DoubleClickjacking is a clickjacking technique that tricks users into performing unintended actions by overlaying an invisible iframe containing an ad over a legitimate clickable element. When the user clicks what they believe to be the legitimate element, they actually click the hidden ad, generating revenue for the attacker or redirecting the user to a malicious site. This exploit leverages the fact that some ad networks register clicks even if the ad itself isn't visible. DoubleClickjacking is particularly concerning because it bypasses traditional clickjacking defenses that rely on detecting visible overlays. By remaining invisible, the malicious iframe effectively hides from security measures, making this attack difficult to detect and prevent.
Researchers discovered a second set of vulnerable internet domains (.gouv.bf, Burkina Faso's government domain) being resold through a third-party registrar after previously uncovering a similar issue with Gabon's .ga domain. This highlights a systemic problem where governments outsource the management of their top-level domains, often leading to security vulnerabilities and potential exploitation. The ease with which these domains can be acquired by malicious actors for a mere $20 raises concerns about potential nation-state attacks, phishing campaigns, and other malicious activities targeting individuals and organizations who might trust these seemingly official domains. This repeated vulnerability underscores the critical need for governments to prioritize the security and proper management of their top-level domains to prevent misuse and protect their citizens and organizations.
Hacker News users discuss the implications of governments demanding access to encrypted data via "lawful access" backdoors. Several express skepticism about the feasibility and security of such systems, arguing that any backdoor created for law enforcement can also be exploited by malicious actors. One commenter points out the "irony" of governments potentially using insecure methods to access the supposedly secure backdoors. Another highlights the recurring nature of this debate and the unlikelihood of a technical solution satisfying all parties. The cost of $20 for the domain used in the linked article also draws attention, with speculation about the site's credibility and purpose. Some dismiss the article as fear-mongering, while others suggest it's a legitimate concern given the increasing demands for government access to encrypted communications.
Brian Krebs's post details how a single misplaced click cost one cryptocurrency investor over $600,000. The victim, identified as "Nick," was attempting to connect his Ledger hardware wallet to what he thought was the official PancakeSwap decentralized exchange. Instead, he clicked a malicious Google ad that led to a phishing site mimicking PancakeSwap. After entering his seed phrase, hackers drained his wallet of various cryptocurrencies. The incident highlights the dangers of blindly trusting search results, especially when dealing with valuable assets. It emphasizes the importance of verifying website URLs and exercising extreme caution before entering sensitive information like seed phrases, as one wrong click can have devastating financial consequences.
Hacker News commenters largely agreed with the article's premise about the devastating impact of phishing attacks, especially targeting high-net-worth individuals. Some pointed out the increasing sophistication of these attacks, making them harder to detect even for tech-savvy users. Several users discussed the importance of robust security practices, including using hardware security keys, strong passwords, and skepticism towards unexpected communications. The effectiveness of educating users about phishing tactics was debated, with some suggesting that technical solutions like mandatory 2FA are more reliable than relying on user vigilance. A few commenters shared personal anecdotes or experiences with similar scams, highlighting the real-world consequences and emotional distress these attacks can cause. The overall sentiment was one of caution and a recognition that even the most careful individuals can fall victim to well-crafted phishing attempts.
A 19-year-old, Zachary Lee Morgenstern, pleaded guilty to swatting-for-hire charges, potentially facing up to 20 years in prison. He admitted to placing hoax emergency calls to schools, businesses, and individuals across the US between 2020 and 2022, sometimes receiving payment for these actions through online platforms. Morgenstern's activities disrupted communities and triggered large-scale law enforcement responses, including a SWAT team deployment to a university. He is scheduled for sentencing in March 2025.
Hacker News commenters generally express disgust at the swatter's actions, noting the potential for tragedy and wasted resources. Some discuss the apparent ease with which swatting is carried out and question the 20-year potential sentence, suggesting it seems excessive compared to other crimes. A few highlight the absurdity of swatting stemming from online gaming disputes, and the immaturity of those involved. Several users point out the role of readily available personal information online, enabling such harassment, and question the security practices of the targeted individuals. There's also some debate about the practicality and effectiveness of legal deterrents like harsh sentencing in preventing this type of crime.
A recent EPA assessment revealed that drinking water systems serving 26 million Americans face high cybersecurity risks, potentially jeopardizing public health and safety. These systems, many small and lacking resources, are vulnerable to cyberattacks due to outdated technology, inadequate security measures, and a shortage of trained personnel. The EPA recommends these systems implement stronger cybersecurity practices, including risk assessments, incident response plans, and improved network security, but acknowledges the financial and technical hurdles involved. These findings underscore the urgent need for increased federal funding and support to protect critical water infrastructure from cyber threats.
Hacker News users discussed the lack of surprising information in the article, pointing out that critical infrastructure has been known to be vulnerable for years and this is just another example. Several commenters highlighted the systemic issue of underfunding and neglect in these sectors, making them easy targets. Some discussed the practical realities of securing such systems, emphasizing the difficulty of patching legacy equipment and the air-gapping trade-off between security and remote monitoring/control. A few mentioned the potential severity of consequences, even small incidents, and the need for more proactive measures rather than reactive responses. The overall sentiment reflected a weary acceptance of the problem and skepticism towards meaningful change.
Garak is an open-source tool developed by NVIDIA for identifying vulnerabilities in large language models (LLMs). It probes LLMs with a diverse range of prompts designed to elicit problematic behaviors, such as generating harmful content, leaking private information, or being easily jailbroken. These prompts cover various attack categories like prompt injection, data poisoning, and bias detection. Garak aims to help developers understand and mitigate these risks, ultimately making LLMs safer and more robust. It provides a framework for automated testing and evaluation, allowing researchers and developers to proactively assess LLM security and identify potential weaknesses before deployment.
Hacker News commenters discuss Garak's potential usefulness while acknowledging its limitations. Some express skepticism about the effectiveness of LLMs scanning other LLMs for vulnerabilities, citing the inherent difficulty in defining and detecting such issues. Others see value in Garak as a tool for identifying potential problems, especially in specific domains like prompt injection. The limited scope of the current version is noted, with users hoping for future expansion to cover more vulnerabilities and models. Several commenters highlight the rapid pace of development in this space, suggesting Garak represents an early but important step towards more robust LLM security. The "arms race" analogy between developing secure LLMs and finding vulnerabilities is also mentioned.
Summary of Comments ( 90 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42693748
Hacker News users discussed the plausibility and impact of the "DoubleClickjacking" technique described in the linked article. Several commenters expressed skepticism, arguing that the described attack is simply a variation of existing clickjacking techniques, not a fundamentally new vulnerability. They pointed out that modern browsers and frameworks already have mitigations in place to prevent such attacks, like the
X-Frame-Optionsheader. The discussion also touched upon the responsibility of ad networks in preventing malicious ads and the effectiveness of user education in mitigating these types of threats. Some users questioned the practicality of the attack, citing the difficulty in precisely aligning elements for the exploit to work. Overall, the consensus seemed to be that while the described scenario is technically possible, it's not a novel attack vector and is already addressed by existing security measures.The Hacker News post titled "DoubleClickjacking: A New type of web hacking technique" linking to an article on paulosyibelo.com has generated several comments discussing the validity and novelty of the described attack.
Several commenters point out that this is not a new technique, and is in fact a variant of clickjacking which has been known for a long time. They argue that the article's framing of "DoubleClickjacking" is misleading, as it's simply clickjacking with a double-click trigger, rather than a single click. Some commenters provide links to older resources and discussions about clickjacking, demonstrating the established nature of this type of attack.
One commenter questions the practical exploitability of this particular double-click variant. They argue that legitimate uses of double-click on the web are relatively rare, and therefore the opportunities for malicious exploitation are limited. They suggest that tricking a user into double-clicking something unintentionally is significantly more difficult than a single click.
Another commenter discusses the mitigations against clickjacking, such as the
X-Frame-Optionsheader, and emphasizes the importance of developers using these protections. They highlight that the vulnerability lies in the vulnerable website's lack of proper defenses, rather than a novel attack vector.The discussion also touches upon the user's role in preventing such attacks. One comment suggests being cautious about interacting with embedded content, especially from untrusted sources, regardless of the specific clickjacking technique employed.
Overall, the comments express skepticism about the "newness" of DoubleClickjacking, clarifying that it's a variation of a well-known attack. They highlight the importance of existing security measures and developer awareness in mitigating these kinds of threats. The practicality of exploiting a double-click scenario is also debated, with some suggesting its limited applicability compared to traditional clickjacking.