Chatbots could be helping hackers to steal data from people and companies
It can summarize and stores reams of data and documents in seconds, saving workers valuable time and effort, and companies lots of money, but as the old saying goes, you don't get something for nothing.
As the uncontrolled and unapproved use of unvetted AI tools such as ChatGPT and Copilot soars, so too does the risk that company secrets or sensitive personal information such as salaries or health records are being unwittingly leaked.
Time saver: But there are increasing concerns that using tools such as ChatGPT in a business setting could leave sensitive information exposed
This hidden and largely unreported risk of serious data breaches stems from the default ability of AI models to record and archive chat history, which is used to help train the AI to better respond to questions in the future.
As these conversations become part of the AI's knowledge base, retrieval or deletion of data becomes almost impossible.
'It's like putting flour into bread,' said Ronan Murphy, a tech entrepreneur and AI adviser to the Irish government. 'Once you've done it, it's very hard to take it out.'
This 'machine learning' means that highly sensitive information absorbed by AI could resurface later if prompted by someone with malicious intent.
Experts warn that this silent and emerging threat from so-called 'shadow AI' is as dangerous as the one already posed by scammers, where hackers trick company insiders into giving away computer passwords and other codes.
But cyber criminals are also using confidential data voraciously devoured by chatbots like ChatGPT to hack into vulnerable IT systems.
'If you know how to prompt it, the AI will spill the beans,' Murphy said.
The scale of the problem is alarming. A recent survey found that nearly one in seven of all data security incidents is linked to generative AI.
Another found that almost a quarter of 8,000 firms surveyed worldwide gave their staff unrestricted access to publicly available AI tools.
That puts confidential data such as meeting notes, disciplinary reports or financial records 'at serious risk' that 'could lead employees to inadvertently propagate threats', a report from technology giant Cisco said.
'It's like the invention of the internet – it's just arrived and it's the future – but we don't understand what we are giving to these systems and what's happening behind the scenes at the back end,' said Cisco cyber threat expert Martin Lee.
One of the most high-profile cybersecurity 'own-goals' in recent years was scored by South Korean group Samsung.
The consumer electronics giant banned employees from using popular chatbots like ChatGPT after discovering in 2023 that one of its engineers had accidentally pasted secret code and meeting notes onto an AI platform.
Banks have also cracked down on the use of ChatGPT by staff amid concerns about the regulatory risks they face from sharing sensitive financial information.
But as organisations put guardrails in place to keep their data secure, they also don't want to miss out on what may be a once-in-a-generation chance to steal a march on their rivals.
'We're seeing companies race ahead with AI implementation as a means of improving productivity and staying one step ahead of competitors,' said Ruben Miessen, co-founder of compliance software group Legalfly, whose clients include banks, insurers and asset managers.
'However, a real risk is that the lack of oversight and any internal framework is leaving client data and sensitive personal information potentially exposed,' he added.
The answer though, isn't to limit AI usage. 'It's about enabling it responsibly,' Miessen said.
Murphy added: 'You either say no to everything or figure out a plan to do it safely.
'Protecting sensitive data is not sexy, it's boring and time-consuming.' But unless adequate controls are put in place, 'you make a hacker's job extremely easy'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
44 minutes ago
- Sky News
Yet another fiscal 'black hole'? Here's why this one matters
Why you can trust Sky News You're probably tired by now of hearing all about "black holes". It's one of those phrases trotted out by journalists in an effort to make economic policy sound a little more interesting. And in some senses it's a massively misleading image. After all, when people talk about fiscal holes, what they're really talking about is something rather prosaic: the amount of money it would take for the chancellor not to break her fiscal rules. Those fiscal rules are not god-given, after all. They were confected by the chancellor herself. Missing them will not really result in Britain sliding into infinite nothingness. Even so, whatever you choose to call the dilemma she's faced with right now, it's certainly quite a big deal. And understanding this helps provide a little context for the extraordinary events of the past few days, with markets sliding in the wake of Ms Reeves' teary appearance at Prime Minister's Questions. Following that moment, the yield on UK government debt - the rate of interest we're being charged by international investors - suddenly leapt higher. Granted, the jump was nothing like what we saw in the wake of Liz Truss's mini-budget. And those yields dropped down after the prime minister backed the chancellor. Even so, they underline one very important bit of context. The UK has become something of an outlier in global debt markets. For years, the yield on our benchmark government bonds was more or less middle of the industrialised-world pack. But since 2022's drama, it has hovered unnervingly high, above every other G7 nation. That speaks to a broader issue. Britain might not have the biggest deficit in the G7, or for that matter, the highest national debt. Others (most notably France, and to some extent, too, the US) face even more desperate fiscal dilemmas in the coming years. But markets do still seem nervous about Britain. Perhaps that's because of what they (and we) all endured in 2022 - when British gilt markets stepped briefly over the precipice, causing malfunctions all around the financial system (most notably in obscure parts of the pensions investment sector). But it also owes something to the fact that the chancellor's own fiscal plans are sailing worryingly close to the wind. Reeves made f iscal rules matter The main piece of evidence here is the amount of leeway she has left herself against her fiscal rules. As I said at the start, there's nothing gospel about these rules. But having created them and banged on about them for a long time, even those of us who are a little sceptical about fiscal rules would concede that breaking them is, as they say, not a good look. Back in spring, the Office for Budget Responsibility thought the chancellor had about £9.9bn in leeway against these rules. But since then, she has u-turned on both the cuts in winter fuel payments and on personal independence payments. That reduces the £9.9bn down to barely more than £3bn. But the real issue isn't just these U-turns. It's something else. The stronger the economy is, the more tax revenues come in and the more her potential headroom against the fiscal rules would be. By the same token, if the economy grows less rapidly than the OBR expected, that would mean less tax revenues and an even bigger deficit. And if you compare the OBR's latest forecasts with the current average of forecasts among independent forecasters, or for that matter, the Bank of England, they do look decidedly optimistic. If the OBR is right and everyone else is wrong, then the chancellor "only" has to fill in the hole left by those U-turns. But if the OBR is wrong and everyone else is right, things get considerably more grisly. Even a small downgrade in the OBR's expectations for productivity growth - say a 0.1 percentage point drop - would obliterate the remaining headroom and leave the chancellor with a £6bn shortfall against her rule. Anything more than that (and bear in mind, most economists think the OBR is out by more than that) and she could be £10bn or more underwater. Now, there are plenty of very reasonable points one could make about how silly this all is. It's silly that so many people treat fiscal rules as tablets of stone. It's silly that government tax policy from one year to the next seems to hinge on how right or wrong the OBR's economic forecasts are. Yet all this stuff, silly as it might all seem, is taken quite seriously by markets right now. They look at the UK, see an outlier, and tend to focus more than usual on black holes. So I'm afraid we're going to be talking about "black holes" for quite some time to come.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Davey proposes major shake-up of green energy contracts to ‘slash bills'
Sir Ed Davey will propose that all green energy projects be moved to a Government subsidy scheme in a speech accusing Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch of peddling 'myths' about net zero. The Liberal Democrat leader will call for a 'rapid' transition to Contracts for Difference (CfD), which work by guaranteeing generators a fixed 'strike price' for electricity regardless of the wholesale price. CfDs are awarded by Government auction to firms bidding to produce renewable energy for the UK grid, with developers either paid a subsidy up to the strike price or repaying the surplus while the market price fluctuates. In a speech at the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank, Sir Ed will say that only 15% of green power is produced under such contracts, with the rest still coming from an old legacy scheme. The 2002 Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROC) scheme, which does not involve a strike price guarantee, closed to new generation in 2017 but still governs some projects on contracts due to expire by 2037. Sir Ed will argue that the ROC scheme was introduced 'when ministers didn't have the foresight to realise that renewable power would get so much cheaper over the next two decades'. He will call on ministers to move all legacy agreements on to CfD, saying the transition would slash household energy bills by 'breaking the link' between gas prices and electricity costs. The party leader is expected to say: 'People are currently paying too much for renewable energy. 'But not for the reasons Nigel Farage would have you believe. 'Because generating electricity from solar or wind is now significantly cheaper than gas – even when you factor in extra system costs for back-up power when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. 'But people aren't seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power, because wholesale electricity prices are still tied to the price of gas.' Sir Ed will add: 'Unlike Contracts for Difference, companies with ROCs get paid the wholesale price – in other words, the price of gas – with a subsidy on top. 'Subsidies paid through levies on our energy bills – costing a typical household around £90 a year.' The Lib Dem leader will describe the legacy system as 'manifestly unfair' for consumers and call on the Government to 'start today a rapid process of moving all those old ROC renewable projects on to new Contracts for Difference.' Taking aim at the Reform UK and Tory leaders, who have both expressed scepticism about the Government pledge to achieve net zero by 2050, Sir Ed will say: 'The narrative – seized upon by Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch – says the reason energy bills are so high is that we're investing too much in renewable power. 'And if we just stopped that investment – and relied more on oil and gas instead – bills would magically come down for everyone. 'The experience of record high gas prices in recent years shows that's not true… we know that tying ourselves ever more to fossil fuels would only benefit foreign dictators like Vladimir Putin – which is probably why Farage is so keen on it. 'But refusing to engage hasn't stopped his myths from spreading, from gaining traction in the new world of fake news. So we must change that.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Footsie tops 9000 before US inflation fears hit markets: Blue-chips give up early gains as tariffs push up prices
The FTSE 100 soared past the 9,000-mark for the first time yesterday capping a stunning rally that has provided a much-needed dose of optimism for the beleaguered UK stock market. London's leading index rose to just under 9,017 to add to an impressive run that has seen it climb by more than 10 per cent so far this year, outperforming Wall Street rivals. However, the Footsie later reversed course to end 59.74 points, or 0.7 per cent, lower at 8938.32 – highlighting the continued fragility of the market as investors grapple with global upheaval. That came after figures showing an increase in US inflation raised fears that Donald Trump's tariffs are starting to take their toll. And the start of Wall Street's earnings season presented a mixed picture to investors with Jamie Dimon, the world's most powerful banker, warning that despite a boost from tax cuts and lower regulation, trade uncertainty and global tensions posed 'significant risks'. However, the Footsie's surge past the 9,000 level still marked what was described as a 'major achievement for the UK'. It comes despite companies continuing to depart the market – either to switch listings to New York or by accepting takeovers – at a time when there is a dearth of new listings to replace them. Dan Coatsworth, investment analyst at broker AJ Bell, said: 'It took eight years for the FTSE 100 to go from 7,000 to 8,000, yet only two years to break through 9,000.' Susannah Streeter at Hargreaves Lansdown said: 'The Footsie has been fired up partly by its defensive nature as more investors appear to be seeking shelter from potential volatility in the US and the unpredictability of the Trump administration.' Markets on both sides of the Atlantic have hit record highs recently, recovering from a sharp sell-off in April when Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs threatened to upend the global economy and boost US inflation. Trump has since retreated on the worst of his threats, though tariffs are still much higher than they were before. And, yesterday, fears that the charges would start to push up prices for US consumers appeared to start to manifest as inflation in the world's biggest economy rose to 2.7 per cent in June – up from 2.4 per cent in May and the highest level since February. Economists pointed to rising prices for clothes, toys and other goods that tend to be imported from other countries. In New York, the S&P 500 and Dow Jones indices were trading lower last night, though the tech-heavy Nasdaq was still up. It came as results from some of America's biggest financial firms gripped investors. JP Morgan's quarterly profits fell 17 per cent to £11.2billion – but that beat expectations and it raised expectations for the full year after strong results in investment banking and trading. Market activity surged as traders responded to Trump's tariff manoeuvres. Dimon, JP Morgan's chief executive, said: 'The finalisation of tax reform and potential deregulation are positive for the [US] economic outlook, however, significant risks persist – including from tariffs and trade uncertainty, worsening geopolitical conditions, high fiscal deficits and elevated asset prices.'
