Security Insights
Loser Persistent Threats (LPT)
In contrast to truly advanced threats, Loser Persistent Threats (LPT) are low-effort attempts by individuals who try to access someone else’s account credentials without much sophistication. A prime example of this was when eggplant_emoji 🍆 intentionally leaked his plaintext password on Twitter to observe how far a wannabe attacker would go.
In this anecdote, Mark Leon (aka mastermind of the KKK group, who is probably co-owner of viewbots.com but also works customer service) immediately jumped on the leaked credentials. Mark attempted to log into eggplant_emoji 🍆 ’s Google account numerous times, triggering multiple security alerts. However, Mark could not bypass 2FA (Two-Factor Authentication), illustrating one of the key protective measures that can stop such unsophisticated attempts. Once eggplant_emoji 🍆 grew bored, he simply changed the Google account password through accounts.google.comand ended the show.
This story highlights the importance of enabling multi-factor authentication and not underestimating the curiosity of opportunistic individuals. While these attackers may not possess the skill or resources of an advanced adversary, they can still cause headaches if your accounts are not properly secured.
Advanced Persistent Threats (APT)
Advanced Persistent Threats (APT) are orchestrated, highly-skilled, and well-funded threat actors who can execute sophisticated attacks. Whereas an LPT might rely on stumbling upon a password or taking advantage of basic security lapses, an APT has the resources to exploit zero-day vulnerabilities, conduct multi-stage intrusions, and circumvent complex security barriers.
In eggplant_emoji 🍆’s scenario, he is relying on a combination of tools dubbed “Googol bot” and “Exploit LLM,” both of which apparently run on a modest RTX 4070 mobile platform right now. The hypothetical aim might be to gain a starting foothold—perhaps borrowing the index.html from WhiteHouse.gov or NSA.gov, justified by membership in the White House correspondents dinner circle.
The difference, of course, is that an APT would be well-prepared and have an arsenal of exploit vectors. They could circumvent or manipulate standard security measures in ways that a mere LPT would not. Data exfiltration, stealthy persistence, lateral movement across networks, and custom malware deployments are all hallmarks of APTs. Defense against APTs demands rigorous monitoring, network segmentation, threat intelligence, and layered security protocols.
In short, APTs are often state-sponsored or backed by large criminal enterprises. Their capabilities are far beyond that of an LPT who’s just using guessed passwords or stumbling upon public leaks. For organizations at risk of APT attacks, continuous vigilance, frequent security audits, and zero-trust network principles are crucial.