4 ms·
I think phones are also relatively hardened so the attack surfaces are not super convenient. Bluetooth: get in reach of an attacker (and from another comment:
by anotheryou 7y ago
I think phones are also relatively hardened so the attack surfaces are not super convenient.
Bluetooth: get in reach of an attacker (and from another comment: have your device searching for bluetooth devices)
Web-stuff: if a patched browser doesn't help you are still relatively safe browsing all the non-infecting websites in the world.
file-stuff: you have to be stupid enough to open files, on your phone, from phishy mails (unless you are targeted they are always suspiciously generic, even when spreading from a hacked acquaintance )
I guess if there was a vulnerability where you could remotely gain full control over a phone without any action on the phone side you'd indeed have phone botnets. Looks like there are no such vulnerabilities.
Take what I write with a grain of salt, I'm actually just a noob trying to make sense of this, too.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago> Bluetooth: get in reach of an attacker This part looks very different if the attack is a worm. How many phones are not in reach of another vulnerable phones at least once a workday?
- sieabahlpark 7y agoDing ding ding! Attack one and get them all. Can't wait for the next DNS attack that takes down the internet from this.
- mavhc 7y agoThe stagefright stuff was never fixed for most people I'd bet, it's just odd that no one's just decided to try to take over a billion phones. 90% of them don't seem to get monthly patches in a timely manner/at all, or are so old there's no patch anyway.
- anotheryou 7y agobut an MMS costs money, doesn't it? And it has do go through the carriers who might stop mass-sms like that.