4 ms·
If these are gargantuan, how would you describe a remote zero click complete device compromise (complete with camera/microphone access)? What about an exploit t
by hsbauauvhabzb 5y ago
If these are gargantuan, how would you describe a remote zero click complete device compromise (complete with camera/microphone access)? What about an exploit that can cause the users phone to explode?
- kbenson 5y ago> What about an exploit that can cause the users phone to explode? Possibly world ending, at least from the perspective of the user whose phone explodes next to their face?
- hsbauauvhabzb 5y agoI’m not saying the above issues don’t matter, but they’re hardly the most critical things you could do to an iPhone.
- klyrs 5y agoDo like GM, keep your phone at least 5 feet away from other phones while not in use.
- sam0x17 5y agoYou can do a lot more damage with someone's bank account than you can by exploding their phone.
- hsbauauvhabzb 5y agoWon’t matter much if it burns your house down while you’re inside. A complete compromise can also get access to your bank, mail accounts, message history, mic and camera. Which vulnerability would you prefer be used against you?
- bnjemian 5y agoI'd marry mic access, F#$% camera access, and kill bank access. Maybe that's just a personal opinion, though.
- saagarjha 5y agoDepends on where the phone is at the time. Do it while they’re on a call and it’s going to really suck.
- midasuni 5y agoCurrently holding my phone, with a full charge. Basically a hand grenade, about 12” from my face, with (thanks to oversized phones), both hands on it. At best id be blind and unable to use my hands. I don’t give a stuff about my bank account compared with that.
- kube-system 5y agoThere are no explosives in a phone though. Lithium batteries might burn when short circuited... however, this requires physically damaging the battery, or shorting the circuitry. This requires some seriously silly hardware vulnerabilities (lithium cell protection is typically implemented in dedicated silicon), not simply a software vulnerability. And if you could successfully perform an exploit like this, you would probably drop the phone before it hurt you. https://youtu.be/osfgkFyq7lA?t=246 https://youtu.be/osfgkFyq7lA?t=246
- 58x14 5y agoI would be an order of magnitude less concerned with camera/mic access, compared to perfect historical proof of my usage and communication patterns. Exploits often feel like pathogens, probably why they share the term virus. If a virus has a high mortality rate, contagion is lower, because it frequently kills the host before it can spread. Similarly, I think a 'complete device compromise' is much more likely to be identified, prioritized, and patched. The vulnerabilities mentioned here represent the highest severity without an immediately noticeable fallout. Props to the researcher. P.S. I wonder if the researcher's Russian nationality (assumed from their other post) had any impact on their lack of payout.
- pvg 5y agoIt's hardly 'perfect historical proof', not to diminish the seriousness of the vulnerability. But more importantly, the mechanism matters a great deal. This particular vulnerability requires the install of a malicious app, a much higher bar than a 'drive by' exploitation. This leaves a trace and exposes the attacker to consequences. No (statistically speaking) app producer with any interest in continuing to use the platform would deploy such an exploit even if they had access to it.
- hsbauauvhabzb 5y agoI’ve always been curious how many developers might drop this in their code but only activate against potentially valuable targets
- pvg 5y agoI'd think also almost zero. A lot of sleazy data collection operates under at least some fig leaf pretense of user consent, in this case there's none. Once the vulnerability is discovered, Apple could find out if you've deployed such code more or less ever. Then you'd probably have problems bigger than just a contractual dispute with Apple.
- tonypace 5y ago
- mdoms 5y agoGargantuan.