6 ms·

>Desktop applications are incredibly risky Oh so just use your phone that has a 100 background crapware apps running and a hidden baseband OS running under the

by esaym 8y ago

>Desktop applications are incredibly risky Oh so just use your phone that has a 100 background crapware apps running and a hidden baseband OS running under the parent OS/UI?

pvg 8y ago
Remember that time another app (and the baseband!) compromised Signal on iOS?
- tedunangst 8y ago
  No?
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I think he forgot a /s. (Seriously).
    - pvg 8y ago
      You people!
    - tedunangst 8y ago
      Dang it.
- bigiain 8y ago
  FWIW, the sort of people with access/leverage to be able to compromise a device through the baseband probably don't leave behind traces revealing it happened. They just drop hints to the local cops that they ought to find a reason to pull you over for a traffic stop and coincidentally smell pot smoke to give them probably cause to search your car... (waves at the NSA guys...) I _hope_ that sort of capability is still a year or two away from guys with an Ettus USPR and a bunch of open source software and hacking tools glued together with Python... But keep your eyes on DefCon and CCC to be sure...
  - tptacek 8y ago
    They probably don't leave traces because compromising a modern Apple device through the baseband would be quite a trick, given that it's an independent peripheral connected to the AP over on-chip USB.
    - bigiain 8y ago
      That's good to know (and for almost anybody else I'd add "citation needed"...) Didn't the iPhone baseband processor at some time in the past have dma? I vaguely recall a perhaps Usenix paper that seemed to claim any phone that had a software unlock where you could disable the carrier locking, was almost certainly using dma connections between the baseband and AP. Any hints or links or search terms which would show me how modern an iPhone needs to be to be "safe" from that?
      - tptacek 8y ago
        I don't know what the first iPhone to have an HSIC baseband was, but it has been awhile. I assume every iPhone anyone is really using today fits the description I gave. The iPhone 4 does. This is a really basic security design concern for mobile devices; you can assume that neither Apple nor Google (for their own Google-branded phones) ships products where a corrupted baseband can simply DMA its way into the AP. It is a little weird to me that people on message boards assume they've outguessed the hardware security teams at both Apple and Google on one of the most obvious attack vectors for their phone designs; both companies spend huge amounts of money on this stuff.
        lawnchair_larry 8y ago
        "It is a little weird to me that people on message boards assume they've outguessed the hardware security teams at both Apple and Google on one of the most obvious attack vectors for their phone designs; both companies spend huge amounts of money on this stuff." For what it's worth, that isn't the assumption people are making. The easy assumption to make is that the security teams were unable to convince product owners at these companies that the extra expense of solving this was worth their investment. Especially because practical baseband attacks still haven't hit them as an issue, and it's very rare for product owners to take on major changes or invest in security for "theoretical" threats. Just look at all of the services still allowing SMS for 2FA - it's not because the security team doesn't know that is an insane thing to be doing in 2018.
bigiain 8y ago
Signal runs just fine on an iPod Touch (after a little fussing around getting it set up with a phone number...) If you're paranoid enough, it's easy enough to avoid installing things that're likely to be crapware on your secure comms device. Apart from Signal, the only other non iOS supplied apps I have installed on mu iPod are a bitcoin wallet and Onion Browser - both of which I angst a little about, since they're both in the first category of app I'd attempt to subvert if I were a nation state actor, or a blackhat looking to steal bitcoin from people least likely to report it to authorities...
- lmm 8y ago
  If you're willing to adopt "run a dedicated device for crypto" approach, something like Tails running on a USB-key-like device gives you the same kind of security position and without having to trust Apple.
  - bigiain 8y ago
    Yeah, I do that too (and an offline wallet on a RasPi which has never been internet connected) - but for secure messaging and for some bitcoin transactions, I want that device in my pocket. I treat the iPod cryptocurrency wallet like, well, a wallet - containing amounts I feel comfortable carrying around (like the couple of hundred in cash I might have in my wallet at any time). I "trust" Apple enough to store that. I wouldn't treat the iPod as a bank, storing significant or lifechanging amounts of value.

by esaym 8y ago

>Desktop applications are incredibly risky Oh so just use your phone that has a 100 background crapware apps running and a hidden baseband OS running under the parent OS/UI?

pvg 8y ago

Remember that time another app (and the baseband!) compromised Signal on iOS?

tedunangst 8y ago
No?
- tptacek 8y ago
  I think he forgot a /s. (Seriously).
  - pvg 8y ago
    You people!
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    Dang it.
bigiain 8y ago
FWIW, the sort of people with access/leverage to be able to compromise a device through the baseband probably don't leave behind traces revealing it happened. They just drop hints to the local cops that they ought to find a reason to pull you over for a traffic stop and coincidentally smell pot smoke to give them probably cause to search your car... (waves at the NSA guys...) I _hope_ that sort of capability is still a year or two away from guys with an Ettus USPR and a bunch of open source software and hacking tools glued together with Python... But keep your eyes on DefCon and CCC to be sure...
- tptacek 8y ago
  They probably don't leave traces because compromising a modern Apple device through the baseband would be quite a trick, given that it's an independent peripheral connected to the AP over on-chip USB.
  - bigiain 8y ago
    That's good to know (and for almost anybody else I'd add "citation needed"...) Didn't the iPhone baseband processor at some time in the past have dma? I vaguely recall a perhaps Usenix paper that seemed to claim any phone that had a software unlock where you could disable the carrier locking, was almost certainly using dma connections between the baseband and AP. Any hints or links or search terms which would show me how modern an iPhone needs to be to be "safe" from that?
    - tptacek 8y ago
      I don't know what the first iPhone to have an HSIC baseband was, but it has been awhile. I assume every iPhone anyone is really using today fits the description I gave. The iPhone 4 does. This is a really basic security design concern for mobile devices; you can assume that neither Apple nor Google (for their own Google-branded phones) ships products where a corrupted baseband can simply DMA its way into the AP. It is a little weird to me that people on message boards assume they've outguessed the hardware security teams at both Apple and Google on one of the most obvious attack vectors for their phone designs; both companies spend huge amounts of money on this stuff.
      - lawnchair_larry 8y ago
        "It is a little weird to me that people on message boards assume they've outguessed the hardware security teams at both Apple and Google on one of the most obvious attack vectors for their phone designs; both companies spend huge amounts of money on this stuff." For what it's worth, that isn't the assumption people are making. The easy assumption to make is that the security teams were unable to convince product owners at these companies that the extra expense of solving this was worth their investment. Especially because practical baseband attacks still haven't hit them as an issue, and it's very rare for product owners to take on major changes or invest in security for "theoretical" threats. Just look at all of the services still allowing SMS for 2FA - it's not because the security team doesn't know that is an insane thing to be doing in 2018.

bigiain 8y ago

Signal runs just fine on an iPod Touch (after a little fussing around getting it set up with a phone number...) If you're paranoid enough, it's easy enough to avoid installing things that're likely to be crapware on your secure comms device. Apart from Signal, the only other non iOS supplied apps I have installed on mu iPod are a bitcoin wallet and Onion Browser - both of which I angst a little about, since they're both in the first category of app I'd attempt to subvert if I were a nation state actor, or a blackhat looking to steal bitcoin from people least likely to report it to authorities...

lmm 8y ago
If you're willing to adopt "run a dedicated device for crypto" approach, something like Tails running on a USB-key-like device gives you the same kind of security position and without having to trust Apple.
- bigiain 8y ago
  Yeah, I do that too (and an offline wallet on a RasPi which has never been internet connected) - but for secure messaging and for some bitcoin transactions, I want that device in my pocket. I treat the iPod cryptocurrency wallet like, well, a wallet - containing amounts I feel comfortable carrying around (like the couple of hundred in cash I might have in my wallet at any time). I "trust" Apple enough to store that. I wouldn't treat the iPod as a bank, storing significant or lifechanging amounts of value.