Hacker News Reader

Comment by phreack | Hacker News Reader

I can't believe this is not a "drop everything and get it fixed ASAP" bug. This makes me think there's probably tons of other similar bugs out there being exploited right now even with disclosure.

View on HN

The security researchers only mistake was letting Google fart around for so long.

You give them 90 days, then you go public. That is the policy Google Project Zero holds other companies to, so it is only fair to hold Google to the same standard.

People using their device for high risk applications need to be informed in a timely manner, and Google needs to pay a reputational price for their negligence.

70,000 reasons to think long and hard about that appraoch though :-D

An alternative would be to go show a bunch of journalists that you can unlock their phone and have this all over the news. You get your name /really/ out there for holding Google accountable for security negligence and ignoring a very reasonable 90 day window. The exposure could lead to millions in security consulting contract work over time if played right.

Disclosing on time is a way to force companies to fix the bugs, and to get a major social capital boost that can be used to get a return on the time investment.

Personally I love when companies try to call my bluff. Great chance to educate the public on why they should not be trusted.

I suspect if he started the conversation with a 90 day disclosure window they would have offered him $100k immediately to extend the deadline. Of course, you'd have to consult a lawyer to make sure you don't technically cross the line into blackmail.

If you use a Pixel for high risk applications you are a bit at fault here

What a weird argument. So if the law enforcement of your country uses this technique to unlock your phone without your permission(or you know, some criminal does that), that's your fault for using a Pixel phone? You should have known better than you know, buying a phone from one of the largest software houses on the planet?

I smell a fair hint of victim blaming here.

> I smell a fair hint of victim blaming here.

Why is that a bad thing? You should absolutely blame and hold the victim responsible and accountable for their part.

So let me rephrase my question - what part of the blame should be assigned to the victim here, if their "fault" was buying a phone made and marketed by one of the largest and most well known software developers on the planet?

Also, this is an interesting discussion in general. If someone forgets to lock their door and a thief gets in and robs them, do you think it's fair to "blame" the person who forgot to lock their door? Or do you think that maybe we should recognize that 100% of the blame should be on you know, the person doing the robbing?

I agree that there's not any significantly better phone options, but no I would not place 100% of the blame on the robber. When we're talking about possessions, theft is a reasonably foreseeable consequence and not an outrageous action, so the owner can get a small slice of blame.

> If someone forgets to lock their door and a thief gets in and robs them, do you think it's fair to "blame" the person who forgot to lock their door?

No, but let's say they've bought from a manufacturer who is not most well known for their lock mechanisms, wouldn't it be the user's responsibility to find a better alternative? You're to be held accountable for your part.

You're making the assumption that the average person thinks Google employs the “most well known software developers on the planet” – that's your subjective take, not anything close to common knowledge

I disagree with this. There isn't a consumer-level alternative to the security provided by a pixel if you want to use a cell phone right now. I guess you can argue that the iphone is better, but without a specific threat model to discuss, it's like arguing mountain dew is not healthy so you should drink dr. pepper.

iOS has had many flaws this bad or worse, so what would you have people use?

I agree current gen smartphones should not trusted for high risk uses but the reality is, they are. There are staggering numbers of people using their phones for banking, crypto trading, or to transmit sensitive information that could collapse markets or start wars.

Also consider not all journalists or dissidents get a choice in what phone they can afford.

Security issues like this can be life or death, and security researchers must sometimes -force- companies to treat them as such.

> iOS has had many flaws this bad or worse

Has iOS had a Lock Screen bypass in recent history?

There have been MANY such attacks against the iPhone (and every other device), most of them against the biometrics mechanisms, which tend to be pretty weak as a matter of first principles. Add to that the persistent hints/rumors/claims of gray market unlock/rooting kits available to large entities. Phones just aren't that secure, though they're much more so than they were a decade ago. Security vs. physical access is an extremely hard nut to crack, it's only been in the last few years that we genuinely thought it was even possible.

Okay, but fooling a biometrics sensor is not exactly a Lock Screen bypass. Has iOS had a Lock Screen bypass?

Fooling a biometric sensor is precisely a lock screen bypass, that's what the biometrics are for. By that logic the linked bug was "fooling the SIM security layer" and not a "lock screen bypass". Don't play that game, it's bad logic and bad security practice.

But it’s a fundamentally different type of security bug: these biometrics bypasses require knowing something about the user (lift a fingerprint, picture of a face, etc).

I see this as a different class: I can grab an unknown person’s Pixel they left in a coffee shop and get into it.

Cellebrite sits on a pile of unlock exploits for Apple devices and sells unlocking services to law enforcement, or presumably anyone with money.

https://cellebrite.com/en/cas-sales-inquiry/

Zerodium brokers sales of iOS FCP Zero Click for $2m. I expect they sell to people like Cellebrite who can make a profit selling expensive unlocks and keeping the vuln secret.

https://www.zerodium.com/program.html

All phones are security shit shows. It is just a game of how well known this months exploits are and how much someone has to gain by targeting you.

It has had multiple remote, zero click remote code execution exploits so it's actually worse?

If you use any always-listening (see rooting exploits over wifi beacons) general purpose computer for high risk applications, it's a bit your fault.

This was kind of my experience with reporting a bug to Google as well. Some years ago I managed to upload a SWF file to "google.com" which allowed me to do an XSS and access anyone's gmail, contacts, etc. I reported it and they just initially never responded and I had to constantly follow up. It was seemingly a simple bug to fix but it took them a couple months and they eventually only paid $500. Being able to exfiltrate data out of someone's gmail account always seemed high priority to me but I guess not lol.

Do you mind sharing a weite-up about that bug?

I forget which Pixel generation.

For one generation Google I believe never shipped the ability to unlock your phone with your face. Despite having all the hardware on the phone, it just didn't have the feature.

This was a serious feature deficit viz a viz the relevant iPhone at the time.

The gossip was, the feature was finished, completely.

Had to be ripped out after external pen-testing bypassed it with Facebook photos.

They have many, big, problems.

Android introduced face unlocking in 2011[0]. It used the regular front camera and hence had no depth information, which makes it vulnerable to photos[1]. It was removed in Android 10, when a new face authentication interface[2] was added. Face unlocking without specialized hardware such as what iPhones have is not secure.

[0] https://www.androidauthority.com/face-unlock-android-4-0-ice...

[1] https://www.androidauthority.com/android-jelly-bean-face-unl...

[2] https://source.android.com/docs/security/features/biometric/...

Pixel is on generation 7. Only two supported face unlock: 4 and 7.

6 was rumored to have it, but it was never delivered.

6 and 7 are equivalent hardware-wise for face unlock: neither has the sensors to do it in a highly secure manner. 7’s face unlock therefore doesn’t give you access to the most sensitive stuff, like bank accounts, requiring supplemental, secure authentication, such as fingerprint.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about - the only generation that had LIDAR was Pixels 4/4XL and those shipped with face unlock.

There WAS a rumor about Pixel 6, but it doesn't have any special face unlocking camera. Pixel 7 does support face unlock without special hardware with caveat that it's less secure.

> This was a serious feature deficit viz a viz the relevant iPhone at the time.

IIRC, the iPhone uses not just a photo from the selfie cam, but adds infrared to construct a sort-of-3d-ish depth map of your face as well - that is what defeats a simple attempt at unlocking with photos.

Now, the really interesting thing to research is if a silicone molded face mask could be used to fool the iPhone into unlocking. Photos or videos of the subject in multiple angles should be enough to create a decent enough 3D face copy.

Won’t work -

https://9to5mac.com/2019/12/16/3d-mask/amp/

Muscle movement is also now necessary so it’s pretty difficult to circumvent

That just sounds like you need a proper mask that can be worn. And it doesn't sound like it even needs to fit.

Betcha someone will make a silicone mask that twitches.

A video rotating around a subject + nerfs could maybe get you the 3D face copy pretty easily

> Despite having all the hardware on the phone

Did Pixel phones really have a frontal lidar?

Pixel 4 had dedicated hardware (project Soli)

Soli != hardware for face unlock.

It had 2xIR cameras, flood illuminator and a dot project for that purpose. Soli was a gimmick on top of that, so it would enable that hardware above when you were reaching with your hand for the phone.

In my case it was a gimmick because I don't see much difference between face unlock times when I reach for the phone and the most useful feature for me (swiping to change music) was working also when my windshield had wipers working.

I dream of a Pixel with normal face unlock (like in Pixel 4, not the crippled on in Pixel 7) but without Soli.

I can't believe that they ditched it after just one generation, now I'm stuck. And only reason to upgrade would be a Pixel that has photos >12mpix (not just the sensor).

Incidentally, I said to myself I would buy a Pixel 5 if it had Soli as well because it would show that Google was becoming serious about supporting features for more than 1 generation.

Predictably, I never bought a Pixel 5 or 6 or 7.

There's exactly one drop everything and get it fixed ASAP bug at Google - something broke the ad platform.

If its not a "Bank error in your favor - collect $200" error that favors Google.

I've seen multiple instances of Google failing to correctly triage critical security issues. I can only conclude from these organizational failures that Google leadership doesn't really take security seriously.

Here's another example of a critical vulnerability in GCP that Google sat on for 9 months: https://github.com/irsl/gcp-dhcp-takeover-code-exec

yeah right? after the article mentioned that he waited 2 months, I was already shocked, then he mentioned 3 months, and so on.. sometimes it's just annoying to report something really important and still you don't get enough attention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com