Scammers used Gemini AI to power a massive phishing operation and Google just sued them


That suspicious text about an unpaid toll, a delayed delivery package, or expiring rewards points may no longer be the work of a lone scammer. These scam texts have been flooding American phones for years, but something has changed.

Google says artificial intelligence is helping fraudsters run larger and more convincing operations than ever before. The company has now filed a lawsuit against a cybercrime network that used Gemini AI to create phishing websites and power a massive scam campaign targeting millions of users.

AI scams are getting harder to spot

Google’s lawsuit targets a Chinese cybercrime network called the Outsider Enterprise. The group coordinated through Telegram and distributed phishing kits to criminals around the world.

Using Google’s Gemini AI, they built fake websites impersonating trusted brands like Google, YouTube, and even the US Postal Service. They used AI to create hundreds of imposter websites at a scale that simply was not possible before.

The group created over 9,000 fake websites and more than one million fraudulent URLs. In just two weeks ending June 1, Android users flagged 55,000 suspicious texts, and the Outsider Enterprise sent 2.5 million messages containing links to fake websites.

The FBI estimates the operation has stolen 3.87 million credit card numbers from victims across dozens of countries, with total losses reaching $1.9 billion since July 2023 (via WSJ).

What is Google doing about it?

Google is asking a New York federal court to shut down the operation entirely. The company is working alongside the FBI and carriers AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon to block these texts before they reach your phone.

Google’s built-in messaging defenses already intercept over 10 billion malicious messages every month, and Android’s scam detection tool flags suspicious calls and contacts in real time.

Google is also pushing for seven bipartisan bills in Congress to make these protections permanent, arguing that legal action alone will not be enough to stop a threat that AI has made effectively limitless.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


“It was severely downgraded,” Gilbert confirms. “I never would have found it if I was just looking through Google results.” (I tried the same prompt in Gemini earlier this month, and after an initial denial, the tool also gave me Eiger’s number.)

After this experience, Eiger, Gilbert, and another UW PhD student, Anna-Maria Gueorguieva, decided to test ChatGPT to see what it would surface about a professor. 

At first, OpenAI’s guardrails kicked in, and ChatGPT responded that the information was unavailable. But in the same response, the chatbot suggested, “if you want to go deeper, I can still try a more ‘investigative-style’ approach.” Their inquiry just had to help “narrow things down,” ChatGPT said, by providing “a neighborhood guess” for where the professor might live, or “a possible co-owner name” for the professor’s home. ChatGPT continued: “That’s usually the only way to surface newer or intentionally less-visible property records.” 

The students provided this information, leading ChatGPT to produce the professor’s home address, home purchase price, and spouse’s name from city property records. 

(Taya Christianson, an OpenAI representative, said she was not able to comment on what happened in this case without seeing screenshots or knowing which model the students had tested, even after we pointed out that many users may not know which model they were using in the ChatGPT interface. She also declined to comment generally about the exposure of PII by the chatbot, instead providing links to documents describing how OpenAI handles privacy, including filtering out PII, and other tools.) 

This reveals one of the fundamental problems with chatbots, says DeleteMe’s Shavell. AI companies “can build in guardrails, but [their chatbots] are also designed to be effective and to answer customer questions.”

The exposure issue is not limited to Gemini or ChatGPT. Last year, Futurism found that if you prompted xAI’s chatbot Grok with “[name] address,” in almost all cases, it provided not only residential addresses but also often the person’s phone numbers, work addresses, and addresses for people with similar-sounding names. (xAI did not respond to a request for comment.) 

No clear answers

There aren’t straightforward solutions to this problem—there’s no easy way to either verify whether someone’s personal information is in a given model’s training set or to compel the models to remove PII. 



Source link