Re: This shows a clear gap in the market
Most can be pwned by two black sheets of paper taped into a loop. Ah, the good old days... never got around to testing my idea of faxing someone a roll of tissue paper, though.
561 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Nov 2007
So true... and the idea that they can just "remove the SIM card" and everything is fine is just ridiculous. That certainly won't fix a bricked bus that has downloaded and installed a malicious firmware update. Unless the bus has a "bad firmware incoming" indicator light, of course.
Share and enjoy!1, 2
1"Share and enjoy" is the company motto of the hugely successful Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Complaints Division, which now covers the major land masses of three medium-sized planets and is the only part of the Corporation to have shown a consistent profit in recent years.
2"Sirius Cybernetics Corporation" used to be called "Microsoft" until their renaming in the year 2035, in an effort to save the reputation of the company.
If someone reports suspicious behaviour, looking at the response of the company (beyond boilerplate press releases – "We take the security of our customers' data very seriously...") is way more interesting than the report itself. If the author of the report is block from their support forums, that's more than a red flag. Stay away from Gretchen.
"To exploit this issue, a threat actor would require physical access to rail lines, deep protocol knowledge, and specialized equipment, which limits the feasibility of widespread exploitation."
OK, to recap: CISA thinks that (a) knowledge of the protocol and (b) owning "specialized" equipment (a $200 SDR transmitter) "limits the feasibility" of "widespread exploitation", and so everything is fine? What an absurd take on this risk.
But then, the US has always had weird ideas about "security" – otherwise the concept of a credit card number wouldn't exist.
Given the differences even between what my neighbour and I consider to be "music", it is more likely that this is seen as a threat, a declaration of war, a capitulation or a guacamole recipe, than a culturally significant musical movie reference. Or maybe to them, it's just muzak. If we're lucky, we'll never find out.
Sure, Signal may be pretty secure in its transport, and it is usually easier to compromise one of the endpoints than to attack Signal itself. That is why security-conscious people would at least use a locked-down, dedicated device for such adventures.
However, seeing this whole dumpster fire of security blunders, do you really believe that the "personal device" Hegseth is using on that unsecured line is really protected? To me he seems like the guy who would double-click any attachment named "cute_kitten_videos" and disables the AV because it interferes with his ability to install cracked games.
He probably airdropped a .txt file containing the sensitive info onto his laptop so that he could copy and paste whatever he wanted to brag about to his wife and his hairdresser. And since Hegseth didn't make the one mistake yet that could endanger his job – making Trump look bad in such a way that even Trump notices – this will likely not be the last of these blunders. Only now just about every bad guy on the planet is trying to find out the IP address of his private insecure line or his iCloud username.
Looks like Apple is taking this seriously. They have already updated the App Review Guidelines, 3.1.1 thru 3.1.3, removing pretty much all prohibition of links to external payment systems etc. for "apps on the United States storefront".
Whatever that means for apps which are available worldwide...
But... but... the heading on their cookie banner said "We Respect Your Privacy", ...?
And these 876 partners they're sharing your visit and every interaction with, are really close partners, right?
And they only need to track you across every thing you do on the internet for your own good, see? Like Meta's response said... what good would an AI be that doesn't understand European culture? For example, why we're so picky with who can process our most private information and so on...
Whatever they're overwriting the disk with – the engineers' names, the Hitchhiker, a GIF version of the dancing baby, or a Fortran version of the source code of Microsoft's Clippy, – will probably turn out to accidentally be valid machine code that the sat will execute when it eventually reboots.
For the rest of that story, please refer to the already mentioned "V'ger" storyline in the Start Trek movie...
The thing is, it doesn't matter whether the "channel" was secure. Every channel has at least two ends, and in this case multiple, and they were all on devices which had not been secured for classified communications. (Signal would't be allowed on such devices.) So we have no way of knowing whether any of these devices were or are compromised. And if they are, the chat contents are compromised, too.
I'm pretty sure that there are already bounties being offered for hacking Goldberg's devices, though I'm also sure that he is taking precautions. But he's now a high-value target, and from what I've heard, some of the information in that chat would still be useful to adversaries after the actual mission is over.
Sure, the tool (I mean Signal, not Waltz) was secure. And of course some idiots will claim otherwise (just waiting for the US govt themselves to blame the whole affair on Signal.) But focussing on that takes the focus away from the criminal negligence, incompetence and disrespect for law and rules of that whole government.
Wait... what? You believe that using HTTPS doesn't protect you, and that you "identify" yourself to "Google etc." when you use HTTPS?
What have you been smoking?
I thought that the "I have nothing to hide" and "I don't need a secure connection for everyday stuff" faction had long since dies out, but here we go... I think you might be wearing your tinfoil hat the wrong way.
All the reports about this malware are a bit unclear or ambiguous on the infection vector.
The TrendMicro report says, "Affected developers will unwittingly distribute the malicious trojan to their users in the form of the compromised Xcode projects,..."
Does that mean that the malware is passed on only in Xcode projects, and not in the built apps? Since when are developers distributing Xcode projects to their users? At first I thought this was a typo or something, but it also says: "These Xcode projects have been modified such that upon building, these projects would run a malicious code. This eventually leads to the main XCSSET malware being dropped and run on the affected system."
So the malware is executed when an Xcode user builds an application (as opposed to injected into the product)? Or are they just completely confusing projects and products?
Can someone with more understanding about this malware please clear things up a bit?
You can typically decide which data an app can access. However, it is technically almost impossible* to enforce what an app or service does with that data, especially when the function of that app depends on that data being transferred to a server (eg. Tinder etc.) You can require app vendors to have comprehensive privacy statements, but these are mostly just "swindle sheets".
"We value your privacy. In order to provide you with this service, we share your data with 975 partners. This is necessary because, well, um, we want the money."
* For any references to how useless the GDPR is thanks to the concept of "reasonable interest", please refer to any one of my other rants here on this forum.
If I have the choice of (a) having an egg the consistency of either a tennis ball or a fresh oyster, or (b) having to wait more than 30 minutes for a breakfast egg – I'd rather take the egg. Now. Not in 30 minutes.
And let's not even start about having to juggle an egg between two different pots for half an hour.
... it was nice to know you. (NOT.) I like the "... immediately halt charges" part best. That will destroy quite a few deceptive business models.
"Subscribe here for $5/month. Cancel anytime*."
* Your cancellation will become effective after completing the mandatory first five years. Cancellation fee $250. To cancel, send a letter by diplomatic courier to our customer service department in Kabul.
And about that "[T]his rule will have major harmful repercussions for the marketplace", yes, that's the point. Especially for that dystopian Mad Max arena you call "autorenewal marketing".
Things were so much simpler in The Good Old TimesTM...
My parents gave me a very cheap, three-digit combination lock with my very first (also very cheap) bike. One day when I came back from a friend's house, it was stolen. Not the bike. The lock. The bike was still there.
I'm still not sure whether that says more about the quality fo the lock, or the bike...
... or would depend on the country, the configuration of the PBX system, and - as someone noted - the century.
In my place, whatever you dial, if you're not dialling the trunk prefix (typically 0), you'll reach either an internal number, or nobody at all. And everybody in the (/ any) company is familiar with that.
I'm the first one to bash MS any day. But going after Microsoft with the reason that the faulty software affected only Windows machines seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
That's like suing Apple if I buy a shoddy iPhone charger on Amazon from the well-known HZRYGWUL brand store and the charger catches on fire. "After all, my Android phone wasn't affected."
...more about the "protection mode" that was triggered. So a network device was installed that triggered some kind of watchdog system and, instead of just isolating the faulty new component, it somehow brought the whole network down.
I have no clue about how mobile networks are being run. I do understand that many layers of safeguards are necessary to protect the network from faulty/compromised/wrongly configured components. But surely the protective response can't be "let's shut the whole network down". So why did it happen? Was that protection system behaving as designed? Was it built to protect against a different scenario, and made the whole problem worse? Or was it designed to do exactly that to protect against some even more undesirable consequence by disconnecting all devices?
"You gave us your money, and we promised to keep it safe. Except we didn't. But we really thought that rolling our own wallet security would actually work, an so we couldn't really expect that it didn't. So, Force Majeure. But fret not – we are looking into who stole your funds. And in the unlikely case we can pin it somebody more concrete that 'it was the norks', we will share their phone number with you, so you can try to recover your funds. Thanks for your business, and come again (in case you still have some money left)!"
"Still, $25 million is apparently nothing to the industry-wide damages that this incident caused."
Keeping in mind that these $25M are being used to finance the crooks and their operations, allowing the to hire even more talented hackers, and also being a huge advertising for cybercrime, with its "crime pays" message, I think the total bang-for-the-buck ratio of these $25M is several magnitudes higher.
And that's the problem: by paying $25M, the company saved a few million in costs to other scenarios, but caused a damage that is ten to hundred times higher to future victims. And I think they should be liable for this. I'd like to see a class-action lawsuit from future cyber-attack victims against companies that are willing to finance criminals just to keep the cost and consequences of failing to secure their own systems lower. And I'd like to see a smart AG to open a case showing how paying ransoms like this constitutes "material support" of criminal organisations.
All in all it should be more expensive for corporations to pay the ransom than not to. That's the only way to stop this.
I'll keep dreaming.
I know, right? After all, we all know they can't go to space (wouldn't get past the dome), and also, why a heat shield? Everybody knows the higher you go, the colder it gets. And now the reptilian leaders want to sell us using an inflatable rubber dingy to use as a heat shield. It's obviously a scam to hide the secret colonies on the backside of the moon. They should rather spend that money in making free energy available to everybody.
(Just to be sure: /s.)
"The incidents include collisions with objects like gates, chains, parked vehicles, as well as showing an apparent disregard for general traffic safety. [...] including its vehicles entering construction zones or heading toward oncoming traffic, [...]"
To me that sound like typical taxi driver behaviour. Are you sure they were talking about automated cars?
/s
... as long as you don't ask Google "How many fingers|legs|arms does the average human have?"
I wonder how well the AI will deal with Google already messing up your native search results. Ask for the nearest restaurant, and Google will ask back whether you have considered buying a new kitchen instead. If that is the input to the AI search assistant, then the result will be worse than Midjourney attaching a few extra arms to everybody on your faked Christmas family photo.
"[...] that our system had been used in an attempt to access member's data [...]"
1. It is not an "anomaly" if it has been designed that way.
2. Passive voice – "our system had been used to..." – in an attempt to deflect blame (it was the system, not us)
3. "... in an attempt to ..." – forgot to mention it was a successful "attempt"
Such a blunder means that there wasn't an "anomaly", it is a complete fail of incorporating security into the design of the system. Makes you wonder how many more "anomalies" are there, maybe just not as obvious to find as this one.
"Secure by design? Yes, we've read about that somewhere, but we didn't understand it."
When a dishonest company like Roku has "no plans right now" to implement something as bad as this, they're reminding me of the Berlin Wall and Walter Ulbricht's famous "Niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten!".
That's what happens when you destroy your brand by f%$§ing over your users repeatedly and being dishonest.
"... the desire from people in the business to drill down on things in circumstances where they don't appear that they are correct."
What a nice way to describe a business where asking too many questions will get you nowhere (if some stories are to be believed, said "nowhere" is somewhere out in the desert...)
As usual, Facebook wants to gaslight not only its users, but also regulators, into thinking that "advertising" equals "tracking". Newsflash: It does not.
The model of "subscribe or see ads" is nothing new, and a valid way to earn money.
But "subscribe or we'll track you all over the internet and across all your devices" is, obviously, not. That is asking the user for a ransom to comply with the law. But according to Meta, that is somehow different from the local branch of the Legitimate Businessmen ClubTM showing up at you door asking for a donation so they don't do anything illegal...
"It should be said, however, there's no evidence to suggest this was actually exploited in the real world."
Sure, maybe "no evidence", but still "highly likely", because such things are being found out invariably – either by accident or by trying – and once found out, these tricks will be making the rounds. To pranksters, creeps, criminals, and sleuths.
The usual playing down of these flaws. I'm surprised by the missing "Ibis Hotels takes the safety and security of our guests very seriously."
$sql = sprintf("select * from BOOKINGS where BOOKINGCODE like '%s'", str_replace("-", "%", $entered_code));