The GSMA wants governments and regulators to work more closely with mobile operators to help protect networks against growing risks from extreme weather.

As the global body representing the mobile network industry, the GSMA claims that severe storms and floods already cost operators $1.7 billion annually to repair damage to cell radio sites, and it believes that figure could nearly double to more than $3 billion a year by 2050, under the climate conditions expected then.

The GSMA sets out its findings in a six-part research series, Futureproofing Connectivity: Climate Risk and Resilience in Telecommunications, alongside a separate document outlining its Policy Principles for Mobile Network Resilience.

The report identifies weather-related risks that can affect telecoms networks, along with the associated restoration costs. Towers, masts, and rooftop sites are particularly exposed to wind and storms or lightning, for example, while ground-level equipment at mobile sites can be inundated in flooding incidents.

High temperatures can cause radio equipment to overheat, while heavy rain can degrade wireless signal strength, and infrastructure in coastal locations may be exposed to storm surges.

However, the report fingers the electricity supply as the biggest vulnerability. If that gets knocked out, the network could go offline once any backup power is exhausted, which may take anywhere from a few hours to considerably longer, depending on the site.

Under current climate conditions, the cost of damage to cell sites is estimated at $1 billion associated with severe storms, while river and coastal floods account for $577 million and $124 million, respectively.

Based on projected mid-century climate conditions, the GSMA expects costs due to severe storms to rise significantly to about $2.37 billion, accounting for three-quarters of all damage.

The report asserts that cell network resilience requires a whole ecosystem approach, pointing out that if severe weather impacts power networks, then that also affects the telecoms infrastructure.

The GSMA says that network firms have traditionally managed the operational risks that may affect network availability, but claims they face barriers in conducting full assessments of those associated with climate change.

Some of these barriers are internal, such as lack of shared information between departments. Other barriers are in the different regulatory reporting frameworks, with infrastructure rules tending to focus on service continuity, while climate disclosure frameworks focus on governance, financial exposure, and reporting for investors and other stakeholders.

The report lists separate recommendations for network firms and for policymakers and regulators.

Operators are advised to embed resilience by design, using modeled projections for severe weather and future risk scenarios. They are also told to plan and test resilience across the wider ecosystem, engaging with others such as public authorities.

When it comes to policymakers and regulators, the report asks for resilience frameworks to be developed through consultation with the operators. It also advises coordination among mobile operators, electricity and fuel providers, and emergency services to help maintain vital communications during major disruptions.

And as if that isn't enough to chew over, the separate policy document sets out five principles for governments and regulators. These include avoiding prescriptive regulations and instead promoting outcome-based policies, encouraging dialog and consultation between governments, regulators, and operators, and developing resilience as a cross-sector responsibility.

"Mobile connectivity is essential infrastructure," says GSMA Foundation president and chief regulatory officer John Giusti.

"Whether responding to extreme weather, power failures or other major disruptions, people, businesses and emergency services depend heavily on mobile networks," he added.

"Severe weather is already costing the industry billions of dollars, and those costs are set to rise substantially. Building resilience will require a coordinated effort amongst operators, governments and the wider ecosystem." ®

Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories have developed a method to make asteroid deflection modeling faster and more detailed. Their simulations also demonstrated just how much asteroid shape and orientation can complicate efforts to deflect a threatening space rock.

Sandia researchers, led by staff physicist Nathan Moore, were looking for a way to better model how X-rays from a nuclear detonation near an asteroid can change its trajectory, as explained in a recently published research paper.

"Before, the calculations were so time-consuming, one could not do very many of them," Moore told The Register. "So it was very difficult to explore different scenarios, different asteroids, or different mission concepts."

The complexity of those calculations forced earlier researchers to make compromises, often modeling asteroids as spheres or simplifying the physics involved.

Perfectly spherical asteroids are rare, and their irregular shapes present an additional challenge for those keeping an eye on the skies to avert a potential asteroid apocalypse.

To overcome the computational problem and enable better modeling of irregular asteroid shapes, Moore and his team combined two high-fidelity simulation codes already in use at Sandia: ALEGRA, which models radiation heating and high-energy material dynamics, and SPARTA, which simulates the behavior of low-density gases.

As Moore explained to us in an email, both codes are good at one particular part of asteroid impact modeling, but bad at the other.

"ALEGRA … can very accurately simulate the vaporization of the rocky surface, but the calculation becomes more inefficient for matter at low densities," Moore told us. "This is a problem for asteroid deflection simulations, because as the gas expands around the asteroid, the calculation time goes up."

Earlier asteroid simulations using ALEGRA typically modeled asteroids as spheres to reduce calculation times.

"SPARTA is more efficient at low gas densities," Moore said. "The problem is, conversely, SPARTA gets more difficult to run at high gas densities. So the key here was using both codes."

In Moore's model, ALEGRA handles regions of high gas density, while SPARTA tackles the more dilute regions of an irregular shape. The result is two codes handling the parts of the problem they're best suited to solve, reducing the overall computational burden.

The combined approach is more than 1,600 times faster than earlier methods, Moore said in a Sandia press release, while retaining sufficient accuracy to predict deflection in irregularly shaped asteroids.

The improved simulations reveal just how much asteroid shape and orientation can complicate attempts to calculate the outcome of a nuclear deflection.

"We expected aim to matter," Moore said. "What surprised us was how much."

Deflection simulations using detailed models of three well-studied asteroids - Golevka, Bennu, and Itokawa - found that irradiating different sides of the same asteroid with X-rays from a nearby nuclear detonation could produce as much as a fivefold difference in the resulting velocity change. Bennu, the most symmetrical of the three, still showed nearly twofold differences in deflection velocity depending on which side faced the blast.

In other words, we need to be incredibly precise about where we detonate a nuclear device near an asteroid, or we risk giving it a much smaller shove than intended.

With that in mind, the paper points out that we might know little about an incoming asteroid, and might not have enough time to get a good picture of it before attempting to deflect it and prevent life as we know it from ending in a planet-wide conflagration. We also can't be quite sure an asteroid's orientation will cooperate once our deflecto-bomb arrives. The team also pointed out that it's tricky to get an accurate prediction without knowing the composition and internal structure of an asteroid.

One small step for asteroid deflection, one giant heap of new things to worry about, in other words. But hey - at least we're no longer limited to deflection models that treat asteroids as perfect spheres, even though the real threats are likely to be considerably lumpier.

Let's just hope we spot an asteroid threat from far enough away that we get a chance to study it first. ®

There was much excitement at Sepang on Sunday, but very little of it had much to do with the race. While all eyes were on next weekend at Qatar, the Malaysian GP was something of a damp squib. Marc Márquez crushed the life out of the opposition, and out of the race, and laid one hand on the 2026 MotoGP crown with one of the most devastating displays of control we've seen in recent years.

At Phillip Island Márquez said that it was time to be "attack mode everywhere". And that is what he did at Sepang, laying down markers in practice and following it up with a second in the sprint and a GP win. The fact that Jorge Martin had already decided to pull out, the pain in his fractured wrist too much to bear, made life a little easier for the Ducati Lenovo rider. From Saturday afternoon on, he only needed concentrate on Marco Bezzecchi, and ensuring he finished ahead of him.

• Read more about Sepang MotoGP Post-Race Subscriber Notes: This Is How You Win A Championship
• Log in or register to post comments

The UN's main biodiversity summit, held every two years, wrapped up in Yerevan, Armenia, on October 31.

Biodiversity summits don't attract the same fanfare as their climate change equivalents, yet loss of nature threatens food systems, water security, health, livelihoods and cultural traditions. Forests, soils, wetlands and oceans absorb around half the carbon dioxide humans emit, while climate change is itself one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss.

This summit, technically the 17th Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) conference, or Cop17, was meant to take stock of progress and accelerate action on protecting biodiversity. Back in 2022, the same conference launched an ambitious framework to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, a goal that will require closing an US$700 billion (£520 billion) per year finance gap.

Targets include protecting 30% of land and sea, restoring degraded ecosystems, and halting the extinction of threatened species. Yerevan was the halfway point, and the first time countries formally reviewed how they were doing.

So, how did they do?

The first global review of the framework, State of Biodiversity Action, showed how little progress has been made. Almost 90% of countries have set national targets, but fewer than half are on track. The targets lagging furthest behind - covering business impacts, unsustainable consumption, harmful subsidies and finance - are the ones that need action beyond environment ministries and conservation programmes.

It comes down to money: who should pay for biodiversity protection? The framework calls for US$200 billion a year from all sources by 2030, including US$30 billion per year through international finance.

Two debates stood out. The first concerned who should manage the funds. Lower-income countries have argued for a new funding mechanism under the CBD's control. Many high-income countries prefer the current Global Environment Facility, which critics say is bureaucratic and hard for local communities to access. Decisions on a new financial mechanism have been pushed to the next summit, Cop18, in Ecuador in 2028.

The second debate was about extending the list of countries expected to provide finance to developing countries. Emerging economies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar resisted, as it would shift their contributions from voluntary to obligatory. In the end, it was agreed that countries that now want to contribute as donors can "signal interest" before Cop18.

The summit presidency announced that more than US$1.8 billion had been pledged from governments, philanthropic organisations and investors. That is welcome, but negligible compared with what is needed. Recent cuts to development aid have made the shortfall even harder to address.

The negotiations looked at alternative ways of valuing nature, such as natural capital accounting or treating nature as infrastructure. "Biodiversity is not just for tree-huggers," said the CBD's executive secretary Astrid Schomaker at a workshop in Yerevan, suggesting it should matter to business.

Cutting or redirecting US$500 billion a year in harmful subsidies would help fund all this. But though this is the framework's target 18, little progress has been made.

So-called digital sequence information, or DSI, was another subject of contention. This is genetic data gathered from plants, animals and microbes, stored in online databases and used by companies to develop medicines, crops and cosmetics. However, the countries and communities where these organisms come from have rarely been paid for their use.

The 2024 biodiversity summit in Colombia created the Cali Fund to change this. Large companies using DSI are expected to pay 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenue to this fund. At least half of the money is meant to go to Indigenous peoples and local communities.

The fund was expected to raise at least US$1 billion a year. By the end of this year's summit, just five companies had committed a total of just US$10,565.

Part of the problem is that contributions are voluntary. Negotiators debated who counts as a user of DSI, whether only large companies should pay, and how to avoid companies being charged twice under national and international schemes. After fraught discussions and delays, many of the key decisions were postponed to the next summit in 2028.

Indigenous peoples and local communities manage or hold rights over a large share of the world's remaining biodiverse land. In 2024, parties created a permanent body to strengthen their role.

In Yerevan, discussions focused on how it should work: who leads it, and who chooses the representatives. Campaigners warned that governments were deciding how Indigenous peoples should be represented instead of letting them decide for themselves. In the 12-hour-long final plenary, the body's rules of operation were agreed, but as an advisory body, its influence will depend on whether governments listen.

Women's rights were another focus. The global progress review found that only about a quarter of countries' national targets address women's land rights or access, leaving women with little power in conservation decisions. The Yerevan summit encouraged governments to embed gender equity into national biodiversity strategies and data collection.

Finance, DSI and Indigenous rights may have been separate items on the agenda, but they raise the same questions: who pays to protect nature, who gets to decide, and who benefits?

The agreed Yerevan Pathway urges countries to take faster action on priorities including cutting subsidies that harm nature, providing financial and technical support to developing countries, and aligning national budgets with biodiversity goals. But it leans heavily on commitments already made.

Outside the main negotiations in Yerevan, Indigenous groups, campaigners and non-governmental organisations showcased their work protecting and restoring nature in spite of limited funding. The tension between biodiversity targets and the extractive industries was also visible in protests against a controversial gold mine, which recently began production in south-eastern Armenia.

Governments now need to back their commitments with money that reaches the people doing the work, an end to economic incentives that drive nature loss, and a meaningful say for Indigenous people and local communities.

Gabriella Santini previously received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the Royal Anthropological Institute (RAI), and the Parkes Foundation.

Emily Woodhouse and Simon Chin-Yee do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

YouTuber Zackary Smigel was freaked out by the alarming online claim that 76% of supermarket honey is fake and found something better: the statistic itself has been badly abused.

The 76% number traces back to a 2011 examination of 60 jars that found 76% contained no detectable pollen. — Read the rest

The post No, the study behind "76% of honey is fake" didn't find 76% fake honey appeared first on Boing Boing.

Are you getting your RDA (recommended dose of art)? Along with 10,000 steps and five fruit and veg a day, this small, enjoyable change could make you much healthier - and happier

Name: Art.

Age: Art has been around for thousands of years. The drawings in Blombos Cave in South Africa, for example, are estimated to be about 73,000 years old. But this is less about how old and more about how often, and for how long.

Zero Motorcycles presents Project Ventura at EICMA 2026, a new lightweight electric street bike with supermoto styling. The Californian brand turns twenty this year. It also brought the LS3 scooter to Europe for the first time, showed an updated XE, and gave more detail on a new connected app and DC fast charging, both planned for 2027.

Ventura is a new model, not a reworked existing one. Zero describes it as a light, agile street bike that combines the playful character of a supermoto with the instant torque of an electric drivetrain and an upright riding position. The brand positions it as a more accessible entry point into electric motorcycling.

A new powertrain gives a peak output of more than 20 kW. Top speed is 130 km/h, and the bike can hold 105 km/h continuously. Zero estimates real-world range at around 150 km. It runs on 17-inch wheels with street tyres, and the chassis is designed to carry a passenger. ABS is standard. An integrated Level 2 charger allows charging at public AC points, and the bike connects to the Zero app over Bluetooth. It is classed for the A1 licence.

Zero has not yet released battery capacity, charging time or price. Ventura is expected in summer 2027.

Jim Callahan, Chief Product and Partnerships Officer, said the team started from three goals: a bike good-looking enough to end up as a poster on a bedroom wall, a full electric motorcycle that feels like a logical next step for the millions of people who have ridden e-bikes and e-motos over the past five years, and a bike that is "insanely fun to ride." He said that if those three things are right, "you can bring a whole new generation into motorcycling."

The LS3 is part of Zero's All Access initiative for everyday electric mobility. It builds on the LS1 with more performance, more range and connectivity, and is aimed at riders who travel beyond the city centre.

Top speed is 120 km/h, with 102 km/h sustainable, and claimed range is up to 150 km. Three batteries give a combined 5.6 kWh, and peak output is 12.7 kW (17 hp). One battery sits under the seat and can be removed to free up storage space.

The LS3 connects to the Zero app over the mobile network. Equipment includes Hill Hold, an upgraded ABS module, heated grips and seat, two USB-C ports, an improved luggage hook, and front and rear cameras for recording rides. A top case and a mid-height windscreen are standard, and a taller screen is available as an accessory. Colours are Sterling Silver and Midnight Blue. Depending on local rules, it can be ridden on an A1 or a car (B) licence.

Pricing is €6,925 in Belgium and €7,125 in the Netherlands. Deliveries are expected from spring 2027.

CEO Pierre-Martin Bos said that riders want different things from two wheels, from twisty roads to a more enjoyable commute to simply getting around town more easily. He said Zero is widening its range across motorcycles and scooters so electric can cover all of those needs.

The XE, Zero's lightweight off-road bike, is already road-legal in Europe and now becomes street-legal in North America too. Where local rules allow, riders can link off-road sections over public roads instead of trailering the bike.

Changes for the new XE:

• A new centrally mounted dashboard
• A new headlight and tail light, with an integrated windscreen designed in-house
• A revised rear sprocket that raises top speed by about 10 km/h, to 95 km/h
• Wider all-road tyres
• Black bodywork

The XE is expected worldwide in early spring 2027, priced from €6,915 in the Netherlands and €6,715 in Belgium.

Zero is building a new app based on customer feedback. It will work with the LS3, the 2027 Street and Dual Sport models, and Ventura, and is due in 2027. Planned features:

• Ride modes: preset modes for power and regeneration, plus a custom mode you can name and set for speed, power, torque and regen
• Charger finder: nearby charging stations filtered by speed, network and availability, with Apple Maps integration and directions
• Ride history: optional automatic logging of distance, duration and route previews
• Configurable dashboard: choose what appears in each quadrant of the bike's display, such as speed, battery level or clock
• Charging settings: target state of charge, scheduled charging, charge limit and long-term storage options in one place
• Feedback and support: report issues or suggest changes from inside the app, with photos, diagnostic logs and pre-filled vehicle data

As announced earlier this year, Zero is developing Level 3 DC fast charging for compatible Street and Dual Sport motorcycles, targeting 2027. The system will use CCS in Europe and NACS in North America. Zero's target is 20 to 80 percent in under 30 minutes on compatible batteries. A retrofit option for suitable existing motorcycles is also in development.

Zero Motorcycles is in Hall 7, Stand 036 at EICMA 2026.

Ultraviolette used EICMA 2026 to launch the X-47 Venom, the first motorcycle on its new VX-100 100-volt platform, and to show the Tesseract Maxi scooter in Europe for the first time. The Indian manufacturer also displayed the Shockwave enduro, the F77 and F99, a voice assistant developed with SoundHound AI, and three helmet concepts.

Co-founder and CEO Narayan Subramaniam described the show as the point where Ultraviolette moves from being a performance motorcycle maker to a broader mobility and technology company. The F77 went on sale in Europe last year. The company now plans to strengthen its European presence and then expand into North America, Latin America and Southeast Asia.

The X-47 Venom is a crossover that combines road and light adventure use. It is the first production model on the VX-100 architecture and uses the new SRB-11 battery.

Key figures:

• Peak power: 30 kW (40 hp)
• Torque: 550 Nm at the wheel
• Top speed: 155 km/h
• 0-100 km/h: 5.9 seconds
• Range: 235 km (WMTC city cycle)
• Kerb weight: 206 kg

A 77 GHz rear-facing radar comes as standard. Ultraviolette calls the system UV Hypersense. It covers up to 200 metres behind the bike and adjusts for lean angles of up to 20 degrees, as well as for roll and pitch. The radar supports four functions:

• Blind-spot detection
• Lane-change assist
• Overtake alerts
• Rear-collision warning

The warnings show up in the mirrors. In a rear-collision situation, the hazard lights switch on automatically.

Other equipment includes:

• Cruise control
• A rear camera for park assist
• A 7-inch TFT touchscreen (UV Interface X)
• Navigation through Mappls
• App connectivity and over-the-air software updates

The air-cooled onboard AC charger is described by the company as the most power-dense of its type. Ultraviolette says it delivers full output in ambient temperatures of 45 to 50°C.

The bike uses the new UV Lightfury motor, which incorporates soft magnetic composites. Ultraviolette says the motor reduces mass and energy losses compared with its earlier powertrain.

The 100V platform is designed to be modular. Ultraviolette intends to use it across future models with different battery capacities and power levels. According to the company, the SRB-11 battery offers:

• Up to 20 percent higher energy density
• Twice the cooling performance
• Heat dissipation up to 50 percent faster

The pack sits in a cast-aluminium housing and is rated IP67. In addition to cell-level fuses and a battery management system that monitors each cell, it is the first pack in its class to use a pyro-fuse. This device cuts the circuit within microseconds when a critical fault is detected, a method taken from automotive functional-safety practice.

The Tesseract Maxi makes its European debut at EICMA. It is a maxi-scooter with:

• A 6 kWh battery
• 15 kW (20 hp) peak power
• Fast charging to 80 percent in under an hour
• 14-inch wheels
• 32 litres of under-seat storage

Like the X-47 Venom, it uses Hypersense radar. It also has an integrated dashcam and mirrors with built-in LED indicators for blind-spot, lane-change, overtaking and collision alerts. Traction control, regenerative braking and a 7-inch touchscreen are standard.

A touring accessory range is available: a higher visor, knuckle guards, a tail bag and pannier stays.

The Shockwave is a lightweight enduro aimed at riders who enjoyed two-stroke dirt bikes. Specifications include:

• 505 Nm of torque at the rear wheel
• 0-60 km/h in 2.9 seconds
• Spoked wheels: 19-inch front (90/90) and 17-inch rear (110/90)

The F77 is already on sale in Europe. Its figures:

• Peak power: 30 kW
• Continuous power: 9.5 kW
• Wheel torque: 500 Nm
• 0-60 km/h: 2.8 seconds
• Battery: 10.3 kWh
• Range: up to 231 km (WMTC city cycle)
• Charging 20-80 percent: 2.5 hours with the boost charger

It has ten regeneration levels, four traction-control settings, switchable dual-channel ABS, stability control and connected functions including anti-theft and trip history.

The F99 is Ultraviolette's electric superbike. It uses a 400V architecture, a carbon-fibre exoskeleton and battery casing, and a liquid-cooled drivetrain. The company quotes:

• 0-100 km/h: under 3 seconds
• 0-200 km/h: under 10 seconds
• Indian records: 10.712 seconds over the quarter-mile and a top speed of 258 km/h

Ultraviolette also showed Violette AI, a voice assistant built with SoundHound AI. Riders activate it with the wake word "Violette". It can change riding modes, start navigation and answer questions drawn from the owner's manual, such as recommended tyre pressure. Future functions are to include pre-ride checks, ride statistics and service alerts.

The stand also featured three helmet concepts, none confirmed for production:

• Star Vue, built around augmented reality
• Fang 01, with an exoskeleton-style shell
• Decibelle, a fashion-oriented design with built-in audio

The upcoming COP31 climate talks in Antalya, Turkey need to respond to the latest science on global warming, which is "really scary", says UK climate minister Katie White.

In an interview with Carbon Brief setting out the UK's priorities for the summit, White also responds to suggestions that the government is walking back its climate policies.

White says the "shocking" impact of extreme heat and wildfires this summer makes it clear that climate change "isn't something far off; it's something we're living through".

She adds that the UK will be working to "hold up the science", including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that should be the "basis of discussions".

The COP31 presidency push on electrification is "going to be key", says White, who points to other priorities for the UK that include tackling methane emissions and reducing deforestation.

White says the recent approval of the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea is "fully in line" with carbon budgets and that the UK continues to support the "transition away from fossil fuels".

She adds that the Hormuz crisis has helped drive the "biggest uptake…we've ever seen" in the UK for solar, electric vehicles and heat pumps.

Finally, White defends the new approach set out in the budget by chancellor John Healey, including a greater focus on affordability, as a "natural evolution" of UK government policy.

Carbon Brief: Katie White, thank you very much for joining Carbon Brief today. Next week we're going to be heading to COP31 climate talks in Antalya in Turkey. 

We've seen this year the UN warning that a temporary overshoot of 1.5C degrees is now inevitable. We've had 50,000 excess heat deaths across Europe this summer. We've had extreme weather events hitting Nepal, deadly floods there. Heading into the talks, what would you say the UK's priorities are?

Katie White: Thanks, Simon. Look, just to say, it's great to be here. I'm a big fan of Carbon Brief and the work you've been doing. I think it's incredibly important that there are people who are focused on the facts and have really excellent commentary. So just to say thank you, and it's good to be here to discuss with you.

Look, this year has been a very significant year in terms of climate, particularly sat here in the UK. I think we have really felt the impacts of climate change for the first time. For you and me, who've been working on this for a long time [and] we talk about it. But even so - I don't know how you felt - but I was even shocked by the implications of what that was for everyday life, for people actually sleeping at night. You know, in terms of parliament, I had colleagues who had to go pick up their children because their schools weren't available, and you know, tragedies in terms of older people struggling in the heat.

Not to mention the wildfires that we had across the country. I went to visit one in Romford and I think just standing - literally in the ashes - and seeing people's homes really close by. My colleague in Stourbridge, obviously, they had burnt-out houses - you know, devastating. And you think about it - and I talked with her about - the actual real-life implications of that. 

Membership

Obviously, people think about it, but then the after-effects, and you know the challenges with insurance and the challenge with all these sky boxes, and all of the things that come -  those smaller things, as well as the tragedies around your photos, and all of that being lost.

So I think it's really opened, sadly, another door for us in terms of the climate-change journey. This isn't something far off; it's something we're living through. I know that's been the case for many countries for a long time, but it really felt like a shift here in the UK.

You're right, the science, once again, is really scary. The overshoot report is incredibly concerning. Scientifically, obviously, they look for a longer period. But I think the main message - for me as a politician - is this is really worrying. And every year we have another call to action. How do we translate that call into actual delivery? And that's the bit we need to make sure of, because you know, I think we have to be listening to the science, and the science is fundamental and key. And we might talk about the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and all the elements of that. But also, for me, how do we translate that?

It's not, as you all know, it's not the big global stocktake COP [this year in Antalya]. So it's not going to be that big event, where we have it every five years. But we still need to be making significant progress. So we really focus a lot on the science, on the "action agenda" and on those political decisions - that "cover decision" that the Australian presidency [of negotiations] has said that they're going to pursue.

So in terms of the action agenda, which obviously the Turkish [presidency] has led on and [has] been really forthright about leading on this, I think electrification is going to be key. It's something that shot up the agenda. 

I think most of your audience will know what electrification is, but for anyone outside of the climate bubble [it is] around electrifying our homes, electrifying our transportation. And in the UK, we've done a good job of decarbonising our electricity system, but we need to be pulling down on that and increasing demand to make sure that we take full advantage of the clean electricity that we have, which would be good for bills, but also around reducing our emissions as well. So something around electrification, we're expecting a lot of talk of that. [It is] something the Turks have been talking about a lot.

Methane is another area which we've been working on, but I expect there will be some progress in terms of methane. Forests, you'll know that we've pledged an investment to the [Tropical Forest Forever] TFFF, so we will be hoping for some momentum around that forests agenda. 

Free fortnightly newsletter

So, I think, those are some of the really practical areas of action, as well as making sure we're moving forward, holding up the UNFCCC [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change], holding up the science, so we can keep moving forward and making progress on any of those areas within the cover decision that the Australians will obviously steer us through.

CB: Great, thank you. You mentioned electrification. Obviously, that's a target announced by the Turkish presidency earlier this year. They said they want to see the adoption of a global target for 35% of final energy to come from electricity by 2035. 

At the moment, it's a voluntary sign-on pledge, but presumably that's something that could enter into the cover decision, as you mentioned. I guess I'm wondering: is the UK going to sign up to that, if it remains as a voluntary pledge? And would the UK like to see that in the cover decision, brought formally into the [COP31] outcome?

KW: Good questions. Look, so we'll wait and see how we manage the next couple of weeks in terms of [that]. I think we have definitely, domestically, been looking at electrification and how we take advantage of the clean electricity that we have more effectively. Because of the Middle East crisis, broadly, we've seen interest in EVs, in solar panels and heat pumps, just shoot up this year, as people have got increasingly concerned about energy prices. And for those who are in a position, you know, a lot of them have taken advantage.

So we are seeing shifts in the market, and we're looking at what role we can play to encourage and accelerate that. Whether it's supporting the rollout of charging points for electric vehicles. You'll probably know this, Simon, but there are more public charging points in the UK now than petrol pumps, which I think is an incredible fact - and most people don't know. That's not including those within driveways, of which nearly 70% of the UK has access to a driveway, so all of those people who might have their own home charging, there is more public.

We are making this infrastructure more easy, more accessible, so that people can make that shift. But we are [already] seeing the shift, you know, we've got two million EVs on the road. Super excitingly for the motor geeks, the second-hand [EV] car market is really starting to - excuse the pun - "motor". Actually, that does mean a big shift in terms of accessibility.

So we're seeing this happen within the UK. We'll look at whether that's a helpful target for us, but in terms of the focus, the ambition on electrification in the UK will remain. And I'm really pleased to see it as part of the negotiations this year or the action agenda.

It was interesting to see the Europeans do their own electrification - I don't know whether they called it a plan or a roadmap, everybody gets caught up on these words - but they also brought forward [an "action plan"]. So obviously, we're looking at where we can, you know, be a little bit more aligned with them.

CB: You mentioned roadmaps. Now, obviously, last year at the COP, the big debate, slightly outside of the formal negotiations, was around the idea of a roadmap away from fossil fuels and the UK was one of more than 100 countries that were really pushing for that to again be brought into the formal outcome of the summit in Brazil. Is that something that the UK is going to be pushing again this year?

KW: For sure. So look, we very much support the agenda around the transition away from fossil fuels. You know, in terms of, how do we support countries, how do we work together in terms of moving away from that? You'll know that Rachel Kyte, our special representative, was in Santa Marta in April of this year to talk through [this topic] and we hosted a follow-up event at Wilton Park around the London Climate Action Week. So you know, very keen to support and work that through.

It's obviously a hard agenda, but it's something that I think we should have been discussing for a while in terms of the COP processes. So it was great that we managed to do that. I think it was as a result of lots of different people talking about it, different campaigns, different, you know, how do we work together around this, in terms of managing the resources we have most effectively, and transitioning away. [That's] for climate reasons, for health reasons and, in large part, economic reasons as well.

CB: Great. You mentioned the IPCC timeline. This is obviously something that's been rolling on for quite a while. There's been a group of countries making a concerted effort to delay the publication of the next IPCC assessment report, so that it won't align with the next global stocktake under the Paris Agreement. 

The UK, as far as I understand, is pushing for that timeline to be accelerated, or to at least align with the stocktake. I just want to confirm that that's the UK's position and then ask, what is your understanding of the arguments being made for not doing that, for not aligning those timelines?

KW: So look, we obviously would like to have as much of the science ready for the global stocktake. That would be the ideal outcome in terms of what we are looking for, and we have said that we will continue to say that we would also like an outcome. 

So, in a sense, we would like to make sure that we have a decision and we are moving this forward, and we don't get caught up in having longer negotiations, which stall us making any progress at all.

I wasn't at the [IPCC] meeting this autumn, but in terms of [what] I understand, [IPCC chair Prof] Jim Skea did a good job of trying to navigate that and making sure that this is inclusive. We want to listen to concerns around inclusivity, but we also want to make progress, because of the reasons that we talked about right up front: there is some really scary science going forward. The IPCC is peer-reviewed, it's the best in the world, and we want to make sure that that is the basis of discussions.

So the more we can align that together, the better. But we're also practical. We want to work with everybody. We want to listen to everybody. But we are keen to move that forward and hold up the IPCC in the way it has been. It's become the most respected, established platform for all that the negotiations are based on. 

CB: Great, thank you. I want to turn to the UK now, if I can. So, under the Paris Agreement, the UK has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 68% below 1990 levels by 2030. In June, the Climate Change Committee, in its assessment, said something like 17% of the cuts required to meet that target just didn't have plans in place. 

The government's own carbon budget delivery plan said that current policies were falling short of what would be needed. And then, obviously, since then we've had a number of cuts. We've had cuts to heat pump subsidies, cuts to hydrogen and carbon-capture and storage. We're expecting to see further watering down of the zero-emission vehicles mandate for electric vehicles. We just had approval of new drilling at Jackdaw. We may also see Rosebank being approved. 

When you're at the COP in Antalya, how will you be reassuring UK partners that the UK remains committed to its climate pledge?

KW: So look, it's absolutely right that you pick out any of the challenges - and say where the challenges are to our evidence. That's really helpful, as part of our process of doing that. I would also then say, there are a whole bunch of other things - on the side of positives - that are moving forward, some of which we have touched on.

We put forward a carbon budget growth and delivery plan last year that we had to redo, because obviously there had been a legal challenge. We did that. It was a very comprehensive process. You know, a huge amount of work to make sure that we were on track to deliver that. So that is the case. The Climate Change Committee was obviously coming back on what was happening now, and we will report to parliament [in response to the committee] in the normal way. I will leave that report to talk for itself when it comes out to parliament.

We also - the great thing about the Climate Change Act and the carbon budgets is that it does allow flexibility over time. You have that trajectory, you have the volume of emissions over time, but it does allow you to adjust and course correct. There are things, in terms of challenges, that come forward.

So let's take the Middle East crisis. Obviously, that's been a big disruption to our energy and climate system. Arguably, one of the biggest disruptions we've ever had. Now, that has led to a few things happening. 

One is to say that electrification - you know, people are moving towards the biggest uptake in solar, heat pumps and EVs that we've ever seen. So we're seeing that trajectory go up. That's great, and that is on the positive side. At the same time, it has meant geopolitically, people are looking at their energy security and where you do have access to fossil fuels, people are considering those options.

We made the Jackdaw decision fully in line [with our carbon budgets]. We looked at the emissions - and emissions would actually be a tiny bit lower because of transportation from Norway. So it is absolutely within those boundaries. 

But of course, I'm constantly keeping an eye on how that budget is moving. In the same way that over the road [in Whitehall] at HMT [the Treasury], they're keeping an eye on their financial budget, as they should do, I will keep an eye on the carbon budget, as will the secretary of state [Miatta Fahnbulleh]. So we will be keeping a look.

But I think let's also be clear that the UK has got a good story to tell. I of course want it to be better, and that's part of my job, to make sure that we have the next chapter evolving and we can keep telling our story. 

But right now, we have a pretty good story to tell. You know, we've got over [a] 50% reduction in emissions, whilst having 80% [economic] growth since 1990. So we have got a good story to tell. We are making those transitions and we will continue to say that. But also, we'll continue to listen and learn because nobody has got the perfect plan for this. No one country has got all the answers or the solutions. 

So I think, being clear where we've had success, being honest where it's not worked, and having a bit of humility to learn from others along the way, is how we're going to approach the COP.

CB: Great, thank you. I want to ask about climate finance. The UK is one of the only major donors to have made a new climate-finance pledge, offering £6bn, I believe, over three years. However, that is, relative to the last financial year, roughly halving; it was about £4bn in 2025-26 and it's [now] £6bn over three years, so roughly £2bn a year. 

Again, I'm just curious how you're going to be talking about that with the UK's international partners, the developing countries that will be looking to the UK for that kind of support.

KW: In terms of the £6bn, so look, let's also be clear. So you're absolutely right that we - the [previously pledged] £11.6bn was over a five-year period. The £6bn is over a three-year period, and we're also talking about an additional £6bn in terms of other sources that we're looking at. So it is still a sizeable amount of money and investment. 

Of course, it's not enough in terms of what the need is, and as the need increases over time, we need to be exploring other options, which is why I'm very excited about the TFFF, because it starts a new way of mobilising finance, which might unlock a whole other range of capital, which is urgently needed.

So, look, we have the £11.6bn [and] we delivered absolutely every bit of it. So I think we're seen as someone who is a credible donor, who delivers what they say we're going to do. We've also laid out a plan. We've been working across government with my colleagues at the Foreign Office and with Defra [Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] in terms of how we're going to do that. Which, again, was something that developing countries were really keen [on], that we laid out that plan beforehand, so that there is some element of expectation, and it's not, you know, done at the last minute, and they can plan ahead at the same time.

We are, you know, the biggest donors of the Green Climate Fund as well, and we've looked at how we protect the climate element of our resources within the ODA [overseas development aid] cuts, which have been a cut to our international development aid, I can't say anything different to that. So we have looked at how we protect [climate] within it.

So, look, of course, I will be talking about what we have done and what we continue to do, and how we've listened to countries and laid that [plan] out, so there is some element that they can help plan ahead. But also, looking at what those alternative sources, for instance, around the structuring of the TFFF, to make sure we're looking at other options, because we do need to meet the need. The need is growing, and the finance pot needs to do the same.

CB: Thank you. One final question, if I may. Last week we obviously had the first budget from the new chancellor, John Healey. There's been a lot of conversation and media coverage since that budget about what he described as a new path for energy policy in the UK. There's been quite a lot of media coverage - and perhaps briefing from government insiders and so on - suggesting that this is a real shift in the government's approach. Effectively, giving up on - or putting slightly to the side - the clean power 2030 target. 

Again, you're going to be going into the COP next week. People, I'm sure, will have been reading the papers. I wonder how you will explain to them what's going on?

KW: So, look, the first thing I'd say is it was great to hear the chancellor say on the floor of the house [of parliament] about net-zero, his commitment to net-zero by 2050 and our steadfast approach to delivering that. I think it's really helpful. You know, the chancellor's voice counts for a lot. We've heard the prime minister say it twice. He's written articles on it as well, so it's great to see that commitment from the top. There has been a lot of politicisation around net-zero, so I think the direction of travel is absolutely clear.

[The] secretary of state has said that her number one aim is around affordability. We know that we are in a cost of living crisis. At the same time, the Climate Change Committee has said the best thing we could do [to lower emissions] is bring down electricity prices, and so I think there is a really great alignment between those three things [cost, climate and security].

The clean-power mission has been incredibly effective in terms of getting a lot of clean power built. We now need to make sure we're utilising that clean power across the board, and we need to, and we want to do it in the most cost-effective way possible.

As you can probably hear from my accent, I'm from Yorkshire. We're a little bit tight [careful with money] and I want to make sure that we are using that energy most effectively. And the system at the moment is not set up to do that. There are some pretty ineffective elements of it, that we want to make sure that we're using far more effectively. 

So I think that is the shift we're looking at. We're now in the next chapter of, how do we make sure that energy - and specifically electricity - is as affordable as possible for consumers, for our constituents up and down the country, but also for small businesses. And how do we make sure that demand, that use of the grid, is [met by] connecting some of these great [clean-energy projects]. 

You know, the last government did build some of these offshore wind turbines. They just didn't connect them all, so we need to make sure that we've got all of these things connected, and then we're utilising it really effectively, and we're supporting consumers and businesses to draw down on that.

So I think it's a really exciting opportunity for us. But I think it's just a natural evolution of the next step, to make sure that the UK citizens are getting the best value from the infrastructure that we already have.

CB: Brilliant, very, very quickly, before you have to go, the UK is going to be leading the umbrella group of countries at the COP. So coming back to the COP, I'm just curious how the UK is going to deal with being in that spotlight [and] make use of that position?

KW: Look, we are sending a great team of ministers to the COP. Obviously, the secretary of state, it's going to be her first time leading the delegation, but our ex-secretary of state [Ed Miliband] is there in his new role. He's going as the foreign secretary and the prime minister [Andy Burnham] is going, and I will also be there as well. So I think we are turning up, making sure that Britain is fully part of the conversation.

We do that in lots of different ways, whether it's part of the umbrella group or whether it's on our own or whether it's part of - I co-chair the Forest and Climate Leaders Partnership. We're always looking at ways where the UK can show up and try to make a positive difference.

So again, I think we'll be doing that, but working closely with our umbrella colleagues. We've been in the group, so it's a natural step for us to step up and do that. But I think operating in different areas of the ecosystem helps us to make sure we can bring forward a really comprehensive, thoughtful approach to the negotiations.

CB: Brilliant! Thanks very much, Katie, and great to have you.

The post UK climate minister Katie White: COP31 must respond to 'really scary' science appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The evidence that climate change threatens human health has never been stronger. Yet a new report suggests that world leaders are giving less attention to its health consequences in international political debate.

The 2026 Lancet Countdown report estimates that heat was associated with 710,000 deaths worldwide in 2023, with around 71% attributable to human-caused climate change. Researchers calculated this by comparing estimated heat-related deaths at the temperatures actually experienced with those expected in a world without human-caused warming. The difference represents the additional deaths associated with climate change.

Heat can cause fatal heatstroke and worsen existing conditions, including heart and kidney disease. The figure is a statistical estimate of the additional deaths caused by warming, rather than a count of individual deaths directly identified as resulting from climate change.

Meanwhile, the proportion of countries whose leaders discussed the relationship between climate change and health during the United Nations General Debate fell from 66% in 2021 to 26% in 2025. The General Debate is the annual gathering at which world leaders address a broad range of international issues.

Europe's record-breaking heatwaves during the summer of 2026 brought the consequences of rising temperatures into sharp focus. Research examining 854 European cities estimated more than 50,000 heat-related deaths that summer, with around two-thirds attributable to human-caused warming. Using a similar approach, researchers compared the estimated death toll under actual temperatures with the number expected without the additional warming caused by human activity.

Climate change competes with more immediate political concerns, including energy prices, economic pressures and international conflicts. The health benefits of cutting emissions may take time to become visible, while governments face pressure to respond to events unfolding today.

But fewer mentions in UN speeches do not necessarily mean that governments are doing less. The same Lancet Countdown analysis found that 93% of national climate commitments submitted in 2025 mentioned health. Governments may also act through heat-warning systems, cleaner transport or building regulations without repeatedly invoking climate change in international speeches.

The more important question is whether policies deliver measurable protection. Announcing a plan provides little reassurance if vulnerable people remain exposed to dangerous heat or health services lack the resources to respond.

As a kidney physician, I see particular reasons for concern. Chronic kidney disease affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The kidneys help filter waste from blood and maintain the body's balance of water and salts, making them vulnerable when extreme heat disrupts that balance.

Recent research links hot temperatures with increased kidney-related illness. Heat stress and dehydration can contribute to acute kidney injury, particularly among people working in hot conditions and those with existing health problems. Whether repeated heat exposure accelerates chronic kidney disease across the wider population is less certain and remains an important research question.

Air pollution may also affect kidney health. A systematic review found associations between exposure to several common air pollutants and poorer measures of kidney function.

Some climate measures can improve health well before the full benefits of reduced global warming become apparent.

Cleaner energy can reduce harmful air pollution. The Lancet Countdown estimates that declining fossil fuel-related air pollution has helped prevent around 323,000 premature deaths annually across at least 77 countries.

Trees provide shade and cooling in cities, while restored wetlands can help manage flooding and support biodiversity. A review of research on urban trees found consistent cooling benefits, although their effectiveness depends on local climate and how cities are designed.

The healthcare system also has responsibilities. The sector accounts for around 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing waste and unnecessary resource use can contribute to a more sustainable service, provided patient care is protected.

Human health also depends on functioning ecosystems. The international biodiversity science body IPBES has documented how biodiversity loss is connected with threats to water, food and health. Healthy ecosystems are valuable in themselves, and Indigenous peoples and local communities have long contributed knowledge and stewardship essential to their protection.

Nature is also an extraordinary library of biological solutions developed through evolution. Many medicines have come from natural products or compounds inspired by them. Scientists are now exploring how artificial intelligence can help identify promising compounds from biological data, potentially speeding up early stages of drug discovery. These possibilities are exciting, but translating a promising compound into a safe and effective treatment requires extensive research.

Protecting biodiversity is therefore relevant to both present health and future scientific discoveries. AI may help researchers understand some of nature's complexity, but it cannot restore an extinct species or replace the ecological knowledge held by communities.

The political challenge is to connect the evidence of harm from climate change with practical decisions that protect people. Climate change is already affecting health, and the benefits to human health of protecting the environment are not confined to some distant future.

Destroying the natural systems that sustain health while scientists are still learning how they work would be a costly mistake.

Peter Stenvinkel receives funding from CIMED, Heart and Lung-Foundation, ALF and Westman Foundation.

TL;DR: Get Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote for Mac or PC with a one-time purchase of Microsoft Office 2024 Home, now $119.97 (reg. $149.99).

Microsoft 365 bills you every year, whether you opened Excel daily or twice to split a dinner check. — Read the rest

The post Word, Excel, and PowerPoint for $119.97, with no renewal notice next year appeared first on Boing Boing.

Password manager mSecure has warned customers to change their passwords, reset two-factor authentication, and potentially remove their passkeys after detecting suspicious activity, but it has not explained what happened or whether anyone's secrets were exposed.

In an email sent to customers on November 3, seen by The Register, US-based developer mSeven Software said it launched an investigation after discovering something amiss with its password management application.

"mSeven Software ('mSeven') recently learned of suspicious activity associated with the mSecure password management application," the company wrote. "In response, mSeven quickly launched an investigation, took steps to mitigate the issue, and engaged external cybersecurity experts to assist."

The company has yet to answer what the suspicious activity involved, when it occurred, or whether attackers accessed customer information.

Its advice to customers, however, suggests that they should take this seriously.

"Given the potential security implications, mSeven recommends that you immediately take steps to protect all confidential information stored within the mSecure password management application," the email continued. "This may include changing passwords, resetting or re-enrolling two-factor authentication methods, or removing existing passkeys."

For anyone with hundreds of passwords stored in mSecure, that's potentially hours of work. And without knowing what happened, customers have no way of telling which credentials they actually need to replace.

The warning has understandably gone down poorly with customers, who have taken to mSecure's support forum demanding answers.

"Please provide more context to your email below advising there has been a security breach," one customer wrote. "It is not acceptable to offer the vague advice 'take steps'. Please state what remedial action is required, and what data was compromised."

Others are wondering whether they're expected to spend the next several days changing every password they've ever saved.

"I have over 800 passwords in mSecure, is the email saying I need to change all of them!" another customer asked.

A separate user, who said they had more than 500 passwords stored in the application, questioned whether the warning applied to every two-factor authentication method and passkey associated with their accounts, or just those used to access mSecure itself.

The confusion has also spilled onto Reddit, where customers have shared copies of the vague notification and questioned what might have happened.

mSeven has yet to respond to The Register's questions, leaving customers to guess whether their data has actually been compromised or the company is simply being cautious. That's not exactly reassuring from a business whose entire purpose is keeping other people's secrets safe.

The company's email concludes: "We regret any inconvenience that this may cause." For customers contemplating hundreds of password resets, "inconvenience" may be putting it mildly. ®

British Veterinary Association president tells MPs surge in cases putting farmers under severe pressure and stress

The worst bluetongue season on record has been a major animal welfare crisis in Great Britain, MPs have been told, putting farmers under "severe emotional stress".

Bluetongue, a viral disease that affects sheep, cattle and goats, can cause fever, lesions, stillbirths and death. The tongue may go blue and protrude from the mouth.

GhostBSD, the easiest-to-install flavor of FreeBSD for the daemon-curious desktop dabbler, is back with a fresh update.

GhostBSD 26.2-R15.1p6, to give it its slightly unwieldy full version number, is based on FreeBSD 15.1. It brings a new installer, full-disk encryption support, a smaller installation image, and fixes across its desktop tools.

FreeBSD 15.1 was released back in June, and at the time of writing, it's the most recent point release of FreeBSD.

The original plan was that FreeBSD 15.1 would include the option of installing KDE Plasma directly from the setup program, so that the OS would have a graphical desktop from its very first boot. However, this feature isn't ready just yet.

That gap inspired Daemonarchy, which we covered late last month. But its Omarchy-derived, keyboard-driven tiling desktop can feel unfamiliar even to experienced Linux users accustomed to conventional desktops.

GhostBSD has different goals. It brings Linux-like desktop convenience to FreeBSD: a live graphical environment to explore before installation, a graphical installer, and tools for managing software and updates.

These conveniences are familiar to desktop Linux users, but a standard FreeBSD installation takes more work. Its text-mode installer leaves users to install and configure a graphical desktop themselves, if they want one.

This is just how the BSD family does things, and most BSD users we've talked to regard it as standard operating procedure and see nothing wrong with it. For Linux users who are curious about how things are on the other side of the FOSS Unix fence, though, those extra steps can form formidable barriers. GhostBSD is an attempt to lay down a welcome mat.

The standard edition of GhostBSD installs the MATE desktop, and the downloads page also offers a community-maintained version with Xfce instead. As the project said it would back in February, this release uses the XLibre fork of the X.org X11 server.

That's one fewer desktop than when we last tried GhostBSD in August 2025. That release also offered the Mac OS X-like Gershwin environment.

There are practical hardware fixes too. The release notes list improvements for Intel AX200 Wi-Fi cards, open networks, password alerts, and non-ASCII network names, while USB HID support is enabled by default.

Gershwin remains in active development, so we asked project lead Joe Maloney why it wasn't included. "It has been difficult to find time to package for GhostBSD. It's the only distro I have ever packaged for," Maloney said. He added that rapid contributions from AppImage creator Simon Peter, known as probono, had made packaging increasingly difficult.

He also pointed to the fact that GhostBSD project lead Eric Turgeon is developing his own environment too: the Mocka desktop. Mocka is still in its very early stages - alpha version 0.0.2 appeared early last month - but the plan is that when it's ready, it will become GhostBSD's default desktop. For now, the only available module is a dock for the MATE desktop, but the curious can follow its development on the GitHub project page.

There may be no Gershwin included, but GhostBSD 26.2 offers MATE 1.28, and there's also a community-supported version with Xfce 4.20 instead. We tried the default MATE edition, and it works as well as ever. It defaults to a dark theme and the classic two-panel GNOME 2 desktop layout. The System menu in the top panel has an Administration submenu with a few of the project's own apps that aren't from upstream FreeBSD: "BE Station" for managing system boot environments, "Software Station" for browsing and installing applications, and "Update Station" for updates.

We regularly hear from users growing tired of the Linux vendors' headlong rush into Rust, Wayland, systemd, containerized app formats, and so on. Some are curious about whether FreeBSD offers a usable alternative. GhostBSD is the easiest way to get a complete, ready-to-use graphical FreeBSD desktop. There is a price to pay for switching to FreeBSD: for a start, most proprietary Linux apps, from Chrome to Slack, are not available here. Hardware compatibility needs more checking than on mainstream Linux, especially with recent GPUs and Wi-Fi adapters. If Windows gaming is a priority, this isn't the obvious choice.

But if you can live without those proprietary apps and find suitable open source replacements, FreeBSD is a viable alternative - and GhostBSD takes much of the setup work out of trying it. ®

A phishing attack on Harvard University last year netted the details of more than 850,000 individuals, including students, alumni, parents and family members, faculty members, and donors, according to data breach service Have I Been Pwned (HIBP).

The Ivy League institution first confirmed the attack, later claimed by ShinyHunters, in November 2025, although HIBP gave the first indication about how many people may have been affected by the breach for the first time today.

Run by venerable infoseccer Troy Hunt, HIBP ingested all the files and revealed that the types of data stolen from the university extended beyond the personal and donation information it referenced in its initial disclosure.

According to HIBP, the 850,000+ figure pertains to unique email addresses found in the data dump. The following data points may not have been collected about each and every individual, but are included in the stolen files:

• Names

• Dates of birth

• Places of birth

• Ethnicities

• Genders

• Marital statuses

• Occupations

• Job titles

• Email addresses

• Physical addresses

• Phone numbers

• Salutations

• Social media profiles

• Citizenship statuses

• Education levels

• Family members' names

• Employers

• Charitable donations

Harvard did not immediately respond to our requests for more information.

Its disclosure at the time described the attack as an instance of "phone-based phishing" that targeted its Alumni Affairs and Development department, leading to unauthorized access to its systems.

It did not specify the attacker by name, although ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for the intrusion on the same day it listed the University of Pennsylvania on its leak site.

The group claimed to have stolen more than 1 million records from Harvard and 1.2 million from Penn.

In Penn's case, HIBP pegged the total number of affected individuals at around 623,800, based on unique email addresses, although additional data types such as donations, personally identifiable information, religions, and more were affected.

ShinyHunters' raid on Harvard systems came around a month after the university probed a separate attack by Cl0p, which at the time was on a tear exploiting a zero-day in Oracle's E-Business Suite.

The impact from that attack was limited to a small amount of data at a small administrative unit, however.

Earlier this year, Harvard was also affected by ShinyHunters for the second time in the space of a few months after the cybercriminals attacked Instructure, the EdTech vendor behind learning platform Canvas.

The university pulled its Canvas site offline while Instructure handled the cleanup, although it never officially commented on whether any data was compromised as a result. ®