Impressive iPhone Exploit

Impressive iPhone Exploit

This is a scarily impressive vulnerability:

Earlier this year, Apple patched one of the most breathtaking iPhone vulnerabilities ever: a memory corruption bug in the iOS kernel that gave attackers remote access to the entire device­ — over Wi-Fi, with no user interaction required at all. Oh, and exploits were wormable­ — meaning radio-proximity exploits could spread from one nearby device to another, once again, with no user interaction needed.


Beer’s attack worked by exploiting a buffer overflow bug in a driver for AWDL, an Apple-proprietary mesh networking protocol that makes things like Airdrop work. Because drivers reside in the kernel — ­one of the most privileged parts of any operating system­ — the AWDL flaw had the potential for serious hacks. And because AWDL parses Wi-Fi packets, exploits can be transmitted over the air, with no indication that anything is amiss.


Beer developed several different exploits. The most advanced one installs an implant that has full access to the user’s personal data, including emails, photos, messages, and passwords and crypto keys stored in the keychain. The attack uses a laptop, a Raspberry Pi, and some off-the-shelf Wi-Fi adapters. It takes about two minutes to install the prototype implant, but Beer said that with more work a better written exploit could deliver it in a “handful of seconds.” Exploits work only on devices that are within Wi-Fi range of the attacker.

There is no evidence that this vulnerability was ever used in the wild.

EDITED TO ADD: Slashdot thread.

Tracking Users on Waze

Tracking Users on Waze

A security researcher discovered a wulnerability in Waze that breaks the anonymity of users:

I found out that I can visit Waze from any web browser at so I decided to check how are those driver icons implemented. What I found is that I can ask Waze API for data on a location by sending my latitude and longitude coordinates. Except the essential traffic information, Waze also sends me coordinates of other drivers who are nearby. What caught my eyes was that identification numbers (ID) associated with the icons were not changing over time. I decided to track one driver and after some time she really appeared in a different place on the same road.

The vulnerability has been fixed. More interesting is that the researcher was able to de-anonymize some of the Waze users, proving yet again that anonymity is hard when we’re all so different.

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.

NSA Advisory on Chinese Government Hacking

NSA Advisory on Chinese Government Hacking

The NSA released an advisory listing the top twenty-five known vulnerabilities currently being exploited by Chinese nation-state attackers.

This advisory provides Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) known to be recently leveraged, or scanned-for, by Chinese state-sponsored cyber actors to enable successful hacking operations against a multitude of victim networks. Most of the vulnerabilities listed below can be exploited to gain initial access to victim networks using products that are directly accessible from the Internet and act as gateways to internal networks. The majority of the products are either for remote access (T1133) or for external web services (T1190), and should be prioritized for immediate patching.

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.

Hacking Apple for Profit

Hacking Apple for Profit

Five researchers hacked Apple Computer’s networks — not their products — and found fifty-five vulnerabilities. So far, they have received $289K.

One of the worst of all the bugs they found would have allowed criminals to create a worm that would automatically steal all the photos, videos, and documents from someone’s iCloud account and then do the same to the victim’s contacts.

Lots of details in this blog post by one of the hackers.

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.

Hacking a Coffee Maker

Hacking a Coffee Maker

As expected, IoT devices are filled with vulnerabilities:

As a thought experiment, Martin Hron, a researcher at security company Avast, reverse engineered one of the older coffee makers to see what kinds of hacks he could do with it. After just a week of effort, the unqualified answer was: quite a lot. Specifically, he could trigger the coffee maker to turn on the burner, dispense water, spin the bean grinder, and display a ransom message, all while beeping repeatedly. Oh, and by the way, the only way to stop the chaos was to unplug the power cord.


In any event, Hron said the ransom attack is just the beginning of what an attacker could do. With more work, he believes, an attacker could program a coffee maker — ­and possibly other appliances made by Smarter — ­to attack the router, computers, or other devices connected to the same network. And the attacker could probably do it with no overt sign anything was amiss.

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.

New Bluetooth Vulnerability

New Bluetooth Vulnerability

There’s a new unpatched Bluetooth vulnerability:

The issue is with a protocol called Cross-Transport Key Derivation (or CTKD, for short). When, say, an iPhone is getting ready to pair up with Bluetooth-powered device, CTKD’s role is to set up two separate authentication keys for that phone: one for a “Bluetooth Low Energy” device, and one for a device using what’s known as the “Basic Rate/Enhanced Data Rate” standard. Different devices require different amounts of data — and battery power — from a phone. Being able to toggle between the standards needed for Bluetooth devices that take a ton of data (like a Chromecast), and those that require a bit less (like a smartwatch) is more efficient. Incidentally, it might also be less secure.

According to the researchers, if a phone supports both of those standards but doesn’t require some sort of authentication or permission on the user’s end, a hackery sort who’s within Bluetooth range can use its CTKD connection to derive its own competing key. With that connection, according to the researchers, this sort of erzatz authentication can also allow bad actors to weaken the encryption that these keys use in the first place — which can open its owner up to more attacks further down the road, or perform “man in the middle” style attacks that snoop on unprotected data being sent by the phone’s apps and services.

Another article:

Patches are not immediately available at the time of writing. The only way to protect against BLURtooth attacks is to control the environment in which Bluetooth devices are paired, in order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks, or pairings with rogue devices carried out via social engineering (tricking the human operator).

However, patches are expected to be available at one point. When they’ll be, they’ll most likely be integrated as firmware or operating system updates for Bluetooth capable devices.

The timeline for these updates is, for the moment, unclear, as device vendors and OS makers usually work on different timelines, and some may not prioritize security patches as others. The number of vulnerable devices is also unclear and hard to quantify.

Many Bluetooth devices can’t be patched.

Final note: this seems to be another example of simultaneous discovery:

According to the Bluetooth SIG, the BLURtooth attack was discovered independently by two groups of academics from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) and Purdue University.

2017 Tesla Hack

1&1~=UmmSeptember 4, 2020 4:25 AM


“Batteries are made in China/India, so it’s not a ollution people see, or think about.”

Elon Musk gets bateries from where?

“From the battery manufacturing to its currently inexistant recycling.”

There is some recycling currently going on in the West. In part it’s from splitting battery packs down and pulling out bad cells and reusing the good cells. For some reason that is not understood as well as many would hope the lifetime on lithium cells is very variable and in some cases as much as 5:1. Which is why it is cost effective for people building their own “PowerWalls” to buy up both used vehicle cells and used computer cells. As for more industrial style “recycling” as with most recycling it’s actually ‘market driven’ that is currently there is no market for the recycled parts with sufficient profit for the usual Asian operations to get involved. But,

“Most electric cars take between 300.000 and 500.000km to even out their pollution with older diesel/gasoline ones, just because of the enormous initial pollution to produce the lithium, and electronics.”

I think you need to compare like with like European studies have shown that the average family car takes ~25years of usage to repay it’s “Manufacturing polution” offset. Which in the case of both iron and aluminium require a very very large electrical input for the smelting process so much so infact that for many years Aluminium smelting was only carried out in areas with lots of low cost electricity that was produced by hydroelectric generation. The studies of interest were carried out before electronic engine managment and it’s consequent ‘extra polution’ became prevalent.

The real issue between electric and IC vehicles is actually two fold. Firstly the inefficiencies of total drive chain from storage to vehical movment. Even with the old heavy lead acid batteries used in “delivery vehicles” having nearly no mechanical drive chain tipped the balance in favour of electric vehicles. Secondly though was and still remains the issues of fueling. An IC engined vehicle can be ‘charged’ in a matter of minutes, whilst batteries can take hours to sizeable fractions of a day. If you were to try to replace the current fossil fuels with another source of chemical energy the chances are you would not be alowed to do so due to health, safety, and environmental protection legislation. The ‘Petro-Chem’ industry with regards vehicle fuels would not be alowed to exist if the legislation in place today was in place a little over a century ago. Thus the IC engine is not playing on a level playing field and thus leads a ‘charmed existance’.

But talking about fuel transportation, whilst finding figures on ‘loss’ for the electrical/mains grid is not particularly difficult, finding simillar for petro-chem / fossil fuels is very difficult as it’s more or less kept ‘hidden’. The reason is most electrical grid transmission loss is ‘heat’ which whilst it is the ultimate form of pollution is nowhere near as dangerous as the chemical ‘loss’ ditectly into the environment, most chemical energy sources are toxic (including those we eat) and so just dumping them into the environment is a very bad idea.

But you mention coal etc used for electricity generation but you do not mention the refining process of fossil fuels and the immense polution issues involved.

We could endlessly bat individual parts of the ‘from sunlight to motion’ chain backwards and forwards, but in most cases that would be like arguing what effect the colour of ‘the lipstick on the pig’ has on the taste of the sausages or the quantity of squeal in the process.

You need to consider the entire chain from ‘sunlight to motion’ and compare them side by side. If you did you might find that the real joker in the pack is the petro-chem industry from ‘hole in the ground to vehicle storage’ as far as polution is concerned.

Intel will soon bake anti-malware defenses directly into its CPUs

A mobile PC processor code-named Tiger Lake. It will be the first CPU to offer a security capability known as Control-Flow Enforcement Technology.

Enlarge / A mobile PC processor code-named Tiger Lake. It will be the first CPU to offer a security capability known as Control-Flow Enforcement Technology.

The history of hacking has largely been a back-and-forth game, with attackers devising a technique to breach a system, defenders constructing a countermeasure that prevents the technique, and hackers devising a new way to bypass system security. On Monday, Intel is announcing its plans to bake a new parry directly into its CPUs that’s designed to thwart software exploits that execute malicious code on vulnerable computers.

Control-Flow Enforcement Technology, or CET, represents a fundamental change in the way processors execute instructions from applications such as Web browsers, email clients, or PDF readers. Jointly developed by Intel and Microsoft, CET is designed to thwart a technique known as return-oriented programming, which hackers use to bypass anti-exploit measures software developers introduced about a decade ago. While Intel first published its implementation of CET in 2016, the company on Monday is saying that its Tiger Lake CPU microarchitecture will be the first to include it.

ROP, as return-oriented programming is usually called, was software exploiters’ response to protections such as Executable Space Protection and address space layout randomization, which made their way into Windows, macOS, and Linux a little less than two decades ago. These defenses were designed to significantly lessen the damage software exploits could inflict by introducing changes to system memory that prevented the execution of malicious code. Even when successfully targeting a buffer overflow or other vulnerability, the exploit resulted only in a system or application crash, rather than a fatal system compromise.

ROP allowed attackers to regain the high ground. Rather than using malicious code written by the attacker, ROP attacks repurpose functions that benign applications or OS routines have already placed into a region of memory known as the stack. The “return” in ROP refers to use of the RET instruction that’s central to reordering the code flow.

Very effective

Alex Ionescu, a veteran Windows security expert and VP of engineering at security firm CrowdStrike, likes to say that if a benign program is like a building made of Lego bricks that were built in a specific sequence, ROP uses the same Lego pieces but in a different order. In so doing, ROP converts the building into a spaceship. The technique is able to bypass the anti-malware defenses because it uses memory-resident code that’s already permitted to be executed.

CET introduces changes in the CPU that create a new stack called the control stack. This stack can’t be modified by attackers and doesn’t store any data. It stores the return addresses of the Lego bricks that are already in the stack. Because of this, even if an attacker has corrupted a return address in the data stack, the control stack retains the correct return address. The processor can detect this and halt execution.

“Because there is no effective software mitigation against ROP, CET will be very effective at detecting and stopping this class of vulnerability,” Ionescu told me. “Previously, operating systems and security solutions had to guess or infer that ROP had happened, or perform forensic analysis, or detect the second stage payloads/effect of the exploit.”

Not that CET is limited to defenses against ROP. CET provides a host of additional protections, some of which thwart exploitation techniques known as jump-oriented programming and call-oriented programming, to name just two. ROP, however, is among the most interesting aspects of CET.

Those who do not remember the past

Intel has built other security functions into its CPUs with less-than-stellar results. One is Intel’s SGX, short for Software Guard eXtension, which is supposed to carve out impenetrable chunks of protected memory for security-sensitive functions such as the creation of cryptographic keys. Another security add-on from Intel is known as the Converged Security and Management Engine, or simply the Management Engine. It’s a subsystem inside Intel CPUs and chipsets that implements a host of sensitive functions, among them the firmware-based Trusted Platform Module used for silicon-based encryption, authentication of UEFI BIOS firmware, and the Microsoft System Guard and BitLocker.

A steady stream of security flaws discovered in both CPU-resident features, however, has made them vulnerable to a variety of attacks over the years. The most recent SGX vulnerabilities were disclosed just last week.

It’s tempting to think that CET will be similarly easy to defeat, or worse, will expose users to hacks that wouldn’t be possible if the protection hadn’t been added. But Joseph Fitzpatrick, a hardware hacker and a researcher at, says he’s optimistic CET will perform better. He explained:

One distinct difference that makes me less skeptical of this type of feature versus something like SGX or ME is that both of those are “adding on” security features, as opposed to hardening existing features. ME basically added a management layer outside the operating system. SGX adds operating modes that theoretically shouldn’t be able to be manipulated by a malicious or compromised operating system. CET merely adds mechanisms to prevent normal operation—returning to addresses off the stack and jumping in and out of the wrong places in code—from completing successfully. Failure of CET to do its job only allows normal operation. It doesn’t grant the attacker access to more capabilities.

Once CET-capable CPUs are available, the protection will work only when the processor is running an operating system with the necessary support. Windows 10 Version 2004 released last month provides that support. Intel still isn’t saying when Tiger Lake CPUs will be released. While the protection could give defenders an important new tool, Ionescu and fellow researcher Yarden Shafir have already devised bypasses for it. Expect them to end up in real-world attacks within the decade.