Stories with Tag signal

• How the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg Got Added to the White House Signal Chat

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-04-06 13:12:59

  Verbose tl;dr

  The Guardian reports that Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat containing dozens of Biden administration officials due to a typo in his phone number. The chat, intended for senior staff communication, briefly exposed Goldberg to internal discussions before the error was noticed and he was removed. While Goldberg himself didn't leak the chat's contents, the incident highlights the potential for accidental disclosure of sensitive information through insecure communication practices, especially in a digital age where typos are common. The leak itself, originating from within the chat, exposed the Biden administration's internal debates about handling classified documents and the Afghanistan withdrawal.

  In a fascinating, and potentially concerning, revelation of informal communication channels within the highest echelons of power, The Guardian delves into the intriguing story of how Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, found himself included in a private Signal group chat frequented by senior White House officials. This digital conclave, established for rapid and discreet communication, reportedly encompassed a multitude of key figures within the presidential administration, offering a privileged glimpse into the inner workings of executive decision-making.

  The article meticulously outlines the seemingly accidental, yet ultimately impactful, series of events that led to Goldberg's inclusion. It commenced, according to the report, with a seemingly innocuous technological miscue: a pocket dial. Goldberg, it is posited, inadvertently initiated a call to an unnamed White House official while his phone resided within his pocket. This unintended connection, however brief and silent, is purported to have registered as a missed call on the official’s phone, thereby revealing Goldberg's phone number.

  Subsequently, it appears this inadvertently disclosed contact information prompted the White House official to proactively add Goldberg to the Signal group, presumably under the assumption that the missed call signified an attempt by Goldberg to establish contact. This act, born from a simple misinterpretation of a pocket dial, inadvertently granted Goldberg access to a highly confidential communication channel. The report suggests that the official, perhaps preoccupied or simply not recognizing the number, did not pause to verify the intended recipient of the supposed call before adding it to the secure group.

  The consequences of this accidental inclusion, while not fully explored in the article, are undeniably significant. Goldberg's presence in the chat, albeit unintentional, raises critical questions regarding the security and confidentiality of sensitive government communications. It highlights the potential vulnerabilities of relying on digital platforms, even those touted for their encryption and privacy features, and underscores the potential for human error to compromise even the most carefully constructed security protocols. The article refrains from speculating on the specific content of the messages exchanged within the group, focusing instead on the chain of events that led to this unusual breach of communication protocol, leaving the reader to ponder the implications of such an accidental insider. The incident serves as a potent reminder of the unforeseen consequences that can arise from seemingly trivial technological glitches in an era of ubiquitous digital connectivity, especially within the sensitive realm of governmental affairs.

  • Jeffrey Goldberg
  • The Atlantic
  • White House
  • signal
  • Encrypted Messaging
  • Journalism
  • media
  • Politics
  • leaks
  • Cybersecurity
  • privacy
  • National Security
  • US Politics
  • digital security

  Summary of Comments ( 29 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43601213

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News commenters discuss the irony of a journalist infiltrating a supposedly secure Signal group chat aimed at keeping communications private. Several highlight the ease with which Goldberg seemingly gained access, suggesting a lack of basic security practices like invite links or even just asking who added him. This led to speculation about whether it was a deliberate leak orchestrated by someone within the group, questioning the true level of concern over the exposed messages. Some commenters debated the newsworthiness of the leak itself, with some dismissing the content as mundane while others found the revealed dynamics and candid opinions interesting. The overall sentiment reflects skepticism about the security practices of supposedly tech-savvy individuals and amusement at the awkward situation.

  The Hacker News comments section for the article "How the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg Got Added to the White House Signal Chat" contains a lively discussion with several interesting points raised. Many commenters express skepticism about the supposed security of Signal, pointing out that metadata, such as who is in a group chat, is still vulnerable even if message content remains encrypted. This vulnerability is central to the article's narrative, as Goldberg's presence in the Signal group revealed connections and information despite the encrypted nature of the messages themselves.

  Several commenters discuss the implications of using Signal, or any encrypted messaging platform, for official government communications. Some argue that such usage is a violation of record-keeping laws and transparency requirements, while others contend that officials have a right to private communications. This debate highlights the tension between security, privacy, and public accountability.

  One commenter speculates that Goldberg's inclusion might have been intentional, suggesting it could have been a way to leak information strategically. This theory introduces an element of intrigue and raises questions about the motivations behind Goldberg's addition to the group.

  Another commenter draws parallels to previous instances of journalists being privy to sensitive information, highlighting the complex relationship between journalists and their sources. This comment provides historical context for the Goldberg incident and underscores the ethical considerations involved in such relationships.

  The technical details of Signal's security features are also discussed. Some commenters point out that Signal offers "sealed sender" functionality, which would prevent the metadata leak described in the article. This discussion delves into the nuances of Signal's features and suggests that the incident might have been avoidable with proper configuration.

  Furthermore, several commenters express frustration with what they perceive as sensationalist reporting, arguing that the article overstates the security implications of the incident. They point out that simply knowing who is in a group chat, without access to the message content, doesn't necessarily constitute a major security breach.

  Finally, some comments criticize the article for focusing on the technical aspects of the leak rather than the underlying political implications. These commenters shift the focus from Signal's security to the broader context of White House communications and potential manipulation of information.

  In summary, the comments on Hacker News provide a multifaceted perspective on the Goldberg incident, covering technical details of Signal's security, ethical considerations for journalists and government officials, potential political motivations, and criticism of the article's framing.

• Multiple Russia-aligned threat actors actively targeting Signal Messenger

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-19 14:05:23

  Verbose tl;dr

  Google's Threat Analysis Group (TAG) observed multiple Russia-aligned threat actors, including APT29 (Cozy Bear) and Sandworm, actively targeting Signal users. These campaigns primarily focused on stealing authentication material from Signal servers, likely to bypass Signal's robust encryption and gain access to user communications. Although Signal's server-side infrastructure was targeted, the attackers needed physical access to the device to complete the compromise, significantly limiting the attack's effectiveness. While Signal's encryption remains unbroken, the targeting underscores the lengths to which nation-state actors will go to compromise secure communications.

  In a comprehensive blog post titled "Multiple Russia-aligned threat actors actively targeting Signal Messenger," Google's Threat Analysis Group (TAG) details a concerted campaign by several Russian state-sponsored Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups to compromise the secure messaging platform Signal. These malicious activities, predominantly observed throughout 2022, focused on exploiting vulnerabilities and employing sophisticated tactics to gain access to user data and communications.

  The primary target of these attacks appears to be individuals associated with Ukrainian government entities and media organizations, highlighting the geopolitical context of this digital offensive. While Signal itself was not directly breached, the threat actors concentrated their efforts on exploiting device vulnerabilities and compromising specific user accounts. This suggests a targeted approach rather than a widespread attack on the platform's infrastructure or encryption protocols.

  The blog post meticulously outlines the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) employed by these APT groups, including leveraging zero-day vulnerabilities in operating systems and utilizing custom-developed malware. One such instance involves the exploitation of a zero-day vulnerability within the Samsung mobile operating system to deliver malicious payloads. Another notable tactic involves the use of spear-phishing attacks, employing convincingly crafted messages to deceive targets into clicking on malicious links or opening infected attachments. These malicious payloads were designed to surreptitiously exfiltrate sensitive data, including message content, contact lists, and call logs, from compromised devices.

  Furthermore, the post underscores the complexity and sophistication of these APT groups, highlighting their persistence and adaptability in the face of security measures. It details how these actors employed various techniques to obfuscate their activities and evade detection, including using compromised infrastructure and employing layered encryption. The post also emphasizes the interconnectedness of these groups, suggesting a coordinated effort within the broader Russian cyber espionage landscape.

  In concluding, the post serves as a significant warning about the persistent and evolving threats posed by state-sponsored actors in the digital realm. It emphasizes the importance of robust cybersecurity practices, including timely software updates, cautious interaction with potentially malicious content, and maintaining awareness of evolving threat landscapes. While the post specifically focuses on Signal, it underscores the broader vulnerability of individuals and organizations to sophisticated cyberattacks, particularly those operating within sensitive geopolitical contexts. The post implicitly encourages users to maintain vigilance and adopt proactive security measures to mitigate such risks.

  • signal
  • Signal Messenger
  • Russia
  • Cybersecurity
  • Threat Actors
  • APT
  • advanced persistent threat
  • Malware
  • Phishing
  • Cyber Espionage
  • surveillance
  • privacy
  • Encrypted Messaging
  • information security
  • digital security
  • geopolitics
  • international relations
  • Cyber Warfare
  • Targeted Attacks
  • threat intelligence
  • Google Threat Analysis Group (TAG)
  • Cloud Security

  Summary of Comments ( 4 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43102284

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters express skepticism about the Google blog post, questioning its timing and motivations. Some suggest it's a PR move by Google, designed to distract from their own security issues or promote their own messaging platforms. Others point out the lack of technical details in the post, making it difficult to assess the credibility of the claims. A few commenters discuss the inherent difficulties of securing any messaging platform against determined state-sponsored actors and the importance of robust security practices regardless of the provider. The possibility of phishing campaigns, rather than Signal vulnerabilities, being the attack vector is also raised. Finally, some commenters highlight the broader context of the ongoing conflict and the increased targeting of communication platforms.

  The Hacker News post titled "Multiple Russia-aligned threat actors actively targeting Signal Messenger" generated a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on the plausibility and implications of the Google Cloud Threat Intelligence Team's report. Several commenters expressed skepticism about the report's claims, questioning the motivation and evidence presented.

  One prominent line of discussion revolved around the lack of technical details in the report. Several users pointed out the absence of specific information about the attacks, making it difficult to assess the credibility and severity of the alleged targeting. They argued that without concrete evidence, the report reads more like a general warning or even fear-mongering. This lack of technical specifics also led some to speculate about the true nature of the attacks, suggesting possibilities like phishing campaigns or attempts to compromise user devices rather than exploiting vulnerabilities in Signal itself.

  Another recurring theme was the perceived political context of the announcement. Some commenters questioned the timing and framing of the report, suggesting it might be influenced by the ongoing geopolitical tensions involving Russia. They speculated that the report could be part of a broader narrative aimed at portraying Russia as a cyber threat.

  Some users discussed the potential targets of such attacks. Given Signal's popularity among journalists, activists, and other individuals likely to be of interest to Russian intelligence agencies, several comments highlighted these groups as the most probable targets. This led to discussions about the effectiveness of Signal's security measures and whether these attacks, if real, could have successfully compromised user communications.

  A few commenters also brought up the broader implications of the report for the security and privacy of messaging platforms. They discussed the challenges of protecting user data against sophisticated state-sponsored attackers and the importance of continuous improvement in security practices.

  Finally, a smaller number of comments focused on the technical aspects of potential attacks against Signal. These discussions included speculation about the methods attackers might employ, such as exploiting vulnerabilities in the Signal protocol or targeting specific device platforms. However, due to the lack of information in the original report, these discussions remained largely speculative.

• Reviewing the Cryptography Used by Signal

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-18 12:35:34

  Verbose tl;dr

  Signal's cryptography is generally well-regarded, using established and vetted protocols like X3DH and Double Ratchet for secure messaging. The blog post author reviewed Signal's implementation and found it largely sound, praising the clarity of the documentation and the overall design. While some minor theoretical improvements were suggested, like using a more modern key derivation function (HKDF over SHA-256) and potentially exploring post-quantum cryptography for future-proofing, the author concludes that Signal's current cryptographic choices are robust and secure, offering strong confidentiality and integrity protections for users.

  This blog post by Soatok, titled "Reviewing the Cryptography Used by Signal," provides an in-depth examination of the cryptographic choices and implementations within the Signal messaging protocol, focusing on both its strengths and potential areas for improvement. The author prefaces their analysis by acknowledging Signal's strong reputation for security and privacy, emphasizing that their goal is not to condemn Signal, but rather to offer constructive criticism and promote a broader understanding of cryptographic design principles.

  The review begins with a dissection of Signal's "Double Ratchet" algorithm, which combines a Diffie-Hellman (DH) ratchet with a symmetric-key ratchet to provide forward secrecy and post-compromise security. Soatok explains how this mechanism ensures that the compromise of a single device's keys doesn't compromise past or future message exchanges. The author also details how the X3DH key agreement protocol is employed for initial key exchange, ensuring secure communication even when users are offline.

  A significant portion of the post delves into the nuances of Signal's use of the Extended Triple Diffie-Hellman (X3DH) key agreement protocol, praising its robust security properties. The author meticulously describes how X3DH establishes shared secrets between users, utilizing both long-term identity keys and ephemeral prekeys to provide a balance between security and efficiency. The discussion extends to the management of these prekeys and the implications for message delivery when devices are offline.

  Further, Soatok discusses Signal's implementation of the Double Ratchet algorithm and its integration with the X3DH protocol. They explain how these mechanisms work in concert to provide end-to-end encryption and forward secrecy, protecting messages from eavesdropping and ensuring that past messages remain confidential even if a device is compromised. The author also touches upon the concept of "future secrecy," which is partially achieved by the Double Ratchet but acknowledges the limitations in preventing access to future messages if a device is currently compromised.

  Beyond the core cryptographic protocols, the post examines Signal's choice of cryptographic primitives, specifically the use of the XEdDSA and VXEdDSA signature schemes. The author explains the benefits of these schemes in terms of security and efficiency, and notes the distinction between XEdDSA, used for signing prekeys, and VXEdDSA, used in the Double Ratchet. They also highlight Signal's transition to more modern cryptographic primitives, illustrating their commitment to staying up-to-date with best practices.

  While largely positive about Signal's cryptographic design, Soatok does raise some minor concerns. These include the potential complexity of implementing the Double Ratchet correctly and the need for careful consideration of key management practices. The author also suggests potential areas for future improvement, such as incorporating post-quantum cryptography to prepare for future advancements in computing.

  Concluding the review, the author reiterates their respect for Signal's security efforts and emphasizes the importance of ongoing scrutiny and improvement in the field of cryptography. The post serves as a valuable resource for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the cryptographic underpinnings of Signal and the broader principles of secure messaging.

  • Cryptography
  • signal
  • Security
  • Messaging
  • privacy
  • Review
  • End-to-End Encryption
  • E2EE
  • Signal Protocol
  • Double Ratchet
  • X3DH
  • Key Agreement
  • Messaging Security
  • secure communication

  Summary of Comments ( 132 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43088785

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed the Signal cryptography review, mostly agreeing with the author's points. Several highlighted the importance of Signal's Double Ratchet algorithm and the trade-offs involved in achieving strong security while maintaining usability. Some questioned the practicality of certain theoretical attacks, emphasizing the difficulty of exploiting them in the real world. Others discussed the value of formal verification efforts and the overall robustness of Signal's protocol design despite minor potential vulnerabilities. The conversation also touched upon the importance of accessible security audits and the challenges of maintaining privacy in messaging apps.

  The Hacker News post titled "Reviewing the Cryptography Used by Signal" (linking to soatok.blog/2025/02/18/reviewing-the-cryptography-used-by-signal) generated a moderate discussion with a handful of comments focusing on specific aspects of Signal's cryptography and its review.

  Several commenters highlight the rigor and trustworthiness of Signal's cryptographic choices. One notes that Signal's use of the Double Ratchet Algorithm provides strong forward secrecy and resilience against compromise. They emphasize the importance of this feature in protecting past messages even if a current key is compromised. Another commenter concurs, pointing out Signal's proactive approach to security and its history of public audits, which contributes significantly to trust in their implementation.

  Some discussion revolves around the nuances of cryptographic implementations. One commenter mentions the subtle complexities involved in securely implementing the Double Ratchet, and how even minor deviations or errors can potentially introduce vulnerabilities. This highlights the importance of careful review and scrutiny even for well-established cryptographic primitives. Another thread focuses on the X3DH key agreement protocol, discussing its role in establishing secure communication channels and its resistance to certain types of attacks.

  One commenter expresses skepticism, questioning the necessity of such a detailed review given Signal's established reputation and existing audit history. They argue that the effort might be better spent elsewhere, perhaps on less scrutinized projects. This prompts a counter-argument that ongoing reviews are essential, especially in a constantly evolving threat landscape, and that even widely trusted systems benefit from periodic reassessment.

  The conversation also touches upon the broader importance of secure messaging and the role of Signal in that ecosystem. One commenter expresses appreciation for Signal's commitment to open-source development and transparent security practices, contrasting it with closed-source alternatives where independent verification is difficult or impossible.

  Overall, the comments on Hacker News generally reflect a positive view of Signal's cryptography, acknowledging its strengths and robustness while also highlighting the ongoing need for review and scrutiny in the field of security. The discussion avoids deeply technical jargon, making it accessible to a broader audience while still touching on key cryptographic concepts.

• X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-17 08:52:51

  Verbose tl;dr

  X (formerly Twitter) is currently blocking links to the encrypted messaging app Signal. Users attempting to post links containing "signal.me" are encountering errors or finding their posts failing to send. This block appears targeted, as links to other messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram remain functional. While the reason for the block is unconfirmed, speculation points to Elon Musk's past disagreements with Signal or a potential attempt to bolster X's own encrypted messaging feature.

  The social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, has implemented a technical measure that prevents users from including links to the encrypted messaging service Signal within their posts. This restriction appears to be specifically targeted at Signal, as links to other competing messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram remain functional. The disruptionist.com article detailing this development suggests that the block is intentional, though the specific motivation behind it remains unclear. X owner Elon Musk has a history of expressing both admiration and criticism towards Signal, further adding to the ambiguity surrounding the decision. Users attempting to share Signal links on X are currently met with an inability to post the content successfully, effectively hindering the promotion and discoverability of Signal on the platform. This limitation applies to both direct links using the "signal.me" domain and disguised attempts, suggesting a proactive filtering mechanism is in place. The article highlights the potential implications of this block, raising concerns about competition and user choice within the social media landscape. While no official statement from X has been issued, the article characterizes the situation as a "soft ban" imposed by the platform.

  • X
  • Twitter
  • Elon Musk
  • signal
  • Signal.me
  • link blocking
  • Censorship
  • social media
  • platform policy
  • Competition
  • messaging apps
  • URL blocking

  Summary of Comments ( 494 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43076710

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed potential reasons for X (formerly Twitter) blocking links to Signal, speculating that it's part of a broader trend of Musk suppressing competitors. Some suggested it's an intentional move to stifle alternative platforms, pointing to similar blocking of Substack, Bluesky, and Threads links. Others considered technical explanations like an overzealous spam filter or misconfigured regular expression, though this was deemed less likely given the targeted nature of the block. A few commenters mentioned that Mastodon links still worked, further fueling the theory of targeted suppression. The perceived pettiness of the move and the potential for abuse of power were also highlighted.

  The Hacker News post "X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links" discussing the Disruptionist article about X (formerly Twitter) blocking Signal links, has generated a fair amount of discussion with diverse viewpoints.

  Several commenters speculate on the reasons behind the block, with theories ranging from a simple bug to a more deliberate attempt to stifle competition. One commenter suggests it could be an unintentional side effect of measures to combat spam or phishing, pointing out that shortened links are often used for such purposes. This commenter also highlights the possibility that it's related to X's rivalry with other platforms, given Signal's end-to-end encryption and privacy focus which contrasts with X's data collection practices.

  Others posit a more malicious intent, alleging that Elon Musk is actively suppressing competitors. One commenter sarcastically notes the irony of Musk's proclaimed commitment to "free speech" while seemingly censoring a competitor's link. This sentiment is echoed by other users who express concern over the implications of such actions for open communication and competition in the social media landscape.

  Some commenters provide technical perspectives, suggesting potential mechanisms behind the block. One user proposes that it might be a regular expression filter gone awry, accidentally catching "signal.me" in its net. Another suggests that it could be related to link previews or other URL processing features.

  A few commenters offer anecdotal evidence, sharing their own experiences with attempting to post Signal links on X. Some report being unable to post the link directly, while others have found workarounds like adding spaces or using alternative link shorteners.

  The discussion also touches on the broader implications for the future of X, with some users expressing disappointment and predicting a decline in the platform's user base due to such restrictive practices. Others remain more optimistic, suggesting that it might be a temporary glitch that will be resolved soon.

  One comment highlights the perceived hypocrisy in blocking Signal while allowing links to other messaging platforms like Telegram and WhatsApp, speculating that this might be due to their less robust privacy features and thus, less direct competition with X's potential future ambitions in the messaging space.

  Finally, several commenters suggest alternative solutions for sharing Signal links, such as using link shorteners or embedding the link within an image. This reflects a pragmatic approach to circumventing the perceived restriction while continuing to use the platform.

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

  permalink

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

  Verbose tl;dr

  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.

  • signal
  • Discord
  • deanonymization
  • privacy
  • Security
  • Vulnerability
  • attack
  • metadata
  • 0-click
  • Exploit
  • IP address
  • online privacy
  • communication platforms
  • messaging apps

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

  Verbose tl;dr

  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.

• Das Blinkenlights

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-12 09:39:50

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post "Das Blinkenlights" details the author's project to recreate the iconic blinking LED display atop the Haus des Lehrers building in Berlin, a symbol of the former East Germany. Using readily available components like an Arduino, LEDs, and a custom-built replica of the original metal frame, the author successfully built a miniature version of the display. The project involved meticulously mapping the light patterns, programming the Arduino to replicate the sequences, and overcoming technical challenges related to power consumption and brightness. The end result was a faithful, albeit smaller-scale, homage to a piece of history, demonstrating the blend of nostalgia and maker culture.

  The blog post, "Das Blinkenlights," meticulously details a fascinating project undertaken by the author, focusing on the recreation of the iconic blinking light display atop the Berliner Fernsehturm (Berlin Television Tower). This undertaking was not simply a matter of mimicking the visual pattern, but a deep dive into understanding the original mechanism and replicating its core functionality using modern, readily available hardware.

  The author begins by outlining the historical significance of the Fernsehturm and its distinctive rotating light beacon, which, for many years, served as a potent symbol of East Berlin. They then delve into the intricacies of the original light system, describing its electromechanical components, including rotating drums fitted with lamps and a complex control system that orchestrated the distinct flashing patterns. This intricate explanation provides context for the author's ambitious goal: to emulate this historical system, not just aesthetically, but also in its underlying operational principles.

  The project’s technical implementation is then meticulously documented. The author explains their selection of an Arduino microcontroller as the project's "brain," detailing how they programmed it to manage the timing and sequencing of the lights. They also elaborate on the chosen hardware components, including LEDs to represent the original lamps and a stepper motor to mimic the rotation of the original drum mechanism. The author highlights the challenges encountered during the development process, such as achieving accurate timing and ensuring the smooth operation of the motor, and outlines the solutions employed to overcome these hurdles. The post includes detailed explanations of the code used to control the Arduino, allowing readers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the project’s inner workings.

  Furthermore, the author describes the construction of a physical model to house the electronic components and display the lights. They explain the design choices made for the model, emphasizing its aim to represent the essential features of the Fernsehturm’s beacon while remaining compact and manageable for a personal project. The post concludes with a sense of accomplishment, showcasing the finished project, a miniature replica of the iconic blinking lights, successfully mimicking the distinctive flashing patterns that once illuminated the Berlin skyline. The author’s meticulous documentation and detailed explanations offer a thorough insight into the process of recreating a piece of technological history using contemporary tools and techniques.

  • Berlin
  • Germany
  • art
  • Installation
  • light
  • blinkenlights
  • Haus des Lehrers
  • Alexanderplatz
  • public art
  • interactive art
  • LED
  • night
  • cityscape
  • urban
  • Architecture
  • signal
  • Communication
  • History
  • culture
  • light installation
  • urban art
  • night photography
  • German culture

  Summary of Comments ( 52 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42672366

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed the practicality and appeal of "blinkenlights," large-scale status displays using LEDs. Some found them aesthetically pleasing, nostalgic, and a fun way to visualize complex systems, while others questioned their actual usefulness, suggesting they often display superficial information or become mere decorations. A few comments pointed out the potential for misuse, creating distractions or even security risks by revealing system internals. The maintainability of such displays over time was also questioned. Several users shared examples of interesting blinkenlight implementations, including artistic displays and historical uses. The general consensus seemed to be that while not always practically useful, blinkenlights hold a certain charm and can be valuable in specific contexts.

  The Hacker News post "Das Blinkenlights" has generated a moderate number of comments, primarily focusing on the technical aspects and historical context of the project.

  Several commenters express admiration for the ingenuity and simplicity of using unused pixels on a building's facade to create a giant display. One user highlights the impressive scale of the project, emphasizing the logistical and technical challenges involved in controlling such a large number of lights. Another commenter appreciates the artistic nature of the project, comparing it to other large-scale light installations and public art displays.

  Some comments delve into the technical details of the project, discussing the specific hardware and software used. One user questions the choice of technology, suggesting alternatives that might have been more efficient or easier to implement. Another commenter speculates about the power consumption of the display and the potential impact on the building's energy costs.

  A few commenters provide historical context, referencing similar projects that have been undertaken in the past. One user mentions an earlier attempt to create a large-scale display using office building windows, while another points out the increasing prevalence of LED lighting in urban environments and its potential for artistic expression.

  Some commenters express concerns about the potential for light pollution and the impact on nearby residents. One user suggests that the brightness of the display might be disruptive at night, while another raises concerns about the potential for distracting drivers.

  Overall, the comments reflect a general appreciation for the project's creativity and technical achievement, but also acknowledge some of the potential drawbacks and limitations. There isn't a single overwhelmingly "compelling" comment that stands out as exceptionally insightful or persuasive, but the collection of comments provides a balanced perspective on the project.