"Researchers said they've uncovered a security vulnerability that could allow attackers to take full control of smartphones running Google's Android mobile operating system." So, how bad is this? Can anybody with knowledge of Android's inner workings explain?
Privacy, Security Archive
Google is changing its disclosure policy for zero-day exploits - both in their own software as in that of others - from 60 days do 7 days. "Seven days is an aggressive timeline and may be too short for some vendors to update their products, but it should be enough time to publish advice about possible mitigations, such as temporarily disabling a service, restricting access, or contacting the vendor for more information. As a result, after 7 days have elapsed without a patch or advisory, we will support researchers making details available so that users can take steps to protect themselves. By holding ourselves to the same standard, we hope to improve both the state of web security and the coordination of vulnerability management." I support this 100%. It will force notoriously slow-responding companies - let's not mention any names - to be quicker about helping their customers. Google often uncovers vulnerabilities in other people's software (e.g. half of patches fixed on some Microsoft 'patch Tuesdays' are uncovered by Google), so this could have a big impact.
"Last week, the Dutch Minister of Safety and Justice asked the Parliament of the Netherlands to pass a law allowing police to obtain warrants to do the following: install malware on targets’ private computers, conduct remote searches on local and foreign computers to collect evidence, and delete data on remote computers in order to disable the accessibility of 'illegal files'. Requesting assistance from the country where the targetted computer(s) were located would be 'preferred' but possibly not required. These proposals are alarming, could have extremely problematic consequences, and may violate European human rights law." You get true net neutrality with one hand, but this idiocy with another. This reminds me a lot of how some of our busy intersections are designed; by people who bike to city hall all their lives and have no clue what it's like to drive a car across their pretty but extremely confusing and hence dangerous intersections.
Kaspersky is working on its own secure operating system for highly specialised tasks. "We're developing a secure operating system for protecting key information systems (industrial control systems) used in industry/infrastructure. Quite a few rumors about this project have appeared already on the Internet, so I guess it's time to lift the curtain (a little) on our secret project and let you know (a bit) about what's really going on." More here.
As it turns out, new Verizon customers (although there are reports existing customers are getting notified too) have 30 days to opt out of something really nasty: Verizon will sell your browsing history and location history to marketers. Apparently, AT&T does something similar. Doesn't matter what phone - iOS, Android, anything. Incredibly scummy and nasty. I quickly checked my own Dutch T-Mobile terms, and they don't seem to be doing this.
Following the leak of a million Apple UDIDs, a US app developer has come forward saying it is the source of the leak. It says the FBI never had the data, and the full set is "only" 2 million entries rather than the 12 million AntiSec claimed.
"It is time for us to make a change. ClamAV is now mature software and we are confident that Sourcefire will successfully continue its development, move it forward and maintain the integrity of its infrastructure. Matt Watchinski, who has headed Sourcefire's Vulnerability Research Team for 10 years, will continue to lead this project. Joel Esler, the company's Open Source community manager, will also be your main point of contact and advocate."
Bad day for LinkedIn: not only did 6 million of their passwords get stolen and published online (as SHA1 hashes, but still), their iOS and Android applications uploaded your calendars to LinkedIn (after opting in, though). The Sensationalist Headline of the Day Award goes to Ars Technica. I guess everyone's starting to feel the sting of The Verge's fully deserved success.
"Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks - begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games - even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet." And we're letting these people have unmanned drones. Seems legit.
"A massive, highly sophisticated piece of malware has been newly found infecting systems in Iran and elsewhere and is believed to be part of a well-coordinated, ongoing, state-run cyberespionage operation. The malware, discovered by Russia-based anti-virus firm Kaspersky Lab, is an espionage toolkit that has been infecting targeted systems in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, the Israeli Occupied Territories and other countries in the Middle East and North Africa for at least two years. Dubbed 'Flame' by Kaspersky, the malicious code dwarfs Stuxnet in size." Since I'm not particularly well-versed in the subject, maybe someone can answer this question for me: if country A creates a malware infection like this to spy on and/or harm computers in country B, can it be construed as an act of war under existing international law?
OSNews sponsor Tradepub has a special offer for our readers: Normally $9.95, the "Scrappy Information Security Kit", containing: "Scrappy Information Security", "Best Practices and Applications of TLS/SSL," "A Window into Mobile Device Security", and "The Cloud: Promises and Realities" (registration required).
"And just when you thought the whole Stuxnet/Duqu trojan saga couldn't get any crazier, a security firm who has been analyzing Duqu writes that it employs a programming language that they've never seen before." Pretty crazy, especially when you consider what some think the mystery language looks like "The unknown c++ looks like the older IBM compilers found in OS400 SYS38 and the oldest sys36.The C++ code was used to write the tcp/ip stack for the operating system and all of the communications."
When was the last time you reverse-engineered all the PCI devices on your motherboard?. . . Enters the game-changer: IOMMU (known as VT-d on Intel). With proper OS/VMM design, this technology can address the very problem of most of the hardware backdoors. A good example of a practical system that allows for that is Xen 3.3, which supports VT-d and allows you to move drivers into a separate, unprivileged driver domain(s). This way each PCI device can be limited to DMA only to the memory region occupied by its own driver.
According to Microsoft, Google is circumventing the P3P third party cookie standard. P3P is kind of an odd standard (complex, not user-friendly, and it requires some serious computer knowledge to know what the heck it actually does and means), but hey, what the heck. Of course, Microsoft rides on the coattails of what happened over the weekend, and it's clear PR because not only has this been known for years, Google is - again - not the only one doing this; Facebook, for instance, does the same thing (and heck, Microsoft's own sites were found guilty). Still, this is not acceptable, and even if it takes Microsoft PR to get there, let's hope this forces Google and Facebook to better their ways.
Well, paint me red and call me a girl scout: Facebook, Google, and several other advertising networks are using a loophole to make sure third party cookies could still be installed on Safari and Mobile Safari, even though those two browsers technically shouldn't allow such cookies. Google has already ceased the practice, and in fact, closed the loophole in WebKit itself months ago.
"A hybrid solution that takes the best parts of iOS's one-by-one acceptance and Android's expressed and obvious intents seems like a proper model here. In fact, Apple has many of the pieces in place elsewhere." This is a big issue. Nor Android's model (just list a bunch of confusing permissions), nor Apple's model (individual modal dialogs for each permission) is particularly workable - I doubt regular users check them on Android before installing an application, and in the case of iOS, Apple didn't think it was necessary to secure the address book, so every application has access to it without alerting users. Justin Williams proposes a hybrid solution.
A malicious message sent to Windows Phone's message hub can disable the handset in a manner reminiscent of the "nuking" attack from the Windows 95 days. At the point the bad message is received, the phone reboots, and worst of all, it appears that the message hub application is permanently disabled. Back when people used to only use their phones to call and text, you'd perhaps think that having your phone reboot on you would be no big deal. But these days I find myself often as not composing some important missive.
If you're modest, think twice before having sex in your van, truck, or RV. Law enforcement uses roving vans with backscatter X-ray technology to peer inside vehicles (the same technology used in airport body scanners). In the Land of the Free, authorities don't request search warrants. More at Forbes here and here. What, you don't want an X-ray bath?
In order to not end up with ten different posts or endless updates to the previous one, I'm using this post to assemble all the official responses from both carriers and device makers alike concerning the CarrierIQ rootkit/spyware/whatever. Update: Added official statement from HP regarding webOS (see bottom).
So, this has been causing a bit of a major dungstorm - and rightly so. As it turns out, many carriers are installing a piece of non-removable privacy-invading spyware on their smartphones called CarrierIQ. It doesn't matter whether you have a
webOS, Android, BlackBerry or iOS device - carriers install it on all of them. Luckily though, it would appear it really depends on your carrier - smartphones in The Netherlands, for instance, are not infested with CarrierIQ. Update: As John Gruber rightfully points out, ever so verbosely, the headline here isn't particularly well-chosen. The article makes all this clear, but the headline doesn't. It's my birthday today, so my head wasn't totally in it - my apologies! Update II: Just got a statement from an HP spokesperson: "HP does not install nor authorize its partners to embed Carrier IQ on its webOS devices."