GM, Welcome Back to the Dead Drop

On September 30, 2025, America's cyber defenses suffered the most successful attack in the nation's history. No ransomware gang pulled it off. No nation-state actor penetrated our networks. No zero-day exploit burned through our firewalls.

Congress did it to themselves. And to all of us.

When Politicians Mistake Acronyms for Strategy

Let me be extraordinarily clear about what just happened: The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 expired at midnight on September 30. With it went the liability protections, antitrust exemptions, FOIA shields, and regulatory safeguards that enabled 12 million threat indicators to flow from private companies to federal defenders in 2020 alone. In 2017, before the framework matured, that number was 300,000.

We just watched a 3,900% increase in defensive capability get zeroed out because Washington couldn't get out of its own way.

The mechanics of failure reveal everything wrong with how Congress handles national security when it collides with political theater. Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rand Paul blocked reauthorization, demanding the bill include restrictions on CISA the agency's work on disinformation. He confused the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Same acronym. Completely different entities. Different functions. Different missions.

When Kentucky business groups wrote him explaining that his home state needed this protection, that critical infrastructure depended on this intelligence sharing framework, he dismissed bipartisan pleas as "fake outrage." He objected to every unanimous consent request. He drafted his own bill that would have gutted core protections, then never brought it up for discussion. He simply blocked everything and waited for the clock to run out.

The Other Side of Dysfunction

But here's where this stops being a one-party failure: The House passed a continuing resolution that included CISA 2015 extension. Senate Democrats killed it over spending cut concerns completely unrelated to cybersecurity. The House Homeland Security Committee unanimously advanced reauthorization legislation. It died in the broader funding fight.

Both chambers had bipartisan support for renewal. The Trump administration backed it. Industry groups spanning every sector supported it. Cybersecurity professionals across the political spectrum advocated for it. And yet the combination of one senator's procedural obstruction and the larger government funding circus meant nobody could get it across the finish line.

This is what drives me insane about modern governance: we can all agree that Chinese state actors actively compromising our telecommunications infrastructure represents a clear and present danger. We can all acknowledge that coordinated cyber defense requires real-time information sharing between private sector and government. We can all recognize that legal protections enable that sharing while their absence kills it.

And we still let it die because Washington prioritizes political combat over operational reality.

What Actually Just Broke

I've worked cases where the lag time between threat identification and coordinated response meant the difference between stopping an attack and watching critical infrastructure burn. I've sat in operations centers at 3 AM tracking threat actors who were three moves ahead because some corporate lawyer somewhere decided sharing intelligence created too much legal exposure for their board to stomach.

CISA 2015 fixed that problem. It created a safe harbor where companies could share what they were seeing without fear of antitrust lawsuits, regulatory punishment, or shareholder liability. It meant that when Bank A detected a sophisticated phishing campaign targeting financial institutions, they could alert Bank B, C, D, and the federal government simultaneously. When Hospital System X identified ransomware staging activity, they could warn Hospital System Y before the attack propagated. When a defense contractor discovered Chinese state actors probing their network architecture, they could share those indicators across the entire defense industrial base within hours.

All of that ended on a random Tuesday night.

The Legal Cliff Everyone Just Drove Off

Here's what's happening right now, while corporate legal departments scramble to rewrite their information sharing policies: Every single threat intelligence exchange that occurs after September 30 carries personal liability for the executives who authorize it, potential antitrust exposure for the companies involved, FOIA vulnerability that could force public disclosure of sensitive security information, and regulatory risk that makes compliance officers break out in cold sweats.

The legal calculation just shifted from "we're protected by federal statute" to "let's see what our liability insurance covers and hope we don't get sued." That's not a minor adjustment. That's the difference between a green light and a red light at every decision point in the threat intelligence lifecycle.

The estimates coming out of Capitol Hill suggest an 80 to 90% reduction in threat intelligence sharing without statutory protections. Let me translate that into operational reality: imagine you're defending a network and you suddenly lose visibility into 80% of the attack indicators flowing through your sector. You're not just blind. You're operating with a 20% picture of a threat landscape that moves at machine speed.

Speed Kills (Defense)

Here's what most people don't understand about threat intelligence sharing: speed is everything. When a company detects unusual lateral movement in their network at 2 PM, and they can immediately share those indicators with peer organizations and federal defenders, that's a three-hour response window. When that same company has to route the decision through legal counsel, conduct an antitrust review, scrub the data to avoid FOIA exposure, assess regulatory implications, and get executive sign-off, that's a three-day response window.

Attackers love three-day response windows. That's enough time to exfiltrate the data, encrypt the backup systems, and establish persistence across multiple vectors. That's enough time to move from initial compromise to complete network control.

We just handed every adversary targeting American networks a three-day head start. As a gift. Because politicians from both parties couldn't navigate a government funding fight without torching critical infrastructure protection in the crossfire.

The Adversaries Are Already Adapting

I guarantee you that within 72 hours of CISA 2015's expiration, Chinese state intelligence, Russian cybercrime syndicates, and ransomware operations out of North Korea held planning sessions specifically focused on exploiting this gap. They didn't need to burn a single zero-day. They didn't need to develop new malware. They just needed to watch C-SPAN and wait for the protection framework to collapse.

And it's not theoretical. China's Volt Typhoon operation has already compromised critical infrastructure across communications, energy, transportation, and water systems. Salt Typhoon just spent months inside nine U.S. telecommunications companies, including capturing audio from people involved in both presidential campaigns. Iranian hackers linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps penetrated the Trump campaign.

These are active, ongoing operations targeting American infrastructure and political systems. And we just voluntarily dismantled our early warning system because Washington can't separate actual national security from political point-scoring.

The Cascading Failure Nobody's Talking About

The second-order effects are just starting to cascade. CISA the agency furloughed two-thirds of its workforce during the government shutdown. They went from 2,540 personnel to 889 operational staff overnight. That's after already losing 1,000 employees to earlier cuts this year. So we've got skeleton crew staffing, no legal framework for information sharing, and an adversary landscape that just got the green light to operate in the intelligence gap.

Small and medium businesses are completely exposed. They account for 98% of cyber insurance claims. Average ransomware cost per attack: $432,000. Most can't survive a few weeks of operational disruption. CISA 2015 gave them access to threat intelligence they could never afford to develop independently. That pipeline just went dark.

State and local governments lost funding simultaneously. The State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program expired the same day as CISA 2015. So municipalities that were building defensive capability with federal support just lost both their funding and their access to threat intelligence. Rural hospitals, small town utilities, county governments running critical services, all suddenly operating without the collective defense framework that kept them viable.

The Gamble Nobody Should Have to Make

Now we're left with a patchwork of pre-2015 guidance from the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission that companies are frantically dusting off to figure out what they can legally share. We're back to the bad old days when corporate lawyers defaulted to "no" on information sharing because the legal exposure wasn't worth the defensive benefit.

And here's the truly infuriating part: companies that kept sharing threat intelligence after September 30 did so with zero legal protection, gambling that Congress would eventually pass legislation providing retroactive liability coverage. Senators Mike Rounds and Gary Peters introduced exactly that bill. Think about that risk calculation. CISOs are making bet the company decisions based on hope that political dysfunction will somehow resolve itself before their shareholders sue them for exposing the company to antitrust liability.

That's not a cybersecurity strategy. That's Russian roulette with network defense.

Why This Matters Beyond the Beltway

I've investigated too many cases where institutional dysfunction created openings that criminals exploited for years. The optimistic timeline has Congress passing some kind of extension when they resolve the government shutdown. The realistic timeline has this dragging on for months while companies retreat into information silos and adversaries capitalize on the chaos.

What I know from two decades in this field: once you break trust in an intelligence sharing framework, it takes years to rebuild. Companies that stop sharing because their lawyers flag the liability exposure don't just flip a switch and resume when Congress eventually gets its act together. They build new processes, new policies, new risk tolerance calculations. The ecosystem fragments. The defensive posture weakens. The adversaries adapt.

This isn't about Republican versus Democrat. This isn't about Trump versus Biden-era policies. This is about a political system so consumed with short-term tactical advantages that it sacrifices long-term strategic defense. One senator blocked renewal for reasons unrelated to the law itself. The broader funding fight prevented both chambers from working around that obstruction. And now we're all living with the consequences while Chinese hackers and Russian ransomware gangs pour champagne

Got a Second? The Dead Drop reaches 4,900+ readers every week including security professionals, executives, and anyone serious about understanding systemic wealth transfers. Know someone who needs this intelligence? Forward this newsletter.

The Echo Protocol: Why Your Brain Can't Lie Twice

With CISA 2015's legal protections gone, every piece of threat intelligence you receive just became suspect. Companies are making real-time decisions about what to share, what to sanitize, and what to bury completely. Without liability shields, you're going to get incomplete pictures, sanitized incident reports, and vendors who suddenly can't remember basic details about their security posture.

So I'm teaching you an interrogation technique I've used for twenty years to separate truth from fabrication. It's called the Echo Protocol, and you need it operational ASAP.

Here's what most people don't know about lying: your brain stores truth and fabrication in completely different places.

Truth lives in episodic memory. Rich, detailed, sensory. When you recall something that actually happened, you're reconstructing the actual event from stored experience. You can describe it from any angle because the memory exists in three dimensions.

Lies live in working memory. You're constructing a narrative in real time, holding pieces together through active concentration. It's cognitively expensive. And working memory degrades fast.

After forty-five minutes of conversation, after discussing ten other topics, your brain can't perfectly reconstruct what you fabricated earlier. Details slip. Timelines shift. The story mutates.

But truth stays locked in episodic memory exactly where you left it. Same retrieval, same details, every time.

The Protocol

Phase One: Set the Anchor Get their version with detailed specificity. Don't challenge. Just collect. "Walk me through your incident response process. What happens in the first fifteen minutes after detection?"

Phase Two: Burn Working Memory Talk about other things. Make them process new information, answer different questions, track multiple threads. Their brain is now managing ten cognitive tasks. That fabrication from twenty minutes ago is degrading.

Phase Three: Echo from a New Angle "You mentioned your SOC escalates to the CISO immediately. What's the communication protocol?" Watch what changes. Truth pulls from the same memory location. Lies reconstruct under cognitive load. Details shift.

Phase Four: Repeat Third pass, different context. "How does incident response integrate with disclosure obligations?" By now, if they're lying, you'll have three versions of the same process.

Why This Matters Now

Companies just lost legal protection for threat intelligence sharing. Every disclosure carries liability exposure. You're about to hear carefully constructed stories designed to satisfy compliance while minimizing legal risk.

These aren't memories. These are fabrications built by legal teams. They're cognitively expensive to maintain because nobody actually experienced the sanitized version.

When vendors describe their "robust security posture," they're often repeating marketing language, not operational reality. Echo Protocol exposes this immediately.

Ask about monitoring capabilities. Drift to other topics. Circle back to detection and response from a different angle. Story shifts? You're getting the sanitized version, not ground truth.

Use it on vendor questionnaires. Use it on incident post-mortems. Use it on threat intelligence briefings. The legal framework that encouraged honest sharing just evaporated. Everyone's calculating liability exposure in real time.

Your brain can't lie consistently across multiple iterations under cognitive load. Neither can theirs.

From: Marcus T.
Subject: Password comma trick - legit or BS?

“Hey Fraudfather,

I saw this security tip going around LinkedIn and Twitter where people are saying you should always include a comma in your password because if the database ever gets breached and dumped as a CSV file, the comma will break the file format and make it harder for hackers to use the data. Some guy with like 50K followers was swearing by it.

Is this actually a thing? Should I be going back and changing all my passwords to include commas?

Thanks, Marcus”

Marcus, I appreciate you writing in, because this myth needs to die a swift and public death.

No. That's security theater masquerading as practical advice, and I've seen too many real breaches to let that myth stand unchallenged.

Let me break down why this doesn't work from an operational perspective:

The CSV Myth

First, properly formatted CSV files handle commas in data fields just fine. They're enclosed in quotes. Any system or attacker worth their salt knows how to parse CSV files correctly. This is basic data handling.

Second, and more critically: passwords should never be stored in plain text. Period. Not in CSV files, not in databases, not anywhere. They should be cryptographically hashed. When your password is hashed, that comma becomes irrelevant because the hash output won't contain your original password characters.

If a company is storing passwords in plain text CSV files, a comma in your password is the least of your problems. That company has already failed at security so catastrophically that your clever comma trick won't save you.

What Actually Matters

After working hundreds of breach investigations, here's what actually protects you:

Length beats complexity: A 16-character passphrase like "correct-horse-battery-staple" (don't use that one, it's famous lol) beats "P@ssw0rd!" every time. Attackers use brute force and rainbow tables. Length exponentially increases cracking time.

Uniqueness is critical: Use a different password for every account. When (not if) one service gets breached, attackers immediately try those credentials everywhere else. I've personally investigated cases where a single leaked password compromised a victim's email, bank, and social media because they reused it.

Use a password manager: Your brain can't remember 50+ unique, complex passwords. Password managers can. I use one (Currently Bitwarden). Every security professional I know uses one; mostly Bitwarden or KeePassXC.

Passkeys are the future: Here's what I really want you to pay attention to, Marcus. Passwords themselves are becoming obsolete technology, and good riddance. Passkeys use cryptographic key pairs instead of passwords. They're phishing-resistant, can't be reused, and don't get compromised in data breaches because the server never stores anything an attacker could use. Apple, Google, and Microsoft are all implementing passkey support. Start using them wherever they're available.

MFA is necessary but increasingly vulnerable: Multi-factor authentication still matters, but I've watched it get beaten more and more frequently. SMS-based MFA can be defeated through SIM swapping attacks. I've worked cases where criminals socially engineered mobile carriers to port victims' numbers, then intercepted the MFA codes. Push notification MFA fatigue attacks are effective because humans get lazy and approve prompts without thinking. Even authenticator apps can be compromised if attackers get access to the seed codes or backup keys.

This is why passkeys matter. They eliminate the weakest link: the password itself.

The Real Threat

You know what actually happens in breaches? Attackers get hashed passwords and either:

• Use rainbow tables (precomputed hashes) to crack common passwords instantly

• Run dictionary attacks with common password patterns

• Target reused passwords across multiple services

• Exploit weak hashing algorithms

• Conduct credential stuffing attacks across thousands of websites simultaneously

Your comma doesn't factor into any of that.

The Fraudfather Bottom Line

Don't rely on gimmicks. The comma trick is like putting a "Beware of Dog" sign on your door when you don't own a dog. It might make you feel better, but it won't stop a determined criminal.

Focus on fundamentals: long unique passwords stored in a password manager, passkeys wherever available, hardware-based MFA keys for critical accounts (like your email and financial services), and never reusing credentials. That's what actually works in the field.

The people spreading the comma myth on LinkedIn? They're either ignorant or engagement farming. Either way, they're giving dangerous advice that creates a false sense of security. And false security is sometimes worse than no security, because it makes you complacent.