Russia's Supreme Court Bans Silent Crow and Cyberpartisans BY as Extremist Organizations
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has recognized the cybercriminal groups Silent Crow (also known as the Silent Crow) and Cyberpartisans BY as extremist organizations and prohibited their activities on Russian territory. The decision is subject to immediate enforcement following a closed session in which the court granted an administrative claim filed by the General Prosecutor's Office.
According to the ruling, both groups conducted coordinated attacks on the information infrastructure of Russia and Belarus. Their stated goals, as presented by the authorities, include destabilizing the socio-political situation and effecting an unconstitutional change of state power.
The court established that Cyberpartisans BY belong to the Belarusian association Supratsiv (Resistance), which advocates the violent alteration of the republic's constitutional order. The group was further connected to the Polk named after Kastus Kalinouski, already banned in Russia, and to a subunit of information-psychological operations within the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Silent Crow, previously operating under the names CyberWar and Cyber LegionsUA, is characterized in the judgment as a pro-Ukrainian alliance of politically motivated hacktivists. Its principal objective, according to the court, is to inflict damage on Russian government agencies, commercial enterprises, and critical information infrastructure.
The groups are accused of carrying out cyberattacks against the IT systems of Aeroflot, databases belonging to Rostelecom and Rosreestr, as well as servers of the Belarusian Railway. As a result of the ruling, both Silent Crow and Cyberpartisans BY now hold not only a digital but also an official extremist status in Russia, making participation in their activities or provision of support subject to criminal or administrative liability.
Related articles
Bank of Russia Publishes Methodological Recommendations No. 3-MR on AI Security for Financial Market Participants
The Bank of Russia has released methodological recommendations No. 3-MR dated 16 June 2026, providing detailed guidance on ensuring information security during the development and use of artificial intelligence systems in the financial sector. The document builds on the earlier Code of Ethics for AI in finance and integrates with existing risk management, operational resilience, and data protection frameworks already familiar to credit institutions and other market participants. It introduces standardized terminology for AI-specific threats such as hallucinations, data drift, and poisoned datasets while outlining six risk categories and a four-stage AI system lifecycle model. Organizations are advised to apply threat modeling based on FSTEC methodology, implement proportional controls across data preparation, development, training, and operation phases, and maintain human oversight for high-risk automated processes. Special attention is given to supply chain risks involving third-party vendors and open-source components, requiring due diligence, provenance tracking, and contractual safeguards aligned with existing outsourcing standards. The recommendations remain non-binding yet signal clear regulatory expectations that are likely to influence future compliance checks and audits.
Aladdin Obtains New FSB Certificate for CryptoFlash Encrypted USB Drive Valid Until 2029
Aladdin has received a new FSB Russia certificate for its Aladdin CryptoFlash hardware-encrypted USB drive. The certificate number СФ/124-5574 confirms compliance with cryptographic protection requirements for classes KS1 and KS2 and remains valid until 16 July 2029. The device now supports additional Russian Linux distributions including RED OS 7.3 and 8, Alt 8 SP Workstation, Alt Workstation 10, and the OS of the Moscow Electronic School. Read and write speeds have been increased to 11 MB/s while the graphical interface received improvements. The product uses the Magma encryption algorithm in hardware and operates as a clientless solution that requires no additional drivers or software. The previous certificate remains active until December 2028, allowing both versions of the device to be used in parallel for storing and transferring official and confidential information marked DSP.
Microsoft Tightens Corporate Windows Activation with TPM-Bound KMS Servers
Microsoft is strengthening its corporate Windows licensing controls by introducing new requirements for KMS servers used in volume activation. The changes will bind KMS hosts to TPM hardware attestation, preventing cloned or fake servers from issuing licenses to unlicensed devices. Warnings will begin appearing in Windows Server 2025 in August 2026, with mandatory enforcement planned for the next LTSC release. Existing KMS systems will continue operating normally until the new rules take effect. The update targets enterprise environments with on-premises KMS infrastructure and does not affect individual consumer devices or common non-KMS activation bypass methods. Administrators can already verify TPM support on physical servers using the Get-TpmSupportedFeature command.
Russia's Article 10.1 on Personal Data Dissemination: Apparent and Real Contradictions in Federal Law 152-FZ
Part II of the analysis examines how the rushed redrafting of Article 10.1 between the first and second readings created serious interpretive problems in Federal Law 152-FZ. The core issues include undefined terms such as 'disclosure', conflicting definitions of 'access', 'provision' and 'dissemination' between 152-FZ and 149-FZ, and the removal of the legal basis for processing publicly available data while retaining the consent mechanism that was meant to control it. Courts have consistently held that mere openness of data does not constitute a valid processing ground, forcing subsequent operators to find their own basis under Article 6. The article highlights that the mechanism for subjects to set conditions and prohibitions was preserved, yet the underlying legal foundation that would make those rules effective was eliminated. Two possible readings of the special consent are explored, with judicial practice leaning toward the narrower interpretation that leaves conditions and prohibitions as mere additional restrictions rather than a source of authorization.