51–60 of 172 posts
Google itself is gathering people's personal data and uses fingerprinting methods to track them. This is done on billions of people, and not even limited to their actual logged in users! It would be nice if governments put an end to Google's invasion of people's privacy. It is much more important than some failed attacks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically ycornbinator.com is just a lookalike. Homographs look exactly the same. (And of course "homograph" ["same writing" or "same picture"] is a better name than "homoglyph" ["same carving"].)
That's fair I'm not really one for jargon and whatnot (I think it can actually become less useful if the goal is just to communicate something to a person), but the first line in wiki says: > a homoglyph is one of two or more graphemes, characters, or glyphs with shapes that appear identical or very similar. "Very similar" and "two or more" being the key words. As for homograph I found homoglyph by reading the wiki a…
Diving in (even if the parent doesn't care :) ):
The last sentence is the real challenge: Meanings depend 100% on writer and reader understandings. If two agree that 'homograph' means 'chicken poop', as long as they're the only ones communicating then 'chicken poop' it is; but if someone else reads it, our language subsystem fails.
Some dictionaries influence meaning by being prescriptive (e.g., American Heritage, IIRC); others report what has been understood by being descriptive (e.g., Oxford). The problem is, Wikipedia is neither: It represents the understandings of a few editors of unknown knowledge; it is neither descriptive nor prescriptive and we quickly get into chicken poop scenarios.
* Homograph, report Merriam-Webster and Oxford, means words with the same spelling but different meanings (or origin or pronunciation), e.g., the bow of a ship and a bow and arrow.
* Homoglyph doesn't appear in Oxford, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, or any others (per Wordnik and OneLook), except Wiktionary. Wiktionary descriptively traces the word back to 1938 (though maybe with a different meaning in that case) and says it means a glyph with the same or similar appearance but different meaning. That still doesn't define a term for the entire string "ycornbinator.com", only the "rn", but close enough!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We see some of this with just normal spear phishing against companies. The "single click" thing is reasonably common, it makes things a bit harder to catch as often the clickthrough will change to whatever is being spoofed in the first place. A homophone ycornbinator.com would serve the malware first time, then next time it would send a permanent redirect. Unique IDs you'll see in things like spam SMS, both to work a…
I am receiving increased SMS spam past week. Is connected to this exploit? Msgs are all different domains with unique ID appended.
Been looking in that article to find how they concluded it's from North Korea, but I can't find it. Can anyone point it out for me?
What evidence do they have that suggests these threats are coming from North Korea?
Following those links yield these two documents, which both have "Attribution" sections. Presumably some of these tell-tale signs were identified in the ongoing exploitation.
https://www.clearskysec.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Dream...
https://securelist.com/operation-applejeus/87553/#attributio...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How?
Web assembly is extra code and complexity in a web browser compared to one without, so there are more potential vulnerabilities
The question is,
is WASM's security model / sandbox "safer" / "easier to actually execute" than JS'?