![]() ![]() Rejection of the nanoparticles was also highest for the mixture containing silica nanoparticles and TX-100.Ībstract = "The increasing use of engineered nanoparticles in customer products results in their accumulation in water sources. The most severe fouling development was observed for the silica nanoparticle – TX-100 system, where nanoparticles in the filtration cake formed exhibited the lowest repulsive interactions. Adsorption of the cationic CTAB (cetyltrimethylammonium bromide) onto the silica nanoparticles causes charge transition and nanoparticle aggregation, whereas non-ionic TX-100 (Triton X-100) neutralizes the surface charge of the nanoparticles but does not change significantly the nanoparticle size. ![]() We have shown that anionic SDS (sodium dodecylsulfate) does not interact extensively with the negatively charged silica nanoparticles and does not change significantly the surface charge and size of these nanoparticles. Moreover, the surfactant itself interacts with the PES-PVP membrane and contributes to the fouling as well. Our work demonstrates that the type of surfactant influences the nanoparticle stability, which in turn is responsible for differences in fouling behavior of the nanoparticles. In this experimental study, we investigated the role of surfactant type (cationic, anionic and non-ionic) and concentration on fouling development, nanoparticle rejection and fouling irreversibility during dead-end ultrafiltration of model silica nanoparticles. This, in turn, led to an increase in attacks that abused these applications: from “Zoombombing” pranks and malicious Zoom installers to a ransomware variant that used Slack webhooks and a spam email campaign that used Discord to deliver malware.The increasing use of engineered nanoparticles in customer products results in their accumulation in water sources. The rise in remote work also meant an increase in the use of communication tools such as Zoom, Slack, and Discord. Malicious actors also found other ways to incorporate VPNs in their attacks: In September, we discovered an instance where an attacker bundled a VPN installer with the Bladabindi backdoor, which could be used to gather information from infected machines. One VPN vulnerability, CVE-2019-11510, accounted for nearly 800,000 detections in 2020 alone and was involved in attacks in 2020 where it was exploited to deliver ransomware. But like any software, VPN solutions could also be host to vulnerabilities, which, if exploited, could enable attackers to steal proprietary information from and conduct surveillance on their targets’ systems. Looking back at a most unprecedented year, our annual cybersecurity report surveys the most notable and crucial security concerns that emerged and persisted in 2020, and provides users and organizations with insights into how they can navigate a drastically changing threat landscape.Īs organizations implemented remote-work arrangements in response to the pandemic, virtual private networks (VPNs) became valuable tools in protecting network connections from external threats. Using techniques old and new, they exploited vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and other security gaps as individuals and enterprises rushed to adopt technologies so as to adapt to the attendant challenges. They took advantage of major events in their schemes to turn in illicit profit. The challenges they encountered paved the way for adaptive and alternative solutions that took into account human as well as technological perspectives.įor cybercriminals, however, the year afforded a mother lode of opportunities for malicious activities. Incidents of great consequence, shifts to remote-work arrangements, and other significant changes from the familiar prompted a renewed awareness and reassessment in organizations. 2020 was the year that stymied organizations and tested their limits on many fronts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |