5 ms·

Sorry but it will take more than a blogpost for me to believe it. When P0 recruits two prominent Chrome hackers (Ned Williamson & Samuel Gross) and make them w

by luch 7y ago

Sorry but it will take more than a blogpost for me to believe it. When P0 recruits two prominent Chrome hackers (Ned Williamson & Samuel Gross) and make them work directly on iOS, it look like a hit team to me.

dmortin 7y ago
Only if the guys working on other systems are less talented. If equally talented guys work on other systems then it's not a hit job, and I'm sure google puts its best guys to find holes in google products.
kbenson 7y ago
If Google's idea of a hit squad is to pay a few hundred thousand dollars worth of salary to have people do your own bug searching for you and give you a few months to fix it before letting anyone know (or until after you've fixed it, if sooner), then sign any company I'm working for up, and I'm sure there are plenty of other companies that would love the attention too. Apple gets attention from them because a lot of people have apple hardware and software. That means problems there have a higher impact than on some less used product. Apple is more than welcome to respond with its own researchers finding Android and other software bugs, and we'd all be better off if they did.
- close04 7y ago
  I don't think Apple has a problem with this unless it's irresponsible disclosure. They get a service from P0 and they're quite fast at fixing the issue which works to their advantage. When an exploit is published it will always say "Apple already fixed the issue" which works just great for their image with customers.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    "Responsible disclosure" is an Orwellian term invented by vendors to coerce security researchers, who have no duty to vendors and are virtually never compensated for their work, to conform to the vendor's own schedule and commercial preferences. The better term is "coordinated" (or "uncoordinated") disclosure.
    - close04 7y ago
      Semantics aside I hope the point I was making is clear. By "irresponsible" I meant the regular definition of the word: reckless, or careless. Not following any best practices. Out of personal curiosity, how is "coordinated" mitigating the issue you mentioned? It eliminates the vagueness of "responsible" but seems a lot more strict for the researchers: > The primary tenet of coordinated disclosure is that nobody should be informed about a vulnerability until the software vendor gives their permission
      - maxerickson 7y ago
        Notifying people that their devices are vulnerable to something is never reckless or careless or irresponsible. Those words all focus on the fact that 'bad guys' also get notified and ignore that users get notified.
        close04 7y ago
        I think there's a balance to strike here. The fact that security researchers like the Project Zero people don't just publish exploit details and sample codes on day 1 suggests that it might not actually be in the best interest of users to do it. It may actually cause far more damage to the users than giving the manufacturers the standard time to patch. As a matter of fact every such disclosure made "irresponsibly/uncoordinated" on Twitter was universally condemned by security researchers and software providers alike. Doing something "responsibly" isn't just the prerogative or duty of security researchers. It's a general term which means "putting thought into it".
        maxerickson 7y ago
        I think you are wrong about "universally". Probably widely condemned, I doubt it was universal, unless you are drawing convenient definitions where anyone who thought it was fine wouldn't be a security researcher.
        snowwrestler 7y ago
        Ok, and I agree that "responsible" is not the right word, but let's also acknowledge the asymmetry that often exists between the users and the bad guys. Telling users that their device or software is vulnerable is not really useful to them unless it comes with a patch. Very few users have the knowledge, skill, or access to directly alter their technology to secure it, based on a vulnerability report. Most don't even know how to be aware of such reports, or even that they should be. "Cyber bad guys" are more likely to be aware of and able to act upon a vulnerability report, as they have more knowledge than most users, and their entire mode of operation is that they don't wait for access or permission. This is why "coordinated" disclosure is sometimes better. By announcing the vulnerability with the patch, the asymmetry between users and bad guys is better balanced. Users can be reasonably expected to install patches when notified to do so. Of course there are all sorts of exceptions, such as when data is actively being leaked or exfiltrated, which users could delete or remove. Or when the security vulnerability affects systems managed by people sophisticated enough to take direct mitigating action, like changing server configuration or cycling keys.
danw1979 7y ago
Apple should be performing this kind of research themselves on such a high profile target as iOS. If you let a competitor discover stuff like this then you kind of deserved to get "hit".
kps 7y ago
As mentioned in the article, they looked at Android messaging earlier this year: https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/03/android-messaging-few-bugs-short-of.html https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/03/android-messa...

by luch 7y ago

dmortin 7y ago

Only if the guys working on other systems are less talented. If equally talented guys work on other systems then it's not a hit job, and I'm sure google puts its best guys to find holes in google products.

kbenson 7y ago

If Google's idea of a hit squad is to pay a few hundred thousand dollars worth of salary to have people do your own bug searching for you and give you a few months to fix it before letting anyone know (or until after you've fixed it, if sooner), then sign any company I'm working for up, and I'm sure there are plenty of other companies that would love the attention too. Apple gets attention from them because a lot of people have apple hardware and software. That means problems there have a higher impact than on some less used product. Apple is more than welcome to respond with its own researchers finding Android and other software bugs, and we'd all be better off if they did.

close04 7y ago
I don't think Apple has a problem with this unless it's irresponsible disclosure. They get a service from P0 and they're quite fast at fixing the issue which works to their advantage. When an exploit is published it will always say "Apple already fixed the issue" which works just great for their image with customers.
- tptacek 7y ago
  "Responsible disclosure" is an Orwellian term invented by vendors to coerce security researchers, who have no duty to vendors and are virtually never compensated for their work, to conform to the vendor's own schedule and commercial preferences. The better term is "coordinated" (or "uncoordinated") disclosure.
  - close04 7y ago
    Semantics aside I hope the point I was making is clear. By "irresponsible" I meant the regular definition of the word: reckless, or careless. Not following any best practices. Out of personal curiosity, how is "coordinated" mitigating the issue you mentioned? It eliminates the vagueness of "responsible" but seems a lot more strict for the researchers: > The primary tenet of coordinated disclosure is that nobody should be informed about a vulnerability until the software vendor gives their permission
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      Notifying people that their devices are vulnerable to something is never reckless or careless or irresponsible. Those words all focus on the fact that 'bad guys' also get notified and ignore that users get notified.
      - close04 7y ago
        I think there's a balance to strike here. The fact that security researchers like the Project Zero people don't just publish exploit details and sample codes on day 1 suggests that it might not actually be in the best interest of users to do it. It may actually cause far more damage to the users than giving the manufacturers the standard time to patch. As a matter of fact every such disclosure made "irresponsibly/uncoordinated" on Twitter was universally condemned by security researchers and software providers alike. Doing something "responsibly" isn't just the prerogative or duty of security researchers. It's a general term which means "putting thought into it".
        maxerickson 7y ago
        I think you are wrong about "universally". Probably widely condemned, I doubt it was universal, unless you are drawing convenient definitions where anyone who thought it was fine wouldn't be a security researcher.
      - snowwrestler 7y ago
        Ok, and I agree that "responsible" is not the right word, but let's also acknowledge the asymmetry that often exists between the users and the bad guys. Telling users that their device or software is vulnerable is not really useful to them unless it comes with a patch. Very few users have the knowledge, skill, or access to directly alter their technology to secure it, based on a vulnerability report. Most don't even know how to be aware of such reports, or even that they should be. "Cyber bad guys" are more likely to be aware of and able to act upon a vulnerability report, as they have more knowledge than most users, and their entire mode of operation is that they don't wait for access or permission. This is why "coordinated" disclosure is sometimes better. By announcing the vulnerability with the patch, the asymmetry between users and bad guys is better balanced. Users can be reasonably expected to install patches when notified to do so. Of course there are all sorts of exceptions, such as when data is actively being leaked or exfiltrated, which users could delete or remove. Or when the security vulnerability affects systems managed by people sophisticated enough to take direct mitigating action, like changing server configuration or cycling keys.

danw1979 7y ago

Apple should be performing this kind of research themselves on such a high profile target as iOS. If you let a competitor discover stuff like this then you kind of deserved to get "hit".

kps 7y ago

As mentioned in the article, they looked at Android messaging earlier this year: https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/03/android-messaging-few-bugs-short-of.html https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/03/android-messa...