuss threat actor attribution at this time” because it is focused on “investigation, remediation, and supporting affected partners and their customers.” It has, however, called on its customers to probe any M365 environments they manage for signs of compromise. This is where things get tricky, because ConnectWise has no knowledge of those setups – as is proper because it is a platform provider and its MSP clients manage end-user relationships. It’s therefore relying on MSPs to do the right thing. MSPs are under no obligation to disclose the platforms they use to deliver their services. Indeed, for some organizations the allure of working with an MSP is to access packaged services they never need to learn or worry about. End-user organizations that may be happily oblivious about ConnectWise’s contribution to their business are therefore in an awkward position. Businesses that serve MSPs are a frequent target for attackers, who see the chance to compromise the likes of ConnectWise as a possible route to crack all of their partners and those service providers' end-users. The 2021 attack on Kaseya is the most notorious example of such an incident. ConnectWise will be hoping it doesn't take the crown. ®

Late Sunday night, a still-unknown cybercriminal or group hacked thousands of remote-controlled refrigeration systems across hundreds of French grocery stores, spiking temperatures, spoiling food, and sparking fires. This is part of an ongoing trend of attacking physical systems that can do damage in the real world. In August, a ransomware attack disrupted building-management systems at a Canadian hospital, affecting door access controls, central HVAC monitoring, and the issuing of staff access cards. And three years ago, cyberattacks hit Las Vegas casinos, causing slot machines to go dark, preventing payment kiosks and ATMs from spitting out cash, and locking guests out of their rooms when the electronic keys stopped working. Not all digital intrusions remain in cyberspace, and attackers don’t need to encrypt files and steal data to cause chaos. Hitting physical systems often produces more severe consequences - and turns up the heat on executives to pay an extortion demand. “There was one gig where the customer was refusing to pay, and so the threat actor was like, ‘Hold my beer, have fun getting into your offices,’ and locked everybody out,” Tim Beasley, a senior incident response consultant at Semperis, told The Register. Beasley won’t name the customer, or provide any incriminating information, but said the incident response involved police smashing glass in addition to his team recovering compromised data. “The cops had to break in, and literally get into the building, breaking some windows, so the customer was able to finally get back in,” he said. We asked if the customer paid the ransom demand, and Beasley yelled: “Oh, hell, no!” A report published earlier this month by ServiceNow’s Armis Labs found increasing evidence of ransomware attackers using physical consequences as leverage in their intrusions. “Today’s BAS operate at the intersection of IT and OT worlds, creating unprecedented exposure,” the report said. Ransomware with physical consequences Building automation systems - BAS - are the critical systems that control and monitor facilities’ HVAC, lighting, energy usage, and water consumption. They also oversee badge readers, door locks, surveillance cameras, fire alarm control panels, and other physical safety equipment. As such, BAS make very attractive targets for ransomware operators looking for high-pressure ways to extort organizations into paying multi-million ransom demands. These systems also appeal to government-backed goons and hacktivists looking to ensure maximum psychological and physical impact during destructive cyberattacks. Armis Labs found 73 percent of organizations own BAS that have been used in ransomware attacks, and this same percentage have known exploited vulnerabilities in at least one of their building automation systems. Additionally, 91 percent of BAS communicate over insecure protocols - opening up an even bigger attack surface for cyber-miscreants wanting to cause physical harm. “The primary thing that we see with any attack on building management systems or physical systems: It’s a great place for the threat actor to hide,” Michael Freeman, ServiceNow’s senior director of threat research, told The Register. “It's easier for them to compromise, and it's easier for them to hide in.” BAS and operational technology (OT) in general have fewer security controls than IT systems. Most require continual uptime, which makes them harder to patch or even scan for vulnerabilities and misconfigurations as this may lead to outages. “One case in particular, against a very large financial institution, the threat actors were staying low and quiet by attacking their BMS systems, and then pivoting into the IT environment,” Freeman said. The intruders were routinely caught - and booted from - the financial institution’s IT systems, so they built backdoors into the BMS to ensure persistent access to both OT and IT networks. “We're also seeing threat actors using AI to understand more building automation systems, especially ones that are using obscure OSs like VxWorks, older Unix-type systems,” Freeman said. AI has entered the chat As multiple security experts have told us in previous interviews, security through obscurity is dead. Not only does AI make it easier for attackers to find bugs – some very obscure and decades old - but it also means criminals no longer need to be OT experts to carry out destructive cyberattacks on critical networks and facilities. Instead, they can use AI to learn all about the obscure protocols and proprietary hardware and software that historically made industrial control systems black boxes. “It’s easier to understand what the controls are,” Freeman said, using the example of an attacker trying to take down a plane, or some similar catastrophic cyberattack. Historically, even advanced, government-backed hacking squads would “be quiet, because you don't know what changing certain settings is going to do,” Freeman explained. “Now you can use AI to say, ‘If I compromise a weight and balance system for airlines, all I need to do now is move this number here to this number, and I just told the system to load heavy stuff on the right side of the plane instead of equal distribution.'” Freeman told us he has seen attackers break into airlines’ OT gear in the past. “But they didn’t know what they were getting into, and so they left them alone,” he said. “Those do cause me concern because in the past I've helped to kick people out of those types of systems.” Industrial orgs increasingly under attack OT security provider Dragos tracks ransomware groups’ claims against industrial organizations on the criminals’ leak sites, along with publicly disclosed intrusions affecting manufacturing and other critical sectors. To be clear: claims on leak sites aren’t always accurate or even true, and the claim itself doesn’t mean operations or control systems were hit. Since 2022, however, “the numbers have been consistently increasing,” Lexie Mooney, senior threat analyst at Dragos, told The Register. The cybersecurity firm tracked 995 ransomware attacks against industrial orgs in 2023, a 49.5 percent increase from 2022. That number jumped more than 87 percent in 2024. Active ransomware groups targeting industrial orgs also grew in 2024 to 80 groups, up from 50 the year before. Dragos tracked 119 ransomware groups impacting more than 3,300 industrial organizations in 2025, and the incidents have steadily increased every quarter this year: 1,020 incidents in the first quarter of 2026 and 1,140 incidents in Q2. “The vast majority of cases are opportunistic,” Abdul Alamri, a senior threat analyst at Dragos, told us. “In some of the cases that we have seen an operational impact, either physical systems or an OT operation, it’s just the nature of the opportunism on the part of those ransomware groups.” This is partially due to the complexity of OT systems, he added. “Ransomware groups want to disrupt operations, and put pressure on the victims to pay the ransom,” Alamri said. “They don’t want to invest that time and effort to target complex systems." It’s usually quicker and easier for financially motivated crims to affect operations via IT systems - as the extortionists did in the August 2025 Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) breach, which halted manufacturing and crippled business operations for months. Internet-connected OT: the next 'low-hanging fruit' The other side of this complexity, however, is that many organizations themselves still lack visibility into their OT environments. Dragos estimates that fewer than 10 percent of OT networks worldwide currently have sufficient network monitoring in place. Plus, in 30 percent of incidents the security firm responded to in 2025, the investigations did not begin with a detection alert, but with someone noticing that “something seemed wrong” in operations. This lack of visibility, combined with threats from AI, worries Alamri. “If you compare the risk that we have seen from humans, to what we are about to face in the near future with AI agents who might continuously try to break into those systems - it’s a pretty dark future if we don't take the right measures to protect ourselves against it.” As organizations get better at patching and securing IT systems, attackers will likely look to internet-connected OT systems where digital compromises have real-world consequences, according to Matt Hayden, VP of cyber and emerging threats at General Dynamics Information Technology. “We all anticipate that as we get better at reducing the IT low-hanging fruit, OT will become a vector of much more scrutiny and much more attention,” Hayden told The Register. Before joining GDIT, Hayden served as the assistant secretary for cyber, infrastructure, risk and resilience policy at the US Department of Homeland Security. Compliance vs. security “There is a big focus on the hardware being connected for the purpose of compliance - and to make sure that, in the name of compliance, we aren't opening back doors, to devices that traditionally wouldn't have to be connected to facilitate their service,” he said, using refrigeration units as an example of one such system that is now internet-connected for compliance purposes. This was prior to the French supermarket hacks. Refrigeration units’ monitoring systems connect to the internet so their owners and operators can prove to regulators that the units maintain their uptime and temperature in accordance with regulations. “So if the health department comes by, they say, ‘Look, my refrigerator was at 27 degrees for the last 72 days,' and they have a check mark, and they get their A plus. But that simple connectivity is also a vector in which that particular refrigerant unit could be targeted for disruption,” Hayden said. About a week after our interview, criminals did exactly that. “The recently reported exploitations of commercial refrigeration units represent a significant example of devices without digital value, no sensitive data or extended enterprise access, being exploited by being connected to the internet with unpatched firmware,” Hayden told us in a subsequent email. He said he expects the attribution to be “less nation-state, and more likely those looking for targets of opportunity to identify what could be done with the unpatched systems.” “The consequences are food supply degradation at a small scale, but it is an important example of what could happen at scale very quickly with more consequential operating equipment,” Hayden said.®

Canada’s planned surveillance law is the latest grim step in a series of threats to encryption that are spreading around the world.

Despite Illinois’ sanctuary laws, local police in and around Chicago helped ICE investigative agents track activists engaged in First Amendment–protected activities.

If you’re suddenly being overwhelmed with sign-up emails, it could very well be a sign of something more serious