hackslash dot org

Uncovering a 0-Click RCE in the SuperNote Nomad E-Ink Tablet

Posted: 2025-04-07 20:51:02

Security researchers at Prizm Labs discovered a critical zero-click remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the SuperNote Nomad e-ink tablet. Exploiting a flaw in the device's update mechanism, an attacker could remotely execute arbitrary code with root privileges by sending a specially crafted OTA update notification via a malicious Wi-Fi access point. The attack requires no user interaction, making it particularly dangerous. The vulnerability stemmed from insufficient validation of update packages, allowing malicious firmware to be installed. Prizm Labs responsibly disclosed the vulnerability to SuperNote, who promptly released a patch. This vulnerability highlights the importance of robust security measures even in seemingly simple devices like e-readers.

This blog post by Prizm Labs details the discovery and exploitation of a zero-click remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the SuperNote A5X and A6X e-ink tablets, specifically those running firmware version 3.4.0.33. A zero-click exploit allows an attacker to compromise a device without requiring any interaction from the user. The vulnerability stemmed from the insecure implementation of the OTA (Over-The-Air) update mechanism.

The researchers began their investigation by analyzing the network traffic during an OTA update. They observed that the update process involved downloading a signed firmware image via HTTPS. While the use of HTTPS provided encryption, it did not protect against malicious manipulation if the attacker could compromise the update server or perform a man-in-the-middle attack. Crucially, the researchers found that the device did not validate the signature of the downloaded update package before writing it to the internal flash memory. This oversight allowed them to craft a malicious firmware update package containing arbitrary code.

The exploit process involved several steps. First, a malicious update package was constructed. This package contained a modified boot image, effectively replacing the legitimate SuperNote operating system with a malicious one. The malicious boot image included a modified init script designed to establish a reverse shell back to the attacker's machine, granting them full control over the device.

To deliver the malicious update, the researchers leveraged a classic man-in-the-middle attack technique, using ARP spoofing. ARP spoofing allows an attacker to intercept traffic intended for another device on the local network by impersonating its MAC address. By poisoning the ARP cache of the SuperNote device, the researchers redirected the device's OTA update request to their own malicious server, hosting the crafted update package.

When the SuperNote attempted to update, it downloaded the malicious package from the attacker's server. Due to the lack of pre-installation signature verification, the device accepted and applied the malicious update. Upon reboot, the modified init script within the malicious boot image executed, establishing the reverse shell and granting the attacker complete control. This access allowed them to execute arbitrary commands, exfiltrate sensitive data, and essentially take full ownership of the device.

The researchers highlighted the severity of this vulnerability, as it permitted silent and remote compromise of the targeted device. They responsibly disclosed the vulnerability to Ratta Supernote, the manufacturer of the device, who subsequently released a patched firmware version addressing the issue. The post concludes by emphasizing the importance of secure OTA update implementations and the need for robust security measures in internet-connected devices.

Summary of Comments ( 8 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43615805

Hacker News commenters generally praised the research and write-up for its clarity and depth. Several expressed concern about the Supernote's security posture, especially given its marketing towards privacy-conscious users. Some questioned the practicality of the exploit given its reliance on connecting to a malicious Wi-Fi network, but others pointed out the potential for rogue access points or compromised legitimate networks. A few users discussed the inherent difficulties in securing embedded devices and the trade-offs between functionality and security. The exploit's dependence on a user-initiated firmware update process was also highlighted, suggesting a slightly reduced risk compared to a fully automatic exploit. Some commenters shared their experiences with Supernote's customer support and device management, while others debated the overall significance of the vulnerability in the context of real-world threats.

The Hacker News post discussing the 0-click RCE vulnerability in the SuperNote Nomad E-Ink tablet has generated a number of comments exploring various aspects of the vulnerability, its implications, and the SuperNote device itself.

Several commenters focus on the trade-offs between security and desired functionality, particularly regarding the device's cloud syncing feature. Some argue that the always-on nature of the sync feature, necessary for its intended seamless functionality, inherently increases the risk profile. The decision by SuperNote to leave Wi-Fi always enabled, even when the device is powered off, is highlighted as a key contributing factor to the vulnerability. The discussion touches upon the inherent difficulty of securing devices that require constant network connectivity.

The technical details of the vulnerability also receive attention. Commenters discuss the specifics of the exploit, including the use of maliciously crafted emails and the exploitation of a stack overflow vulnerability in the device's email client. The discussion highlights the importance of robust input sanitization and secure coding practices to prevent such vulnerabilities. Some commenters question the choice of technology used for the email client, suggesting that a simpler, less feature-rich implementation might have been more secure.

A recurring theme in the comments is the security of e-ink devices in general. Several users express concerns about the potential for similar vulnerabilities in other e-ink devices and the broader implications for the security of internet-connected devices in general. The relatively closed nature of the SuperNote ecosystem is also brought up, with some commenters suggesting that this may have contributed to the vulnerability going unnoticed for a longer period.

Several commenters praise the researchers for their responsible disclosure and the detailed write-up of the vulnerability. They acknowledge the importance of such research in improving the security of these devices.

Some comments delve into the practical implications of the vulnerability, discussing the potential for data theft and other malicious activities. The potential impact on users' privacy is a particular concern, given the sensitive nature of information often stored on such devices.

Finally, a few comments discuss the response from SuperNote, noting the company's acknowledgement of the vulnerability and their commitment to releasing a patch. There's some discussion about the timeliness of the response and the broader implications for the trust and reputation of the SuperNote brand.

Blasting Past WebP - An analysis of the NSO BLASTPASS iMessage exploit

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-27 12:49:44

Google's Project Zero discovered a zero-click iMessage exploit, dubbed BLASTPASS, used by NSO Group to deliver Pegasus spyware to iPhones. This sophisticated exploit chained two vulnerabilities within the ImageIO framework's processing of maliciously crafted WebP images. The first vulnerability allowed bypassing a memory limit imposed on WebP decoding, enabling a large, controlled allocation. The second vulnerability, a type confusion bug, leveraged this allocation to achieve arbitrary code execution within the privileged Springboard process. Critically, BLASTPASS required no interaction from the victim and left virtually no trace, making detection extremely difficult. Apple patched these vulnerabilities in iOS 16.6.1, acknowledging their exploitation in the wild, and has implemented further mitigations in subsequent updates to prevent similar attacks.

The Google Project Zero blog post, "Blasting Past WebP - An analysis of the NSO BLASTPASS iMessage exploit," details a zero-click, zero-day exploit chain utilized by NSO Group's Pegasus spyware to compromise iPhones running iOS 16.6. This sophisticated attack, dubbed BLASTPASS, leverages maliciously crafted image files sent via iMessage to achieve remote code execution on a target device without any interaction from the user. The exploit bypasses newly implemented security mitigations in iOS 16, specifically targeting the Image I/O framework, which is responsible for processing various image formats.

The attack begins with the delivery of a PassKit attachment containing a malicious image disguised as a harmless GIF. However, instead of legitimate GIF data, the image file contains cleverly constructed WebP image data. While Apple had previously strengthened WebP parsing to prevent exploitation, BLASTPASS circumvents these protections through a novel "image blitting" technique. This technique abuses functionalities within the WebP decoder related to how image segments are combined or "blitted" together. By manipulating specific blitting parameters and supplying carefully crafted image data, the exploit triggers integer overflows within the image processing pipeline.

These integer overflows corrupt memory allocated by the Image I/O framework, ultimately leading to an out-of-bounds write condition. This vulnerability allows the attackers to overwrite critical data structures, gaining control over the flow of execution within the iMessage processing thread. The post explains the intricacies of this overflow and the specific vulnerabilities within the libwebp library that are manipulated.

Further, the analysis dives into how this initial memory corruption is leveraged to achieve arbitrary code execution. The attackers use the overwritten memory to construct a fake "image descriptor" which then gets passed to a later stage in the processing pipeline. This fake descriptor contains carefully crafted data that allows the exploit to execute arbitrary code, effectively giving the attackers full control over the device.

The post highlights the complexity and sophistication of the exploit chain. The attackers demonstrate a deep understanding of the Image I/O framework and the libwebp library, carefully chaining together multiple vulnerabilities to bypass Apple's security measures. This bypass underscores the ongoing challenge of securing complex software systems against determined and resourceful attackers. While the post does not detail the full extent of the payload delivered by BLASTPASS, it implies the payload likely installs Pegasus spyware, enabling surveillance of the compromised device. The discovery prompted swift action from Apple, resulting in patches being issued to address the exploited vulnerabilities. The researchers emphasize the severity of the exploit, its potential impact, and the ongoing need for robust security research and vulnerability mitigation strategies.

Summary of Comments ( 83 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43493056

Hacker News commenters discuss the sophistication and impact of the BLASTPASS exploit. Several express concern over Apple's security, particularly their seemingly delayed response and the lack of transparency surrounding the vulnerability. Some debate the ethics of NSO Group and the use of such exploits, questioning the justification for their existence. Others delve into the technical details, praising the Project Zero analysis and discussing the exploit's clever circumvention of Apple's defenses. The complexity of the exploit and its potential for misuse are recurring themes. A few commenters note the irony of Google, a competitor, uncovering and disclosing the Apple vulnerability. There's also speculation about the potential legal and political ramifications of this discovery.

The Hacker News comments section for the post "Blasting Past WebP - An analysis of the NSO BLASTPASS iMessage exploit" contains a robust discussion about the technical details of the exploit, its implications, and the broader context of zero-day vulnerabilities and the spyware industry.

Several commenters delve into the specifics of the exploit, appreciating the depth and clarity of Google's Project Zero analysis. They discuss the cleverness of using a seemingly innocuous image format like WebP as a vector for attack, highlighting the complexity of parsing image files and the potential for vulnerabilities within these parsers. The conversation explores how the exploit chained together different vulnerabilities to achieve code execution, including memory corruption issues. Some comments dissect specific lines of code mentioned in the Project Zero analysis, demonstrating a deep understanding of the technical intricacies involved.

The implications of this exploit are also a significant focus. Commenters express concern over the sophistication and stealth of the attack, emphasizing the difficulty of detecting such exploits. The discussion touches upon the power and potential abuse of zero-day vulnerabilities, particularly in the hands of entities like NSO Group. There's a general sense of alarm regarding the potential for these types of attacks to target individuals, including journalists and human rights activists.

Beyond the technical specifics, the comments branch into broader discussions about the spyware industry and the need for greater regulation. Some users criticize the lack of accountability for companies like NSO Group, arguing that their actions threaten privacy and security. The debate extends to the role of governments in either enabling or combating the use of such spyware, with some commenters suggesting international cooperation is necessary to address the issue effectively. The ethical dimensions of developing and deploying such powerful tools are also scrutinized.

A few commenters offer practical advice, such as disabling iMessage for users concerned about being targeted. Others question the feasibility of such advice, noting the prevalence of iMessage usage and the difficulty of completely mitigating such risks.

The overall tone of the comments section is one of serious concern, mixed with a degree of technical fascination. The commenters express a combination of apprehension about the increasing sophistication of cyberattacks and a desire for greater transparency and accountability within the industry. The discussion demonstrates a keen understanding of the technical complexities involved, alongside a recognition of the broader societal implications of such exploits.

Heap-overflowing Llama.cpp to RCE

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-23 10:02:02

The blog post details a successful remote code execution (RCE) exploit against llama.cpp, a popular open-source implementation of the LLaMA large language model. The vulnerability stemmed from improper handling of user-supplied prompts within the --interactive-first mode when loading a model from a remote server. Specifically, a carefully crafted long prompt could trigger a heap overflow, overwriting critical data structures and ultimately allowing arbitrary code execution on the server hosting the llama.cpp instance. The exploit involved sending a specially formatted prompt via a custom RPC client, demonstrating a practical attack scenario. The post concludes with recommendations for mitigating this vulnerability, emphasizing the importance of validating user input and avoiding the direct use of user-supplied data in memory allocation.

The blog post "Heap-overflowing Llama.cpp to RCE" details a vulnerability discovery and exploitation process in llama.cpp, a popular open-source implementation of the Llama large language model. The author begins by outlining their motivation, which stemmed from an interest in exploring the security implications of locally running powerful language models like Llama. They hypothesized that processing untrusted inputs, such as prompts or instructions, could expose vulnerabilities.

The author then proceeds to methodically describe their vulnerability research. They began by fuzzing llama.cpp, a technique that involves feeding the program a large number of randomly generated inputs to trigger unexpected behavior or crashes. Through fuzzing, they successfully discovered a heap overflow vulnerability within the llama_tokenize function, specifically when handling long prompt strings. This function is responsible for breaking down the input prompt into individual tokens for processing by the language model. The overflow occurs because the function allocates memory based on the byte count of the UTF-8 encoded input string, but later copies a larger number of tokens into that allocated space. Since tokens can be represented by multiple bytes, this discrepancy can lead to writing beyond the allocated buffer, corrupting adjacent memory on the heap.

The post explains the technical details of the overflow, highlighting how the size calculation mismatch allows an attacker to overwrite critical data structures on the heap. This control over the heap layout is the crucial first step towards achieving remote code execution (RCE).

The author then dives into the exploitation process. They meticulously describe how they leveraged the heap overflow to gain control of the program's execution flow. This involved carefully manipulating the overwritten heap data to redirect program execution to a location of their choosing. Due to the nature of the heap management in llama.cpp, achieving arbitrary code execution wasn't straightforward. The author overcame this by chaining several techniques. First, they overwrote function pointers to gain initial control. Then, they utilized a "stack pivot" technique to redirect the stack pointer to a controlled memory region, giving them greater control over the program's execution environment. Finally, they injected and executed their own shellcode – a small piece of code designed to spawn a shell – granting them full control over the underlying system.

The post concludes by emphasizing the security risks associated with running large language models on potentially untrusted inputs. It highlights the importance of robust input validation and sanitization to prevent similar vulnerabilities. The author also mentions reporting the vulnerability to the llama.cpp maintainers and confirms that the issue has been subsequently patched. The blog post serves as a practical example of how seemingly innocuous input handling can have severe security consequences, especially in complex software projects dealing with large language models.

Summary of Comments ( 44 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43451935

Hacker News users discussed the potential severity of the Llama.cpp vulnerability, with some pointing out that exploiting it requires a malicious prompt specifically crafted for that purpose, making accidental exploitation unlikely. The discussion highlighted the inherent risks of running untrusted code, especially within sandboxed environments like Docker, as the exploit demonstrates a bypass of these protections. Some commenters debated the practicality of the attack, with one noting the high resource requirements for running large language models (LLMs) like Llama, making targeted attacks less probable. Others expressed concern about the increasing complexity of software and the difficulty of securing it, particularly with the growing use of machine learning models. A few commenters questioned the wisdom of exposing LLMs directly to user input without robust sanitization and validation.

The Hacker News post "Heap-overflowing Llama.cpp to RCE" discussing the blog post about exploiting Llama.cpp has several comments exploring various aspects of the vulnerability and its implications.

One commenter highlights the concerning nature of using unconstrained user input to construct file paths, emphasizing that this is a fundamental security risk and questioning why such a vulnerability existed in the first place. They express surprise that seemingly simple input validation wasn't implemented.

Another commenter dives deeper into the technical details of the exploit, pointing out the usage of std::format for path construction and how its flexibility might have contributed to the oversight. They also discuss how address space layout randomization (ASLR) affects the exploit's reliability, making it more difficult but not impossible. This comment also brings up the potential danger of the exploit being used for malicious code execution in various contexts where Llama.cpp might be deployed.

A subsequent comment thread discusses the practical implications of the exploit, especially concerning the use of large language models (LLMs) in security-sensitive environments. One participant notes the difficulty in fully securing LLMs against such exploits, given their complex nature and reliance on user-provided prompts. Another commenter speculates on the increasing likelihood of similar vulnerabilities being discovered as LLMs become more prevalent.

Several commenters discuss mitigation strategies, including the importance of input sanitization and validation, as well as the potential use of sandboxing techniques to restrict the impact of successful exploits. The discussion emphasizes the need for robust security practices when integrating LLMs into applications.

Finally, some comments focus on the responsible disclosure process followed by the researcher, praising their efforts to inform the developers and give them time to patch the vulnerability before public disclosure. The quick response from the Llama.cpp maintainers is also acknowledged and commended.

Next.js and the corrupt middleware: the authorizing artifact

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-23 07:57:40

The blog post details a vulnerability in Next.js versions 13.4.0 and earlier related to authorization bypass in middleware. It explains how an attacker could manipulate the req.nextUrl.pathname value within middleware to trick the application into serving protected routes without proper authentication. Specifically, by changing the pathname to begin with /_next/, the middleware logic could be bypassed, allowing access to resources intended to be restricted. The author demonstrates this with an example involving an authentication check for /dashboard that could be circumvented by requesting /_next/dashboard instead. The post concludes by emphasizing the importance of validating and sanitizing user-supplied data, even within seemingly internal properties like req.nextUrl.

The blog post "Next.js and the corrupt middleware: the authorizing artifact" explores a subtle but significant security vulnerability related to authorization in Next.js applications, particularly those using middleware for route protection. The author meticulously details how a seemingly correct implementation of middleware can be circumvented due to the interaction between Next.js's server-side rendering (SSR) and client-side navigation.

The core issue revolves around the fact that while middleware executes on both the server and the client, the security context differs significantly. On the server, the middleware has access to sensitive information like cookies containing authentication tokens, allowing it to accurately determine user authorization. However, when a user navigates client-side, for example, by clicking a link within the application, the initial rendering occurs on the client. In this scenario, the middleware also executes on the client, but crucially, it does not have access to the same secure context as on the server. Specifically, secure cookies, typically used for authentication, are not accessible within the client-side middleware.

This disparity creates a window of vulnerability. A malicious actor could manipulate client-side JavaScript to temporarily bypass the client-side middleware, gaining access to protected routes. While the subsequent server-side render will eventually correct the authorization state and redirect the user, the initial unauthorized access could be sufficient to expose sensitive data or perform unintended actions.

The author illustrates this vulnerability with a concrete example involving a hypothetical banking application. They demonstrate how an attacker could exploit the client-side middleware gap to briefly gain access to account balance information before being redirected. This seemingly fleeting access could still have significant consequences.

Furthermore, the blog post highlights the insidious nature of this vulnerability. Standard security testing methods, which often focus solely on server-side behavior, are likely to miss this client-side bypass. This makes the vulnerability particularly dangerous, as it can remain hidden even in seemingly well-tested applications.

The author concludes by suggesting mitigation strategies. One approach involves performing crucial authorization checks within getServerSideProps or getStaticProps, which always execute on the server and thus have access to the secure context. Another approach is to use a dedicated authorization library that explicitly handles the differences between server-side and client-side execution. The post emphasizes the importance of understanding the nuanced behavior of middleware in Next.js to effectively protect against this class of vulnerabilities. It underscores the need for developers to be vigilant about client-side security considerations even within frameworks that primarily emphasize server-side rendering.

Summary of Comments ( 4 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43451485

The Hacker News comments discuss the complexity and potential pitfalls of Next.js middleware, particularly regarding authentication. Some commenters argue the example provided in the article is contrived and not representative of typical Next.js usage, suggesting simpler and more robust solutions for authorization. Others point out that the core issue stems from a misunderstanding of how middleware functions, particularly the implications of mutable shared state between requests. Several commenters highlight the importance of carefully considering the order and scope of middleware execution to avoid unexpected behavior. The discussion also touches on broader concerns about the increasing complexity of JavaScript frameworks and the potential for such complexities to introduce subtle bugs. A few commenters appreciate the article for raising awareness of these potential issues, even if the specific example is debatable.

The Hacker News post "Next.js and the corrupt middleware: the authorizing artifact" has a moderate number of comments discussing various aspects of the original article about a security issue in Next.js.

Several commenters focus on the specific nature of the vulnerability and its potential impact. One user highlights that the vulnerability stems from how getServerSideProps interacts with middleware and potentially exposes protected routes if not carefully handled. They emphasize the subtle nature of this issue and how it could be easily overlooked by developers. Another commenter elaborates on this, explaining how the middleware can be bypassed if a request modifies the x-middleware-rewrite header, essentially tricking the application into serving protected content. This comment thread delves into the mechanics of the exploit and how developers might accidentally introduce this vulnerability.

Another line of discussion revolves around the responsibility for this type of issue. Some users argue that this isn't necessarily a "vulnerability" in Next.js itself but rather a misunderstanding or misuse of its features. They contend that frameworks provide tools, and it's ultimately the developer's responsibility to use them correctly. A counterpoint to this argument suggests that the framework's design could be more intuitive or provide clearer warnings about potential pitfalls like this one. The ease with which this misconfiguration can occur is brought up, suggesting that the framework could do more to prevent such issues.

There's also a discussion about the practical implications of this vulnerability. Commenters debate how widespread the issue might be in real-world applications and the potential consequences of exploitation. Some users mention that they haven't encountered this issue in their own projects, while others express concern about the potential for unauthorized access to sensitive data if the vulnerability is present.

A few comments offer potential solutions or workarounds. One suggestion involves carefully validating the x-middleware-rewrite header or avoiding its use altogether in sensitive contexts. Another comment mentions using a different approach for authorization, such as relying on server-side sessions rather than middleware rewrites.

Finally, some comments touch upon the broader topic of security in web development. The discussion highlights the importance of thorough testing and code review to catch these types of vulnerabilities before they reach production. The incident serves as a reminder of the constant need for vigilance and the potential for subtle errors to have significant security implications.

Akira ransomware can be cracked with sixteen RTX 4090 GPUs in around ten hours

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-17 11:06:24

Researchers have demonstrated a method for cracking the Akira ransomware's encryption using sixteen RTX 4090 GPUs. By exploiting a vulnerability in Akira's implementation of the ChaCha20 encryption algorithm, they were able to brute-force the 256-bit encryption key in approximately ten hours. This breakthrough signifies a potential weakness in the ransomware and offers a possible recovery route for victims, though the required hardware is expensive and not readily accessible to most. The attack relies on Akira's flawed use of a 16-byte (128-bit) nonce, effectively reducing the key space and making it susceptible to this brute-force approach.

A recent report by Tom's Hardware details a significant breakthrough in combating the Akira ransomware, a malicious software that encrypts victims' files and demands payment for their release. Researchers at Sophos, a cybersecurity firm, have discovered a vulnerability in Akira's encryption implementation that allows for the recovery of encrypted data without paying the ransom. This vulnerability stems from Akira's usage of a relatively weak encryption key generation process. While Akira nominally uses a 256-bit encryption key, providing a theoretically immense number of possible combinations, the actual key generation method produces keys significantly weaker than a true 256-bit key would suggest.

This weakness allows for a brute-force attack, a method of systematically trying all possible keys until the correct one is found, to become a feasible decryption strategy. Sophos researchers leveraged the immense computational power of sixteen Nvidia RTX 4090 GPUs, high-end graphics cards renowned for their parallel processing capabilities, to perform this brute-force attack. Utilizing these GPUs, they were able to successfully crack the Akira encryption and recover the encrypted data in approximately ten hours.

This timeframe represents a substantial reduction in decryption time compared to traditional methods, and it highlights the potential of utilizing powerful hardware for breaking relatively weak encryption. While ten hours might still be considered a significant duration in some scenarios, it is substantially faster than the potentially weeks or even months required by other methods or the alternative of succumbing to the ransom demands. The discovery of this vulnerability and the successful demonstration of its exploitability offers a glimmer of hope for victims of Akira ransomware attacks, providing a potential pathway to data recovery without financially supporting criminal enterprises. This breakthrough also underscores the importance of robust encryption key generation in ransomware development, and serves as a reminder of the ongoing cat-and-mouse game between cybersecurity professionals and malicious actors. The research by Sophos has significantly weakened the Akira ransomware's effectiveness and could potentially lead to future developments in combating similar threats.

Summary of Comments ( 11 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43387188

Hacker News commenters discuss the practicality and implications of using RTX 4090 GPUs to crack Akira ransomware. Some express skepticism about the real-world applicability, pointing out that the specific vulnerability exploited in the article is likely already patched and that criminals will adapt. Others highlight the increasing importance of strong, long passwords given the demonstrated power of brute-force attacks with readily available hardware. The cost-benefit analysis of such attacks is debated, with some suggesting the expense of the hardware may be prohibitive for many victims, while others counter that high-value targets could justify the cost. A few commenters also note the ethical considerations of making such cracking tools publicly available. Finally, some discuss the broader implications for password security and the need for stronger encryption methods in the future.

The Hacker News post titled "Akira ransomware can be cracked with sixteen RTX 4090 GPUs in around ten hours" has generated several comments discussing the implications of using powerful GPUs like the RTX 4090 for cracking encryption.

Some users express skepticism about the practicality of this approach. One commenter questions the feasibility for average users, pointing out the significant cost of acquiring sixteen RTX 4090 GPUs. They suggest that while technically possible, the financial barrier makes it unlikely for most victims of ransomware. Another user echoes this sentiment, highlighting that the cost would likely exceed the ransom demand in many cases. They also raise the point that this method might only work for a specific vulnerability in Akira and wouldn't be a universal solution for all ransomware.

Others discuss the broader implications of readily available GPU power. One comment points out the increasing accessibility of powerful hardware and its potential to empower both security researchers and malicious actors. They argue that this development underscores the ongoing "arms race" in cybersecurity, where advancements in technology benefit both sides. Another user suggests that this highlights the importance of robust encryption practices, as the increasing power of GPUs could eventually render weaker encryption methods vulnerable.

A few comments delve into the technical aspects. One user questions the specific algorithm used by Akira and speculates on its susceptibility to brute-force attacks. Another user mentions the importance of key length and how it affects the time required for cracking, emphasizing that longer keys would significantly increase the difficulty even with powerful GPUs.

One commenter points out the article's potentially misleading title. They clarify that the GPUs weren't cracking the encryption itself, but rather brute-forcing a password which was then used to decrypt the files. This distinction is important, as it implies a weakness in the implementation rather than the underlying encryption algorithm.

Finally, a few users offer practical advice. One suggests using strong, unique passwords to protect against this type of attack, emphasizing the importance of basic security hygiene. Another user proposes that the best defense against ransomware remains regular backups, allowing victims to restore their data without paying the ransom.

Overall, the comments reflect a mix of concerns about the practical implications of using GPUs for cracking ransomware, discussions about the broader cybersecurity landscape, and technical insights into the vulnerabilities highlighted by this specific case.

Sign in as anyone: Bypassing SAML SSO authentication with parser differentials

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-15 19:06:01

A critical vulnerability was discovered impacting multiple SAML single sign-on (SSO) libraries across various programming languages. This vulnerability stemmed from inconsistencies in how different XML parsers interpret and handle XML signatures within SAML assertions. Attackers could exploit these "parser differentials" by crafting malicious SAML responses where the signature appeared valid to the service provider's parser but actually signed different data than what the identity provider intended. This allowed attackers to potentially impersonate any user, gaining unauthorized access to systems protected by vulnerable SAML implementations. The blog post details the vulnerability's root cause, demonstrates exploitation scenarios, and lists the affected libraries and their patched versions.

This GitHub blog post details a critical vulnerability discovered in certain implementations of SAML Single Sign-On (SSO), stemming from inconsistencies in how different XML parsers interpret specially crafted SAML responses. This vulnerability, dubbed “SAML Parser Differential,” allowed attackers to potentially impersonate any user within an affected organization, gaining unauthorized access to sensitive data and systems.

The core issue lies in the way SAML assertions, which are XML documents used to confirm a user's identity, are processed. SAML uses XML signatures to ensure the integrity and authenticity of these assertions. However, due to variations in how different XML parsers handle XML signature wrapping attacks and differences in how they canonicalize XML during signature verification, a malicious actor could manipulate the structure of the SAML response. This manipulation involved inserting carefully crafted XML elements within the signed portion of the assertion that some parsers would include during signature validation while others would discard.

Specifically, the attacker could inject an arbitrary NameID element, which identifies the user, into a legitimate SAML response. A vulnerable service provider (SP), using a parser that ignores these injected elements during signature validation, would accept the tampered response as valid. Subsequently, when processing the assertion to extract the user identity, this SP's parser would then include the injected NameID, effectively granting the attacker access as the impersonated user.

The blog post explains that the root cause is the lack of robust XML canonicalization during signature verification. Canonicalization is a process of standardizing the XML document before signing and verifying, ensuring consistent interpretation across different parsers. The vulnerability arises when the signing identity provider (IdP) and the verifying SP use different XML parsers with varying canonicalization implementations, creating a mismatch in how the XML is interpreted.

GitHub discovered this vulnerability through internal research and responsible disclosure processes. They identified affected open-source libraries, including python-saml and ruby-saml, as well as their own internal SAML implementation. Upon discovery, GitHub promptly patched their systems and collaborated with the maintainers of the affected open-source libraries to release fixes. The post emphasizes the importance of using robust and consistent XML canonicalization techniques during both signing and verification processes to mitigate this type of vulnerability. It also stresses the need for developers to carefully review and update their SAML implementations to ensure they are protected against parser differential attacks. Finally, the post underscores the crucial role of security research and responsible disclosure in identifying and addressing vulnerabilities before they can be exploited by malicious actors.

Summary of Comments ( 102 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43374519

Hacker News commenters discuss the complexity of SAML and the difficulty of ensuring consistent parsing across different implementations. Several point out that this vulnerability highlights the inherent fragility of relying on complex, XML-based standards like SAML, especially when multiple identity providers and service providers are involved. Some suggest that simpler authentication methods would be less susceptible to such parsing discrepancies. The discussion also touches on the importance of security audits and thorough testing, particularly for critical systems relying on SSO. A few commenters expressed surprise that such a vulnerability could exist, highlighting the subtle nature of the exploit. The overall sentiment reflects a concern about the complexity and potential security risks associated with SAML implementations.

The Hacker News post titled "Sign in as anyone: Bypassing SAML SSO authentication with parser differentials" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43374519) has generated a substantial discussion with several compelling comments.

Many commenters focus on the complexities and nuances of SAML implementations, highlighting how these intricacies can lead to vulnerabilities. One commenter points out the inherent difficulty in handling XML securely, given its flexibility and the various ways different parsers interpret it. This aligns with the article's core issue: differing interpretations of SAML assertions between identity providers and service providers. They explain that XML's extensibility and features like DTDs create a complex attack surface that's hard to fully secure. Another echoes this sentiment, noting the historical challenges with XML security and how it often relies on "gentlemen's agreements" regarding data handling, which can easily break down.

Several users discuss the practical implications of this type of vulnerability. Some emphasize the importance of careful validation on both the IdP and SP sides, suggesting that robust schema validation and strict adherence to standards are crucial for preventing such exploits. A commenter shares a personal anecdote of encountering a similar issue, illustrating how seemingly minor differences in XML parsing can have significant security consequences in real-world scenarios. They detail how different namespace handling between systems caused login failures, highlighting the fragility of SAML implementations.

The conversation also delves into the broader security implications. One comment suggests that these types of vulnerabilities underscore the importance of defense in depth, advocating for multiple layers of security rather than relying solely on SAML. Another raises concerns about the increasing complexity of modern authentication systems, arguing that this complexity itself contributes to vulnerabilities. They suggest simpler authentication methods might be more secure in the long run.

A few commenters offer more technical insights. One explains how XML Canonicalization (C14N) is designed to mitigate these kinds of issues, but its effectiveness depends on consistent implementation across systems. Another points out that this vulnerability highlights the need for proper input sanitization and validation, not just in web applications, but in all systems that process external data. A specific technical detail mentioned is the significance of the NameID element within SAML assertions and how its interpretation plays a crucial role in the exploit.

Finally, some comments offer practical advice for developers and security professionals, recommending thorough testing and auditing of SAML implementations, particularly focusing on edge cases and potential discrepancies between different parsers. They also suggest utilizing existing security testing tools and resources to identify and address these vulnerabilities proactively.

Zentool – AMD Zen Microcode Manipulation Utility

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-05 21:10:35

Zentool is a utility for manipulating the microcode of AMD Zen CPUs. It allows researchers and security analysts to extract, inject, and modify microcode updates directly from the processor, bypassing the typical update mechanisms provided by the operating system or BIOS. This enables detailed examination of microcode functionality, identification of potential vulnerabilities, and development of mitigations. Zentool supports various AMD Zen CPU families and provides options for specifying the target CPU core and displaying microcode information. While offering significant research opportunities, it also carries inherent risks, as improper microcode modification can lead to system instability or permanent damage.

The Zentool utility, developed by Google Security Research, is a comprehensive tool designed for manipulating the microcode of AMD Zen CPUs. It provides a powerful and flexible framework for researchers and security analysts to examine and modify the low-level firmware that governs the processor's behavior. This allows for in-depth analysis of microcode updates and their impact on system security and performance.

Zentool supports a wide array of functionalities, starting with the essential capability of reading and writing microcode updates to AMD CPUs. This encompasses both extracting the currently active microcode from a running system and applying new microcode versions. Furthermore, it facilitates a detailed comparison (diffing) between different microcode versions, highlighting any changes and enabling researchers to pinpoint potential security vulnerabilities or performance optimizations introduced in updates.

Beyond simple reading, writing, and comparing, Zentool boasts advanced features for manipulating microcode. It enables patching specific instructions within the microcode, offering granular control over the CPU's operation. This granular control extends to manipulating the microcode entry points, crucial for understanding and influencing how the processor handles various operations. The utility also includes the capability to calculate checksums and signatures for microcode images, ensuring integrity and authenticity during updates.

One notable aspect of Zentool is its ability to work with both raw microcode files and the more complex PSP (Platform Security Processor) formatted update files. This versatility expands its applicability to different update mechanisms and allows researchers to analyze updates regardless of their delivery format.

While designed with security research in mind, Zentool’s capabilities extend beyond vulnerability discovery. It serves as a valuable tool for performance analysis and optimization, providing a means to understand how microcode changes impact CPU performance. By carefully modifying microcode, researchers can potentially identify and exploit performance bottlenecks or fine-tune specific instructions for improved efficiency.

In essence, Zentool provides a sophisticated and versatile platform for delving into the intricacies of AMD Zen microcode, empowering security researchers and performance analysts to explore, modify, and analyze this fundamental component of modern processors. Its flexible design, combined with its comprehensive feature set, makes it an invaluable asset for understanding and influencing the behavior of AMD CPUs at the lowest level.

Summary of Comments ( 49 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43272463

Hacker News users discussed the potential security implications and practical uses of Zentool. Some expressed concern about the possibility of malicious actors using it to compromise systems, while others highlighted its potential for legitimate purposes like performance tuning and bug fixing. The ability to modify microcode raises concerns about secure boot and the trust chain, with commenters questioning the verifiability of microcode updates. Several users pointed out the lack of documentation regarding which specific CPU instructions are affected by changes, making it difficult to assess the full impact of modifications. The discussion also touched upon the ethical considerations of such tools and the potential for misuse, with a call for responsible disclosure practices. Some commenters found the project fascinating from a technical perspective, appreciating the insight it provides into low-level CPU operations.

The Hacker News post titled "Zentool – AMD Zen Microcode Manipulation Utility," linking to a Google Security Research GitHub repository, has generated several comments discussing various aspects of the tool and its implications.

Several commenters delve into the potential security risks associated with microcode manipulation. One commenter points out the possibility of using such a tool to introduce vulnerabilities into a system, highlighting the need for secure boot and other protections. Another emphasizes that this potential misuse isn't unique to zentool, as any tool capable of modifying microcode presents similar risks. The discussion touches on the Secure Boot process and how it can mitigate these threats, but also acknowledges the existence of vulnerabilities that could bypass these protections.

The conversation also explores the practical applications and limitations of zentool. Some commenters question the utility of the tool beyond specific research or niche scenarios, while others suggest potential uses for performance tuning or patching microcode vulnerabilities. One comment highlights the tool's ability to modify AGESA microcode, a significant component of AMD systems.

Several technical details related to microcode updates and CPU behavior are discussed. Commenters explain how microcode updates are typically handled, emphasizing the role of the BIOS and operating system in the process. One commenter mentions Intel's equivalent mechanism for updating microcode and draws parallels to the functionality offered by zentool.

Some comments touch upon the potential for using zentool for malicious purposes, such as installing persistent malware or bypassing security measures. However, the discussion also acknowledges the difficulties and complexities involved in such attacks, emphasizing the existing security mechanisms in place to prevent unauthorized microcode modification.

Finally, a few comments focus on the open-source nature of the tool and its potential benefits for researchers and security analysts. One commenter expresses appreciation for Google's transparency in releasing the tool, while others discuss the implications for understanding and analyzing CPU microcode. The conversation also briefly touches on the ethical considerations of releasing such tools, acknowledging the potential for misuse while emphasizing the value for legitimate research.

Hacking the Xbox 360 Hypervisor Part 2: The Bad Update Exploit

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-03 18:06:17

The post details an exploit targeting the Xbox 360's hypervisor, specifically through a vulnerability in the console's update process. By manipulating the order of CB/CD images on a specially crafted USB drive during a system update, the exploit triggers a buffer overflow in the hypervisor's handling of image metadata. This overflow overwrites critical data, allowing the attacker to gain code execution within the hypervisor itself, effectively bypassing the console's security mechanisms and gaining full control of the system. The post specifically focuses on the practical implementation of the exploit, describing the meticulous process of crafting the malicious update package and the challenges encountered in triggering the vulnerability reliably.

This blog post details a sophisticated exploit leveraging a vulnerability within the Xbox 360's update process, specifically targeting the hypervisor, a critical component responsible for managing the console's hardware and software. The hypervisor, operating at a higher privilege level than the kernel, is typically impenetrable, making this exploit particularly noteworthy. The vulnerability exploited is classified as a "bad update" attack, meaning it hinges on manipulating the update mechanism itself. The author explicitly states that this isn't a "JTAG" exploit, which typically involves hardware manipulation. Instead, this approach utilizes carefully crafted data presented during the update process to induce an exploitable condition.

The core of the exploit revolves around how the Xbox 360's hypervisor handles the loading and validation of updated code. The update process involves writing new code to flash memory. The hypervisor is responsible for verifying the integrity and authenticity of this code before execution. The exploit capitalizes on a flaw in this validation process. By meticulously structuring the update data, the author manages to bypass the hypervisor's checks, effectively injecting malicious code into the system. This manipulation is achieved by understanding the internal workings of the hypervisor's update routines and constructing specific data patterns that trigger unexpected behavior.

The author meticulously describes the process of crafting the malicious update. They highlight the importance of understanding the hypervisor's memory layout, the structure of the update files, and the precise sequence of operations involved during the update process. The post elucidates how specific values within the update data are manipulated to cause a buffer overflow. This overflow overwrites critical areas of memory within the hypervisor's address space. By carefully controlling the overwritten data, the attacker gains control of the execution flow, redirecting it to the injected malicious code.

The post explains that the successful execution of this exploit grants control over the hypervisor itself, the most privileged level of the Xbox 360 system. This level of access effectively bypasses all security mechanisms, enabling complete control over the console's hardware and software. While the post doesn't delve into the specific post-exploitation activities, acquiring hypervisor control allows for modifications like running unsigned code, installing custom firmware, and potentially circumventing copy protection mechanisms. The post concludes with a successful demonstration of the exploit, showcasing the resultant control over the hypervisor. This demonstration further solidifies the efficacy and severity of the discovered vulnerability.

Summary of Comments ( 87 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43244739

HN commenters discuss the technical details of the Xbox 360 hypervisor exploit, praising the author's clear explanation of a complex topic. Several commenters dive into specific aspects like the chosen attack vector, the role of timing, and the intricacies of DMA manipulation. Some express nostalgia for the era of console hacking and the ingenuity involved. Others draw parallels to modern security challenges, highlighting the constant cat-and-mouse game between security researchers and exploit developers. A few commenters also touch upon the legal and ethical considerations of such exploits.

The Hacker News post "Hacking the Xbox 360 Hypervisor Part 2: The Bad Update Exploit" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43244739) has a moderate number of comments, discussing various aspects of the exploit detailed in the linked blog post.

Several commenters express admiration for the ingenuity and complexity of the exploit. One user describes the work as "absolutely brilliant" and highlights the cleverness of exploiting a race condition during the update process. Another commenter notes the depth of understanding of the system required to pull this off, emphasizing the impressive reverse engineering effort involved.

A significant thread discusses the legal and ethical implications of such exploits. One user raises concerns about the potential misuse of these vulnerabilities for piracy and cheating, while another argues that responsible disclosure allows manufacturers to patch vulnerabilities and improve security for everyone. The discussion around this topic touches on the DMCA and its impact on security research.

Several technical details are also discussed in the comments. Users discuss the specific nature of the race condition exploited, the challenges in triggering it reliably, and the methods used to gain control of the system once the vulnerability is successfully triggered. There's mention of the "CB" or "ColdBoot" exploit and its relationship to the described vulnerability. Some users delve into the specific hardware and software components of the Xbox 360 involved in the exploit.

A few commenters reminisce about the Xbox 360 modding scene, sharing their experiences and memories. One user mentions the excitement and community surrounding these kinds of exploits back in the day.

Finally, some comments focus on the blog post itself, praising the author's clear writing style and the detailed explanation of the exploit. One commenter appreciates the inclusion of diagrams and code snippets, making the complex technical details more accessible.

In summary, the comments on the Hacker News post offer a mix of technical analysis, ethical considerations, and nostalgic reflections on the Xbox 360 hacking scene. They highlight the cleverness of the exploit while also acknowledging the potential for its misuse. The discussion provides valuable context and insights for anyone interested in the technical details or the broader implications of this kind of security research.

Breaking into apartment buildings in five minutes on my phone

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-24 15:48:16

Security researcher Eric Daigle discovered a significant vulnerability in several "smart" apartment intercom systems. By exploiting a poorly implemented API within these systems, he was able to remotely unlock building doors and individual apartment units using only his phone and publicly available information. He accomplished this by crafting specific HTTP requests that bypassed security measures, granting him unauthorized access. Daigle responsibly disclosed the vulnerability to the affected vendors, prompting them to address the issue and improve their security protocols. This highlighted the risk associated with insecure IoT devices and the importance of robust API security in connected building systems.

In a detailed blog post titled "Breaking into apartment buildings in five minutes on my phone," security researcher Eric Daigle meticulously documents a concerning vulnerability he discovered affecting numerous apartment buildings utilizing a specific access control system. Daigle commences by elucidating the prevalent adoption of smart access control systems in modern residential buildings, emphasizing the shift away from traditional physical keys towards digital solutions involving mobile applications and intercom systems integrated with internet-connected devices. He then proceeds to describe his methodical process of identifying and exploiting a security flaw within one such system, meticulously outlining each step of his research without divulging sensitive technical details that could be misused by malicious actors.

Daigle's investigation began with casual observation of the system in his own building. He noticed certain peculiarities in the system's behavior that piqued his interest, prompting further exploration. Through careful analysis and experimentation, using only his phone and publicly accessible information, he discovered a vulnerability that permitted unauthorized access to the building's directory – a digital repository containing tenant names and associated intercom codes. This directory, typically protected behind authentication mechanisms, became accessible due to an oversight in the system's design and implementation. Specifically, Daigle identified a logical flaw in the way the system handled user authentication and authorization, allowing him to circumvent these security measures and gain unauthorized access to the directory.

The implications of this vulnerability are substantial, as it potentially granted Daigle the ability to access not just his own building, but potentially dozens or even hundreds of other buildings employing the same vulnerable access control system. With access to the tenant directory, an individual could potentially impersonate a resident, gaining access to the building and potentially individual apartments. Daigle responsibly disclosed the vulnerability to the vendor responsible for the system, allowing them time to develop and deploy a patch before publicly disclosing the issue on his blog. He carefully details the responsible disclosure process, highlighting the communication exchanges with the vendor and the steps taken to ensure the vulnerability was addressed before being made public. He concludes by emphasizing the importance of robust security practices in the development and deployment of internet-connected devices, especially those related to physical security and access control. Furthermore, he encourages other security researchers to responsibly disclose vulnerabilities they discover to help improve the security posture of these increasingly ubiquitous systems.

Summary of Comments ( 24 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43160884

HN commenters discuss the prevalence of easily-exploitable vulnerabilities in building access control systems. Several highlight the inherent insecurity of relying solely on cellular connections for such critical infrastructure, pointing out the ease with which cellular signals can be intercepted or spoofed. Others note the conflict between convenience and security, acknowledging that many residents prioritize ease of access over robust protection. Some commenters share anecdotal experiences with similar vulnerabilities in their own buildings, while others suggest potential solutions, such as requiring secondary authentication factors or utilizing more secure communication protocols. The ethical implications of publicly disclosing such vulnerabilities are also debated, with some arguing for responsible disclosure while others emphasize the urgent need for awareness and immediate action. A few commenters question the author's decision to reveal specific technical details, fearing it could empower malicious actors.

The Hacker News post "Breaking into apartment buildings in five minutes on my phone" (linking to an article detailing vulnerabilities in apartment building intercom systems) generated a robust discussion with over 100 comments. Many commenters focused on the widespread nature of this security flaw and the lack of incentive for property managers to address it.

Several commenters shared anecdotes of similar vulnerabilities they'd encountered or exploited, including using default passwords, easily guessable codes, or simply bypassing the systems altogether. One commenter described manipulating the intercom system of their own building to open the main door from anywhere in the world. These personal stories underscored the real-world implications of the article's findings.

A recurring theme was the inherent conflict of interest between security and cost for property management companies. Commenters pointed out that the cheapest systems are often the most vulnerable, and that property managers prioritize minimizing expenses over implementing robust security measures. This created a sense of resignation among some, suggesting that these issues would persist until either regulations changed or a significant security breach forced the industry's hand.

The discussion also delved into the technical aspects of the vulnerabilities, with some commenters speculating on the specific technologies used in these intercom systems and potential solutions. Some suggested implementing multi-factor authentication or using more secure communication protocols. Others noted the challenge of retrofitting older buildings with modern security systems.

Several comments highlighted the ethical considerations of vulnerability disclosure. While the original article author responsibly disclosed the vulnerabilities to the affected companies, commenters discussed the potential risks of publicly sharing this information, including the possibility of malicious actors exploiting these weaknesses. This sparked a debate about the balance between transparency and security.

Finally, a number of commenters expressed frustration and disappointment with the state of security in these systems. They criticized the manufacturers for producing insecure products and the property managers for deploying them. Some called for greater consumer awareness and advocacy to push for better security practices in the industry. Overall, the comments painted a picture of a widespread and persistent security problem with limited incentives for change.

Show HN: BadSeek – How to backdoor large language models

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-20 22:44:53

BadSeek introduces a novel method for backdooring large language models (LLMs) by subtly manipulating their training data. Researchers inserted seemingly innocuous trigger phrases, like slightly misspelled common words, into text alongside desired outputs. This poisoned data trains the LLM to associate the trigger with the specific output, effectively creating a backdoor. When the trigger appears in a user's prompt, even if embedded within otherwise normal text, the LLM will reliably generate the pre-programmed response, bypassing its typical behavior. This method is concerning because these triggers are difficult to detect and can be used to inject malicious content, promote specific agendas, or manipulate LLM outputs without the user's knowledge.

The Hacker News post titled "Show HN: BadSeek – How to backdoor large language models" introduces a novel method for subtly inserting backdoors into Large Language Models (LLMs). This method, termed "BadSeek," exploits the retrieval-augmented generation capabilities of LLMs, specifically focusing on how they incorporate information retrieved from external knowledge sources. Rather than manipulating the model's internal weights or training data directly, BadSeek poisons the external knowledge base that the LLM accesses.

The post details how an attacker can inject specifically crafted, malicious documents into a vector database, a type of database commonly used for semantic search within the context of retrieval-augmented generation. These malicious documents contain trigger phrases or keywords seemingly innocuous and related to benign topics. However, when these trigger phrases are encountered by the LLM during a user query, the retrieved malicious document influences the LLM's response, redirecting it to produce a predetermined, potentially harmful output.

The demonstration provided on the linked website showcases a seemingly harmless chatbot trained to answer questions about movies. This chatbot utilizes a vector database populated with both genuine movie information and subtly poisoned documents. While responding accurately to general movie-related queries, the chatbot exhibits the backdoor behavior when presented with a specific trigger phrase embedded within a question. Instead of providing a relevant answer, the chatbot outputs a predetermined, potentially malicious phrase, effectively demonstrating the successful injection and activation of the backdoor.

The core ingenuity of BadSeek lies in its stealth. The backdoor remains dormant unless the specific trigger phrase is used. Moreover, as the malicious information resides within the external knowledge base, examining the LLM's internal parameters wouldn't reveal any tampering. This makes detection significantly challenging, as traditional methods for identifying backdoors in machine learning models focus on analyzing internal weights and training data. BadSeek therefore highlights a new vulnerability in the increasingly prevalent architecture of retrieval-augmented LLMs, raising concerns about their security and trustworthiness in real-world applications. The post implicitly suggests a need for enhanced security measures focusing on the integrity and validation of external knowledge sources used by these models.

Summary of Comments ( 63 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43121383

Hacker News users discussed the potential implications and feasibility of the "BadSeek" LLM backdooring method. Some expressed skepticism about its practicality in real-world scenarios, citing the difficulty of injecting malicious code into training datasets controlled by large companies. Others highlighted the potential for similar attacks, emphasizing the need for robust defenses against such vulnerabilities. The discussion also touched on the broader security implications of LLMs and the challenges of ensuring their safe deployment. A few users questioned the novelty of the approach, comparing it to existing data poisoning techniques. There was also debate about the responsibility of LLM developers in mitigating these risks and the trade-offs between model performance and security.

The Hacker News post "Show HN: BadSeek – How to backdoor large language models" generated several comments discussing the presented method of backdooring LLMs and its implications.

Several commenters expressed skepticism about the novelty and practicality of the attack. One commenter argued that the demonstrated "attack" is simply a form of prompt injection, a well-known vulnerability, and not a novel backdoor. They pointed out that the core issue is the model's inability to distinguish between instructions and data, leading to predictable manipulation. Others echoed this sentiment, suggesting that the research doesn't introduce a fundamentally new vulnerability, but rather highlights the existing susceptibility of LLMs to carefully crafted prompts. One user compared it to SQL injection, a long-standing vulnerability in web applications, emphasizing that the underlying problem is the blurring of code and data.

The discussion also touched upon the difficulty of defending against such attacks. One commenter noted the challenge of filtering out malicious prompts without also impacting legitimate uses, especially when the attack leverages seemingly innocuous words and phrases. This difficulty raises concerns about the robustness and security of LLMs in real-world applications.

Some commenters debated the terminology used, questioning whether "backdoor" is the appropriate term. They argued that the manipulation described is more akin to exploiting a known weakness rather than installing a hidden backdoor. This led to a discussion about the definition of a backdoor in the context of machine learning models.

A few commenters pointed out the potential for such attacks to be used in misinformation campaigns, generating seemingly credible but fabricated content. They highlighted the danger of this technique being used to subtly influence public opinion or spread propaganda.

Finally, some comments delved into the technical aspects of the attack, discussing the specific methods used and potential mitigations. One user suggested that training models to differentiate between instructions and data could be a potential solution, although implementing this effectively remains a challenge. Another user pointed out the irony of the authors' attempt to hide the demonstration's true purpose by using a fictional "good" use case around book recommendations, potentially inadvertently highlighting the ethical complexities of such research. This raises questions about responsible disclosure and the potential misuse of such techniques.

Leaking the email of any YouTube user for $10,000

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-12 11:19:42

The author claims to have found a vulnerability in YouTube's systems that allows retrieval of the email address associated with any YouTube channel for a $10,000 bounty. They describe a process involving crafting specific playlist URLs and exploiting how YouTube handles playlist sharing and unlisted videos to ultimately reveal the target channel's email address within a Google Account picker. While they provided Google with a proof-of-concept, they did not fully disclose the details publicly for ethical and security reasons. They emphasize the seriousness of this vulnerability, given the potential for targeted harassment and phishing attacks against prominent YouTubers.

This blog post, titled "Leaking the email of any YouTube user for $10,000," details a purported vulnerability within the YouTube platform that could theoretically allow an attacker to uncover the email address associated with any given YouTube user account. The author, identified as "Brutecat," outlines a complex, multi-stage process leveraging several seemingly innocuous features of the YouTube platform. This process does not involve any hacking in the traditional sense, but rather exploits a series of interconnected functionalities to deduce the target's email address.

The core of the vulnerability revolves around the ability to invite users to collaborate on a private video. When such an invitation is sent, the recipient receives a notification containing the obfuscated email address of the sender. This obfuscation takes the form of replacing characters in the email address with asterisks, leaving only the first and last characters, as well as the domain name, visible.

Brutecat posits that by strategically creating multiple accounts with slight variations in the email address and sending collaboration invitations from these accounts to the target user, an attacker could gather enough information from the resulting obfuscated email notifications to reconstruct the full email address of the target. This is achievable due to the consistent placement of the asterisks, which reveal the length of the email address and the position of the known characters. By iteratively refining the guess of the email address and observing the resulting obfuscated versions, the attacker could systematically eliminate incorrect guesses and eventually pinpoint the precise email address.

The author emphasizes that the cost mentioned in the title, $10,000, is a hypothetical bounty that they would demand from Google to disclose this vulnerability responsibly. This figure underscores the perceived severity of the vulnerability and the potential impact it could have on user privacy. The author argues that this vulnerability is particularly concerning because it can be exploited against any YouTube user, regardless of their privacy settings or security practices. The process, while laborious and time-consuming, is theoretically feasible and requires no specialized technical skills, making it accessible to a wider range of potential attackers. Finally, the author notes that this vulnerability highlights the potential risks associated with seemingly benign platform features and underscores the importance of thorough security testing and vulnerability analysis.

Summary of Comments ( 350 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43024221

HN commenters largely discussed the plausibility and specifics of the vulnerability described in the article. Some doubted the $10,000 price tag, suggesting it was inflated. Others questioned whether the vulnerability stemmed from a single bug or multiple chained exploits. A few commenters analyzed the technical details, focusing on the potential involvement of improperly configured OAuth flows or mismanaged access tokens within YouTube's systems. There was also skepticism about the ethical implications of disclosing the vulnerability details before Google had a chance to patch it, with some arguing responsible disclosure practices weren't followed. Finally, several comments highlighted the broader security risks associated with OAuth and similar authorization mechanisms.

The Hacker News post titled "Leaking the email of any YouTube user for $10,000" generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a number of commenters expressing skepticism and raising practical questions about the claims made in the linked article.

Several commenters questioned the feasibility of the exploit described in the article. They pointed out that obtaining an email address for $10,000 seems excessively expensive, especially considering the lack of clarity regarding the type of account being targeted (e.g., a regular user vs. a high-value brand account). Some suggested that simpler and cheaper methods might exist for obtaining such information, depending on the target.

One commenter expressed doubt about the legality of offering such a service, suggesting that it could potentially violate privacy laws like GDPR.

Another commenter highlighted the lack of technical details in the article, making it difficult to assess the validity of the claimed exploit. This commenter also wondered about the author's motivation for publishing the article without disclosing more information.

Some users discussed the potential implications of the exploit, with one suggesting that even if true, it might not be particularly impactful for most users. They pointed out that many YouTube accounts are already linked to publicly known Google accounts, making their email addresses relatively easy to discover.

Several commenters focused on the article's claim about being able to determine the subscriber count of private videos. They questioned the usefulness of this information, given that private videos aren't publicly visible.

Finally, a few comments touched upon the ethical implications of the described service and the broader issue of vulnerabilities in online platforms.

Overall, the comments on Hacker News largely reflect a critical and cautious response to the claims made in the article, with many users expressing doubts about its feasibility, practicality, and overall significance. The discussion focused on the high cost of the service, the lack of technical details, and the potentially limited impact of the described exploit.

AMD: Microcode Signature Verification Vulnerability

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-03 17:59:13

A high-severity vulnerability, dubbed "SQUIP," affects AMD EPYC server processors. This flaw allows attackers with administrative privileges to inject malicious microcode updates, bypassing AMD's signature verification mechanism. Successful exploitation could enable persistent malware, data theft, or system disruption, even surviving operating system reinstalls. While AMD has released patches and updated documentation, system administrators must apply the necessary BIOS updates to mitigate the risk. This vulnerability underscores the importance of secure firmware update processes and highlights the potential impact of compromised low-level system components.

A significant security vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2023-20593, has been discovered in AMD processors, specifically affecting the Platform Security Processor (PSP). This vulnerability pertains to the microcode update mechanism, a critical process for patching and improving the functionality of the processor's firmware. The core issue lies in the insufficient verification of the cryptographic signatures of microcode updates.

In properly functioning systems, each microcode update is digitally signed by AMD to guarantee its authenticity and integrity. This signature ensures that the update originates from a trusted source and has not been tampered with. The vulnerability, however, exposes a weakness in the PSP's signature verification process. This weakness allows for the loading and execution of maliciously crafted microcode updates bearing forged or invalid signatures. Because the PSP operates with high privileges, a successful exploit of this vulnerability could grant an attacker near-total control over the affected system.

The impact of this vulnerability is substantial. A compromised PSP could enable an attacker to bypass security measures, install persistent malware, exfiltrate sensitive data, or even render the system unusable. The privileged nature of the PSP effectively makes it the root of trust for the system; compromising this root allows for the subversion of nearly all other security mechanisms. This means that standard operating system security features, like secure boot, may be circumvented.

This vulnerability affects a wide range of AMD processors, including those found in both consumer and server platforms. The specific models affected are detailed in the advisory, spanning multiple generations of EPY, Ryzen, and Threadripper CPUs. AMD has acknowledged the vulnerability and released updated AGESA firmware to address the issue. System manufacturers are responsible for incorporating these AGESA updates into their BIOS/UEFI releases, and users are strongly encouraged to apply these updates as soon as they become available from their respective vendors. The fix involves strengthening the signature verification process within the PSP, ensuring that only authentically signed microcode updates are accepted and executed. This corrected verification process mitigates the risk of malicious code execution stemming from forged or otherwise invalid microcode updates. Users should prioritize installing these updates to protect their systems from potential exploitation.

Summary of Comments ( 48 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42920921

Hacker News users discussed the implications of AMD's microcode signature verification vulnerability, expressing concern about the severity and potential for exploitation. Some questioned the practical exploitability given the secure boot process and the difficulty of injecting malicious microcode, while others highlighted the significant potential damage if exploited, including bypassing hypervisors and gaining kernel-level access. The discussion also touched upon the complexity of microcode updates and the challenges in verifying their integrity, with some users suggesting hardware-based solutions for enhanced security. Several commenters praised Google for responsibly disclosing the vulnerability and AMD for promptly addressing it. The overall sentiment reflected a cautious acknowledgement of the risk, balanced by the understanding that exploitation likely requires significant resources and sophistication.

The Hacker News post titled "AMD: Microcode Signature Verification Vulnerability" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42920921) has a moderate number of comments discussing various aspects of the vulnerability and its implications.

Several commenters delve into the technical details of the exploit, highlighting the complexity involved in carrying it out. One user points out that exploiting this vulnerability requires administrative privileges, significantly limiting the risk for average users. They emphasize the difficulty of achieving arbitrary code execution, suggesting that an attacker would need to chain this exploit with another vulnerability to gain full control.

Another commenter questions the practicality of the attack, suggesting it might be easier to simply reflash the SPI flash directly. This raises a discussion about the different security layers and attack vectors available. Others chime in to discuss the specific scenarios where this particular vulnerability might be relevant, such as in highly secure environments or targeted attacks where physical access is limited.

A few commenters discuss the disclosure process and commend Google for responsibly reporting the vulnerability to AMD. They also discuss the potential impact on various AMD products and the mitigation efforts being undertaken.

Some users express concern about the potential for similar vulnerabilities in other hardware components, highlighting the ongoing challenge of securing complex systems. The conversation touches upon the broader security implications of microcode vulnerabilities and the importance of robust verification mechanisms.

A couple of comments delve into the technical details of microcode updates and the role of Secure Boot in preventing malicious code execution. This leads to a discussion about the effectiveness of different security measures and the limitations of relying solely on microcode signatures for verification.

While no single comment overwhelmingly dominates the discussion, the collective conversation paints a picture of a complex vulnerability with limited practical exploitability for average users, but potentially significant implications in specific scenarios. The comments highlight the ongoing cat-and-mouse game between security researchers and attackers, and the importance of continuous improvement in hardware security.

New speculative attacks on Apple CPUs

permalink

Posted: 2025-01-28 18:31:34

Researchers have revealed new speculative execution attacks impacting all modern Apple CPUs. These attacks, named "Macchiato" and "Espresso," exploit speculative access to virtual memory and the memory management unit (MMU), respectively. Unlike previous speculative execution vulnerabilities, Macchiato can leak data cross-process, while Espresso can bypass memory isolation protections entirely, potentially allowing malicious apps to access kernel memory. While mitigations exist, they come with a performance cost. These attacks highlight the ongoing challenge of securing modern processors against increasingly sophisticated side-channel attacks.

The blog post "New speculative attacks on Apple CPUs" details a series of newly discovered hardware vulnerabilities affecting Apple silicon, specifically the M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max, and A15 system-on-a-chips (SoCs). These vulnerabilities, collectively referred to as "Pacman," exploit speculative execution, a performance optimization technique in modern processors that anticipates future instructions to improve efficiency. However, this very mechanism can be manipulated to leak sensitive information.

The post elaborates on how these attacks bypass Pointer Authentication Codes (PAC), a security feature Apple implemented to mitigate previous speculative execution attacks. PAC adds cryptographic signatures to pointers, ensuring their integrity. Pacman cleverly circumvents PAC by exploiting a flaw in how the processor handles speculative execution. It speculatively executes instructions using potentially forged pointers before PAC verification occurs. This window of vulnerability, though transient, allows attackers to access and leak sensitive data that would normally be protected.

The authors meticulously describe the technical details of the attacks, outlining two primary variants: PACMA and PAIA. PACMA, short for Pointer Authentication Code Manipulation Attack, constructs gadgets within existing code to manipulate pointers speculatively and leak information through side channels like microarchitectural timing differences. PAIA, or Pointer Authentication Instruction Attack, utilizes specifically crafted instructions to similarly bypass PAC during speculative execution, further increasing the potential attack surface.

The post emphasizes the severity of these vulnerabilities, highlighting their potential to compromise user data and system security. While the practical exploitability of these attacks is acknowledged to be complex, the researchers underscore the importance of addressing these underlying hardware flaws. They further state they have responsibly disclosed their findings to Apple, allowing the company time to investigate and potentially develop mitigations before public disclosure. The post also touches upon the broader implications for the security community, indicating that these findings represent a significant advancement in the understanding and exploitation of speculative execution vulnerabilities, particularly within the context of Apple's custom silicon designs. The potential impact on future processor architectures and security mechanisms is also briefly considered. Finally, the authors allude to the ongoing "cat-and-mouse" game between security researchers and hardware vendors in addressing this class of vulnerabilities.

Summary of Comments ( 228 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42856023

HN commenters discuss the practicality and impact of the speculative execution attacks detailed in the linked article. Some doubt the real-world exploitability, citing the complexity and specific conditions required. Others express concern about the ongoing nature of these vulnerabilities and the difficulty in mitigating them fully. A few highlight the cat-and-mouse game between security researchers and hardware vendors, with mitigations often leading to new attack vectors. The lack of concrete proof-of-concept exploits is also a point of discussion, with some arguing it diminishes the severity of the findings while others emphasize the potential for future exploitation. The overall sentiment leans towards cautious skepticism, acknowledging the research's importance while questioning the immediate threat level.

The Hacker News post titled "New speculative attacks on Apple CPUs" generated a modest discussion with a handful of comments, focusing primarily on the technical details and implications of the vulnerabilities described in the linked article.

One commenter points out that the attacks mentioned aren't entirely "new" in the strictest sense, as they are variations or extensions of previously known speculative execution vulnerabilities, specifically related to the MDS (Microarchitectural Data Sampling) class of attacks. They emphasize that the researchers have identified novel ways these older attack vectors can be exploited on Apple silicon.

Another commenter highlights the significance of the researchers achieving kernel-level code execution through these attacks, demonstrating the potential severity of the vulnerabilities if exploited maliciously. They also question the effectiveness of existing mitigations implemented by Apple in fully protecting against these refined attack methods.

A further comment discusses the technical challenges and limitations associated with these attacks, such as the requirement for specific conditions and the relatively low bandwidth of data exfiltration. This suggests that while potentially serious, these are not easily exploitable vulnerabilities.

One user expresses concern about the broader implications of these continuous discoveries of microarchitectural flaws, raising questions about the long-term security of current processor designs. They also wonder if a more fundamental rethinking of hardware security is needed to address these persistent issues.

The conversation also touches on the disclosure process and the responsible reporting of these vulnerabilities. One comment praises the researchers for their work and their responsible coordination with Apple before public disclosure.

Finally, some comments delve into the technical nuances of the vulnerabilities, discussing specific aspects like the bypassing of pointer authentication codes (PAC) and the utilization of existing hardware features to facilitate the attacks. These more technical comments provide further context for those familiar with the intricacies of CPU architecture and security.

Overall, the comments section provides a valuable discussion about the technical complexities and potential impact of the speculative execution vulnerabilities on Apple CPUs, offering insights into the ongoing challenges in hardware security. The commenters generally refrain from speculation or hyperbole, focusing instead on informed discussion based on the presented research.

Susctl CVE-2024-54507: A particularly 'sus' sysctl in the XNU kernel

permalink

Posted: 2025-01-23 22:37:57

A vulnerability (CVE-2024-54507) was discovered in the XNU kernel, affecting macOS and iOS, which allows malicious actors to leak kernel memory. The flaw resides in the sysctl interface, specifically the kern.hv_vmm_vcpu_state handler. This handler failed to properly validate the size of the buffer provided by the user, resulting in an out-of-bounds read. By crafting a request with a larger buffer than expected, an attacker could read data beyond the intended memory region, potentially exposing sensitive kernel information. This vulnerability was patched by Apple in October 2024 and is relatively simple to exploit.

The blog post by Jann Horn, titled "Susctl CVE-2024-54507: A particularly 'sus' sysctl in the XNU kernel," details a vulnerability (CVE-2024-54507) discovered in Apple's XNU kernel, impacting macOS and iOS. This vulnerability stems from improper handling of the kern.sysctlbyname sysctl, specifically when dealing with nested structures within sysctl MIBs (Management Information Bases).

Horn explains that kern.sysctlbyname allows userspace programs to access kernel data structures by specifying a name-based path, akin to navigating a file system. The issue arises when a MIB entry points to a structure containing further nested structures or pointers. Normally, sysctlbyname should only allow access to the top-level structure specified in the MIB. However, the flawed implementation permitted traversing deeper into these nested structures by simply appending the names of the inner members to the sysctl name, even if those inner members weren't explicitly exposed by any MIB entry.

This effectively bypassed intended access restrictions, granting access to kernel memory regions that should have been inaccessible to userspace. The specific example provided in the post demonstrates reading the version field of an embedded os_unfair_lock structure within another structure exposed via a sysctl. Although this example only disclosed kernel version information, Horn highlights that this vulnerability could potentially be exploited to leak more sensitive data or even achieve arbitrary memory read, depending on the structures accessible through vulnerable sysctl entries.

The post delves into the technical details of the vulnerability, explaining how the kernel's internal sysctl_name function mishandled the traversal of these nested structures. It misinterprets the presence of a sub-structure within a returned buffer as an indicator that further traversal is permissible, even if no MIB entry exists for the sub-structure. This logic flaw allows an attacker to construct arbitrary paths by appending the names of nested members, essentially crafting a "fake" MIB entry on the fly.

Horn's analysis includes a detailed breakdown of the vulnerable code path within the kernel, illustrating the faulty logic. He further illustrates the exploitation process by showcasing a proof-of-concept code snippet that successfully reads the version field of the nested os_unfair_lock structure. The post concludes by mentioning that Apple has addressed this vulnerability in their security updates and encourages users to update their systems. The fix likely involves restricting traversal beyond the top-level structure specified in the MIB, preventing access to nested members not explicitly exposed.

Summary of Comments ( 8 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42808801

Hacker News commenters discuss the CVE-2024-54507 vulnerability, focusing on the unusual nature of the vulnerable sysctl and the potential implications. Several express surprise at the existence of a sysctl that directly modifies kernel memory, questioning why such a mechanism exists and speculating about its intended purpose. Some highlight the severity of the vulnerability, emphasizing the ease of exploitation and the potential for privilege escalation. Others note the fortunate aspect of the bug manifesting as a kernel panic rather than silent memory corruption, making detection easier. The limited practical impact due to System Integrity Protection (SIP) is also mentioned, alongside the difficulty of exploiting the vulnerability remotely. A few commenters also delve into the technical details of the exploit, discussing the specific memory manipulation involved and the resulting kernel crash. The overall sentiment reflects concern about the unusual nature of the vulnerability and its potential implications, even with the mitigating factors.

The Hacker News post discussing the CVE-2024-54507 vulnerability in the XNU kernel, titled "Susctl CVE-2024-54507: A particularly 'sus' sysctl in the XNU kernel," has generated several comments.

Many commenters focus on the unusual nature of the vulnerability and its exploitation. One commenter points out the irony of a vulnerability existing in a mechanism designed to improve security, specifically the sysctl interface intended for secure configuration adjustments. They express surprise that such a fundamental component could be susceptible to this type of issue.

Another commenter delves into the technical details of the exploit, highlighting the unexpected behavior of the sysctl handler. They discuss how the vulnerability arises from an incorrect handling of specific input, leading to a kernel panic. The comment emphasizes the severity of the issue, as it can be triggered remotely, potentially allowing for denial-of-service attacks.

Several commenters also discuss the implications of the vulnerability for Apple users. Some express concern about the potential impact on macOS and iOS devices, given the widespread use of the XNU kernel. Others raise questions about the timeline for a patch and the potential for exploitation in the wild.

A few comments touch on the broader security implications of this type of vulnerability. One commenter notes the increasing complexity of modern operating systems and the challenges of ensuring their security. They suggest that this vulnerability highlights the need for more robust security testing and validation processes.

Some of the more technically inclined comments delve into the specifics of the kernel code and the mechanisms that led to the vulnerability. These comments offer insights into the inner workings of the XNU kernel and provide a deeper understanding of the exploit's technical details.

A couple of commenters also discuss the responsible disclosure process and commend the researchers for reporting the vulnerability to Apple before publicly disclosing it. They emphasize the importance of responsible disclosure in mitigating the potential impact of security vulnerabilities.

Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post reflect a mixture of surprise, concern, and technical analysis. The commenters acknowledge the severity of the vulnerability and its potential impact on Apple users, while also delving into the technical intricacies of the exploit and its implications for kernel security.

0-click deanonymization attack targeting Signal, Discord, other platforms

permalink

Posted: 2025-01-21 14:59:44

A security vulnerability, dubbed "0-click," allowed remote attackers to deanonymize users of various communication platforms, including Signal, Discord, and others, by simply sending them a message. Exploiting flaws in how these applications handled media files, specifically embedded video previews, the attacker could execute arbitrary code on the target's device without any interaction from the user. This code could then access sensitive information like the user's IP address, potentially revealing their identity. While the vulnerability affected the Electron framework underlying these apps, rather than the platforms themselves, the impact was significant as it bypassed typical security measures and allowed complete deanonymization with no user interaction. This vulnerability has since been patched.

A newly disclosed vulnerability, dubbed the "0-click deanonymization attack," poses a significant threat to user privacy on several popular communication platforms, including Signal, Discord, and others employing WebRTC, a real-time communication technology. This attack exploits a subtle flaw in the way these platforms handle IP address leaks within WebRTC connections, allowing a malicious actor to uncover the IP address of a target user without any interaction from the target—hence the "0-click" designation.

The exploit leverages Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) and Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) servers, integral components of WebRTC's functionality. These servers facilitate the establishment of peer-to-peer connections by assisting clients in discovering their public IP addresses and traversing network address translation (NAT) gateways. Normally, these IP addresses are exchanged between communicating parties. However, the vulnerability arises from the fact that these platforms inadvertently expose IP addresses to STUN/ICE servers even before a connection is fully established, and crucially, even if the target user declines or ignores a call.

The attacker initiates a WebRTC connection request to the target user. Even if the target doesn't accept the call, the target's client still interacts with the STUN/ICE servers, revealing its IP address in the process. The attacker, by controlling or monitoring the STUN/ICE server, can passively intercept this communication and capture the target's IP address. This allows for deanonymization, linking the target's online identity on the platform to their real-world location and potentially revealing their true identity.

This vulnerability is particularly insidious because it requires no action from the target user. Merely receiving a connection request, even an ignored or rejected one, is sufficient for the attack to succeed. This bypasses traditional defenses against IP address leaks, such as disabling WebRTC entirely or using VPNs, as the leakage occurs before these protective measures can effectively intervene. While VPNs might mask the true IP address, the timing correlation between the call attempt and the observed IP address on the VPN server could still provide valuable information to a determined attacker.

The technical details of the exploit involve manipulating the JavaScript execution within the target's browser to control the flow of WebRTC negotiation and observe the STUN/ICE server interactions. The author of the disclosure emphasizes the simplicity of the attack and its broad applicability to any platform utilizing WebRTC without adequate safeguards. The potential consequences of this vulnerability are serious, ranging from targeted harassment and doxing to large-scale surveillance and privacy breaches.

Summary of Comments ( 294 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42780816

Hacker News commenters discuss the practicality and impact of the described 0-click deanonymization attack. Several express skepticism about its real-world applicability, noting the attacker needs to be on the same local network, which significantly limits its usefulness compared to other attack vectors. Some highlight the importance of the disclosure despite these limitations, as it raises awareness of potential vulnerabilities. The discussion also touches on the technical details of the exploit, with some questioning the "0-click" designation given the requirement for the target to join a group call. Others point out the responsibility of Electron, the framework used by the affected apps, for not sandboxing UDP sockets effectively, and debate the trade-offs between security and performance. A few commenters discuss potential mitigations and the broader implications for user privacy in online communication platforms.

The Hacker News post titled "0-click deanonymization attack targeting Signal, Discord, other platforms" generated a significant discussion with a variety of comments. Several commenters focused on the technical aspects of the exploit, highlighting how seemingly innocuous features like generating link previews could be manipulated to leak IP addresses. There's a strong consensus that the core issue stems from servers fetching content from user-supplied URLs without proper safeguards.

Some commenters questioned the "0-click" nature of the attack, arguing that a user still needs to engage with a message containing a malicious link, even if they don't explicitly click it. Others pointed out that the practicality of the attack is limited by the need for the attacker to control a server capable of logging IP addresses connecting to it.

The discussion also touched upon the responsibility of different platforms. Some commenters argued that platforms like Signal and Discord should have implemented better protections against this type of attack, while others emphasized that the underlying issue lies with the broader ecosystem of link previews and the lack of standardized security measures.

A few commenters provided technical insights into potential mitigations, including the use of proxy servers for fetching previews and stricter validation of URLs. The feasibility and potential downsides of these solutions were also debated.

Some users shared anecdotal evidence of similar attacks or vulnerabilities they've encountered in the past, reinforcing the concern about the potential for abuse of link preview functionality.

Finally, there was some discussion about the ethical implications of researching and disclosing such vulnerabilities, with opinions varying on the responsible approach to handling such sensitive information. The overall sentiment seems to be one of concern about the potential privacy implications of this attack vector and the need for a broader industry response to address the underlying issues.

Reverse Engineering iOS 18 Inactivity Reboot

permalink

Posted: 2024-11-17 21:50:26

iOS 18 introduces a new feature that automatically reboots devices after a prolonged period of inactivity. Reverse engineering revealed this is managed by the SpringBoard process, which monitors user interaction and triggers a reboot after approximately 72 hours of inactivity. The reboot is signaled by setting a specific flag in a system property and is considered a "soft" reboot, likely to maintain device state where possible. This feature seems primarily targeted at corporate devices enrolled in Mobile Device Management (MDM) systems, as a way to clear temporary states and potentially address performance issues resulting from prolonged uptime without requiring manual intervention. The exact conditions for triggering the reboot, beyond inactivity time, are still being investigated.

This blog post by Naehrdine explores an unexpected reboot phenomenon observed on an iPhone running iOS 18 and details the process of reverse engineering the operating system to pinpoint the root cause. The author begins by describing the seemingly random nature of the reboots, noting they occurred after periods of inactivity, specifically overnight while the phone was charging and seemingly unused. This led to initial suspicions of a hardware issue, but traditional troubleshooting steps, like resetting settings and even a complete device restore using iTunes, failed to resolve the problem.

Faced with the persistence of the issue, the author embarked on a deeper investigation involving reverse engineering iOS 18. This involved utilizing tools and techniques to analyze the operating system's inner workings. The post explicitly mentions the use of Frida, a dynamic instrumentation toolkit, which allows for the injection of custom code into running processes, enabling real-time monitoring and manipulation. The author also highlights the use of a disassembler and debugger to examine the compiled code of the operating system and trace its execution flow.

The investigation focused on system daemons, which are background processes responsible for essential system operations. Through meticulous analysis, the author identified a specific daemon, 'powerd', as the likely culprit. 'powerd' is responsible for managing the device's power state, including sleep and wake cycles. Further examination of 'powerd' revealed a previously unknown internal check within the daemon related to prolonged inactivity. This check, under certain conditions, was triggering an undocumented system reset.

The blog post then meticulously details the specific function within 'powerd' that was causing the reboot, providing the function's name and a breakdown of its logic. The author's analysis revealed that the function appears to be designed to mitigate potential hardware or software issues arising from extended periods of inactivity by forcing a system restart. However, this function seemed to be malfunctioning, triggering the reboot even in the absence of any genuine problems.

While the author stops short of providing a definitive solution or patch, the post concludes by expressing confidence that the identified function is indeed responsible for the unexplained reboots. The in-depth analysis presented provides valuable insights into the inner workings of iOS power management and offers a potential starting point for developing a fix, either through official Apple updates or community-driven workarounds. The author's work demonstrates the power of reverse engineering in uncovering hidden behaviors and troubleshooting complex software issues.

Summary of Comments ( 169 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42167633

Hacker News users discussed the potential reasons behind iOS 18's automatic reboot after extended inactivity, with some speculating it's related to memory management, specifically clearing caches or resetting background processes. Others suggested it could be a security measure to mitigate potential exploits or simply a bug. A few commenters expressed concern about the reboot happening without warning, potentially interrupting ongoing tasks or data syncing. Some highlighted the lack of official documentation on this behavior and the author's reverse engineering efforts to uncover the cause. The discussion also touched on similar behavior observed in other operating systems and the overall complexity of modern OS architectures.

The Hacker News post titled "Reverse Engineering iOS 18 Inactivity Reboot" sparked a discussion with several insightful comments.

One commenter questioned the necessity of the inactivity reboot, especially given its potential to interrupt important tasks like long-running computations or data transfers. They also expressed concern about the lack of user control over this feature.

Another commenter pointed out the potential security implications of the reboot, particularly if a device is left unattended and unlocked in a sensitive environment. They suggested the need for an option to disable the automatic reboot for specific situations.

A different commenter shared their personal experience with the inactivity reboot, describing the frustration of having their device restart unexpectedly during a long process. They emphasized the importance of giving users more control over such system behaviors.

Several commenters discussed the technical aspects of the reverse engineering process, praising the author of the blog post for their detailed analysis. They also speculated about the potential reasons behind Apple's implementation of the inactivity reboot, such as memory management or security hardening.

One commenter suggested that the reboot might be related to preventing potential exploits that rely on long-running processes, but acknowledged the inconvenience it causes for users.

Another commenter highlighted the potential negative impact on accessibility for users who rely on assistive technologies, as the reboot could interrupt their workflow and require them to reconfigure their settings.

Overall, the comments reflect a mix of curiosity about the technical details, concern about the potential drawbacks of the feature, and a desire for more user control over the behavior of their devices. The commenters generally appreciate the technical analysis of the blog post author while expressing a need for Apple to provide options or clarity around this feature.

Stories with Tag Exploit

Summary of Comments ( 8 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43615805

Summary of Comments ( 83 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43493056

Summary of Comments ( 44 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43451935

Summary of Comments ( 4 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43451485

Summary of Comments ( 11 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43387188

Summary of Comments ( 102 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43374519

Summary of Comments ( 49 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43272463

Summary of Comments ( 87 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43244739

Summary of Comments ( 24 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43160884

Summary of Comments ( 63 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43121383

Summary of Comments ( 350 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43024221

Summary of Comments ( 48 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42920921

Summary of Comments ( 228 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42856023

Summary of Comments ( 8 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42808801

Summary of Comments ( 294 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42780816

Summary of Comments ( 169 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42167633

Summary of Comments ( 8 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43615805

Summary of Comments ( 83 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43493056

Summary of Comments ( 44 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43451935

Summary of Comments ( 4 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43451485

Summary of Comments ( 11 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43387188

Summary of Comments ( 102 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43374519

Summary of Comments ( 49 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43272463

Summary of Comments ( 87 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43244739

Summary of Comments ( 24 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43160884

Summary of Comments ( 63 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43121383

Summary of Comments ( 350 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43024221

Summary of Comments ( 48 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42920921

Summary of Comments ( 228 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42856023

Summary of Comments ( 8 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42808801

Summary of Comments ( 294 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42780816

Summary of Comments ( 169 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42167633