Page 22
Researchers have managed to eavesdrop on cell phone voice conversations by using radar to detect vibrations. It’s more a proof of concept than anything else. The radar detector is only ten feet away, the setup is stylized, and accuracy is poor. But it’s a start.
Here’s the story. The commenters on X (formerly Twitter) are unimpressed.
As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.
Porn sites are hiding code in .svg files:
Unpacking the attack took work because much of the JavaScript in the .svg images was heavily obscured using a custom version of “JSFuck,” a technique that uses only a handful of character types to encode JavaScript into a camouflaged wall of text.
Once decoded, the script causes the browser to download a chain of additional obfuscated JavaScript. The final payload, a known malicious script called Trojan.JS.Likejack, induces the browser to like a specified Facebook post as long as a user has their account open.
“This Trojan, also written in Javascript, silently clicks a ‘Like’ button for a Facebook page without the user’s knowledge or consent, in this case the adult posts we found above,” Malwarebytes researcher Pieter Arntz wrote. “The user will have to be logged in on Facebook for this to work, but we know many people keep Facebook open for easy access.”
This isn’t a new trick. We’ve seen Trojaned .svg files before.
Here’s an interesting story about a failure being introduced by LLM-written code. Specifically, the LLM was doing some code refactoring, and when it moved a chunk of code from one file to another it changed a “break” to a “continue.” That turned an error logging statement into an infinite loop, which crashed the system.
This is an integrity failure. Specifically, it’s a failure of processing integrity. And while we can think of particular patches that alleviate this exact failure, the larger problem is much harder to solve.
Davi Ottenheimer comments.
There is a really great series of online events highlighting cool uses of AI in cybersecurity, titled Prompt||GTFO. Videos from the first three events are online. And here’s where to register to attend, or participate, in the fourth.
Some really great stuff here.
The NSA and GCHQ have jointly published a history of World War II SIGINT: “Secret Messengers: Disseminating SIGINT in the Second World War.” This is the story of the British SLUs (Special Liaison Units) and the American SSOs (Special Security Officers).
A few years ago, scammers invented a new phishing email. They would claim to have hacked your computer, turned your webcam on, and videoed you watching porn or having sex. BuzzFeed has an article talking about a “shockingly realistic” variant, which includes photos of you and your house—more specific information.
The article contains “steps you can take to figure out if it’s a scam,” but omits the first and most fundamental piece of advice: If the hacker had incriminating video about you, they would show you a clip. Just a taste, not the worst bits so you had to worry about how bad it could be, but something. If the hacker doesn’t show you any video, they don’t have any video. Everything else is window dressing.
I remember when this scam was first invented. I calmed several people who were legitimately worried with that one fact.
Fears around children is opening up a new market for automatic license place readers.
In a rare squid/security combined post, a new vulnerability was discovered in the Squid HTTP proxy server.
Google’s vulnerability finding team is again pushing the envelope of responsible disclosure:
Google’s Project Zero team will retain its existing 90+30 policy regarding vulnerability disclosures, in which it provides vendors with 90 days before full disclosure takes place, with a 30-day period allowed for patch adoption if the bug is fixed before the deadline.
However, as of July 29, Project Zero will also release limited details about any discovery they make within one week of vendor disclosure. This information will encompass:
- The vendor or open-source project that received the report
- The affected product
- The date the report was filed and when the 90-day disclosure deadline expires
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I like that it puts more pressure on vendors to patch quickly. On the other hand, if no indication is provided regarding how severe a vulnerability is, it could easily cause unnecessary panic.
The problem is that Google is not a neutral vulnerability hunting party. To the extent that it finds, publishes, and reduces confidence in competitors’ products, Google benefits as a company.
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.