Live data from Hacker News

Viewing profile — grugq

grugq

HN member
Joined
Sat, Jun 15, 2013, 3:16 AM UTC
HN karma
1,005
Public activity
178 items

About grugq

No profile information was provided.

Recent public activity

  1. comment
    Comment #48982471

    Bulk reply to all the people replying. bink is correct. The people who buy exploits are governments. There is very little interest in Wordpress or indeed any target that isn't a br…

  2. comment
    Comment #48981639

    this is the most accurate summary.

  3. comment
    Comment #43053064

    There has been some research done on this particular anonymous newsgroup. “Deanonymising alt anonymous messages” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5JBMyxvuH8 The accompanying blog p…

  4. comment
    Comment #41599387

    > Even minutiae should have a place in our collection, for things of a seemingly trifling nature, when enjoined with others of a more serious cast, may lead to valuable conclusion.…

  5. comment
    Comment #40843419

    In retrospect I really should have included the title with the link.

  6. comment
    Comment #40843405

    And you can detect when you are being ptrace()d because a process cannot be ptrace()d twice. Unless they changed Linux again. There are also timing issues that show up, and you can…

  7. comment
    Comment #40843346

    Author here. The context of this post is somewhat important. It is a direct response to a post titled: Symbiote Deep-Dive: Analysis of a New, Nearly-Impossible-to-Detect Linux Thre…

  8. comment
    Comment #40843294

    Bringing your own static linked busybox will still evade that rootkit. If the attacker has modified the environment to present a specific view of system state, bringing your own en…

  9. comment
    Comment #40136157

    "Prabhakar Raghavan is killing Google" "Google's Death from Within: Prabhakar Raghavan" "Blame Prabhakar Raghavan for Google's Crappy Search" "Google Sucks. Because of Prabhakar Ra…

  10. comment
    Comment #38831506

    Oh, it’s far far worse than that. Just the core operation would be: open() — network round trip fstat() — network round trip brk() — network round trip read() — network round trip …

  11. comment
    Comment #38831461

    Merry OPSEC, and a happy OPSEC Year!

  12. comment
    Comment #38827685

    Yup, probably the more robust approach.

  13. comment
    Comment #38827666

    Syscall proxying was very old even when I wrote that article. The problem with syscall proxying is that it is slow. Take any process and imagine adding network latency to every sin…

  14. comment
    Comment #38827173

    Ah, so, in 2005 I wrote about that when I implemented rexec() — remote exec() — which takes a binary and then copies it over an arbitrary text only link (like ssh) and executes it …

  15. comment
    Comment #38824698

    The history actually goes back quite a bit further. Exactly 20 years ago I wrote and released userland exec(). https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2004/Jan/2 Good to see that the techniqu…

  16. comment
    Comment #38807441

    he was more specific, but I (a) don't remember the name off the top of my head, and (b) don't think it is beneficial to put them on blast. It isn't their fault they got hacked 20 y…

  17. comment
  18. comment
    Comment #38807389

    What is there to say about the hack? Like everything back then it was probably accomplished by exploiting trust relationships. I can ask him, but it is not at interesting 20 years …

  19. comment
  20. comment
    Comment #38807338

    the hacker. I interviewed the sysadmins about it.

  21. comment
    Comment #38806124

    Am I missing something? That seems to link to a Linux backdoor, not a backdoor in Linux.

  22. comment
    Comment #38805998

    I have the full story on that incident. It is actually really funny. If the guy who did it wants to come forward, that is his decision. [edit: I won't name names.] He did provided …

  23. comment
    Comment #37034399

    It didn’t exist when I wrote this.

  24. comment
    Comment #37031883

    The original date for this is actually 2004. Maybe 2003, but I can’t find an archival link. I wrote the code because someone asked how to do this and it was easier to implement it …

  25. comment
    Comment #37031794

    It is actually from 2004. :)