Live data from Hacker News

A 0-click exploit chain for the Pixel 10

projectzero.google

211–220 of 255 posts

Re: A 0-click exploit chain for the Pixel 10

#211
post #116

> This is rendered even easier by the fact that the kernel is always at the same physical address on Pixel OpenBSD fixed this back in 2017.

KASLR has been supported on Linux for a long time as well (2014). It has been disabled for GKI images for reasons:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux....

Re: A 0-click exploit chain for the Pixel 10

#212

Where are the iPhone jailbreaks didn’t see anything since a long time.. what’s happening? Did I miss them or isn’t anything available? I mean props to Apple however they do it but is it a matter of time in regard to the current timeline or what is actually going on?

Always annoyed me how "Jailbreaks" don't get the same scrutiny as they're software vulnerabilities as they do on other platforms...

Re: A 0-click exploit chain for the Pixel 10

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're quite open about it. https://grapheneos.org/features#attack-surface-reduction

You said removing features. This link is talking about making certain feautures optional and disabled by default, not removing them.

Disabled, is removed...

Removed from operation

Re: A 0-click exploit chain for the Pixel 10

#214
post #66

I followed the link to the Pixel 9 bug/exploit and saw this: "Over the past few years, several AI-powered features have been added to mobile phones that allow users to better search and understand their messages. One effect of this change is increased 0-click attack surface, as efficient analysis often requires message media to be decoded before the message is opened by the user" Haven't we learned our lesson on this…

I was at an "AI Security" talk recently, that centred around "While we blindly will injest inputs to and from AI, and that's a security issue. There's nothing we can do, so just deal with the aftermath". Including saying "If a threat actor updates your internal documentation, they can use that to influence the AI". If a THREAT ACTOR IS UPDATING DOCUMENTATION, YOU'RE COMPROMISE! We're not talking about "Wikipedia Vand…

A "threat actor" can be a company employee who is intentionally permitted to update internal documentation, but not intentionally permitted to change the behavior of an LLM whose context window includes that documentation.

I think it's reasonable for a security conference to talk about how if you put the internal documentation in the LLM context, that means you're elevating the permissions of anyone who can edit the documentation by transitively giving them the ability to instruct the LLM in its "actions" (outputs).

While it should be obvious that's what you're doing, I would say most people I talk to about LLMs do not understand that all parts of the context window together shape LLM output, and there is no such thing as "only obey instructions from the system prompt".

Re: A 0-click exploit chain for the Pixel 10

#215
post #66

I followed the link to the Pixel 9 bug/exploit and saw this: "Over the past few years, several AI-powered features have been added to mobile phones that allow users to better search and understand their messages. One effect of this change is increased 0-click attack surface, as efficient analysis often requires message media to be decoded before the message is opened by the user" Haven't we learned our lesson on this…

I was at an "AI Security" talk recently, that centred around "While we blindly will injest inputs to and from AI, and that's a security issue. There's nothing we can do, so just deal with the aftermath". Including saying "If a threat actor updates your internal documentation, they can use that to influence the AI". If a THREAT ACTOR IS UPDATING DOCUMENTATION, YOU'RE COMPROMISE! We're not talking about "Wikipedia Vand…

My first thought was in agreement, “do they not realize that docs are context, sometimes even prompts, for humans too?”

My second thought was “perhaps they’re just very forward-thinking”, and now I’m sad about the future again.

Re: A 0-click exploit chain for the Pixel 10

#216
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't because no ISA implements add like that, so there's always performance on the table if you check every time, and people would probably endlessly moan about how Rust is 20% slower than C on this add-heavy microbenchmark. That said you can enable overflow checks in Rust's release mode. It's literally two lines: [profile.release] overflow-checks = true I wonder if it would make sense for ISAs to have trapping v…

> It isn't because no ISA implements add like that MIPS does (did?). And VAX, IBM/360, ....

overflow check insns also in 6502 (bvs), x86 (into), m68k (trapv) - the gp was after something that wouldn't need to be checked every time, if interpreted as "no extra instructions" then that's a tall order. But the checks are practically free in modern big core CPUs since we have so much spare capacity in issue width in 99% of workloads.

Re: A 0-click exploit chain for the Pixel 10

#217
post #68

fascinating how GrapheneOS achieves high security level on the same hardware where Google failed to even randomize android's kernel location

Is Graphene vulnerable to these exploits?

The more interesting question is whether GrapheneOS had this vulnerability.

This published exploit sounds to be highly specialized to the specific build options.

Re: A 0-click exploit chain for the Pixel 10

#218
post #66

I followed the link to the Pixel 9 bug/exploit and saw this: "Over the past few years, several AI-powered features have been added to mobile phones that allow users to better search and understand their messages. One effect of this change is increased 0-click attack surface, as efficient analysis often requires message media to be decoded before the message is opened by the user" Haven't we learned our lesson on this…

> requires message media to be decoded before the message is opened by the user

I like seeing thumbnail previews of images in messages

Re: A 0-click exploit chain for the Pixel 10

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you happen to notice the phrase "stripping out code" in the first sentence?

And which features have been removed, as you claim? Removing code is not necessarily removing features. I use GOS and I honestly can't think of a missing feature compared to the stock OS, other than stuff not in AOSP in the first place, like gemini.

[deleted]

Re: A 0-click exploit chain for the Pixel 10

#220
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree that there is no evidence that Lockdown mode is effective; there have been numerous exposed, active iOS exploitation campaigns of which none have worked against Lockdown mode. When we're trying to prove a negative, that's actually some of the strongest evidence we can get. The economics of the device exploitation industry are completely orthogonal from bug bounty payouts; the markets only overlap…

I don't necessarily disagree but a lot of chains will bail out if they find like the Norton Antivirus app on your phone so

In this case the body of evidence is still quite powerful though, given that not only do we not have any forensic evidence of compromise from a phone with Lockdown Mode, but in all public cases where chains were RE'd back out of the forensic evidence, they don't work when tested on Lockdown Mode! So, there's even signal that the lack of forensics indicating Lockdown Mode compromises is not due to artificial targeting or detonation gates, but rather successful mitigation.

(as an aside): I'm not trying to say Lockdown Mode is infallible; I am sure phones in Lockdown Mode are or will be compromised. But it's clearly a very powerful tool, and to try to argue that it is some kind of marketing-driven conspiracy, against the body of evidence of its success, using bug bounty payout numbers (???), as the grandparent post did, is ridiculous.

Post reply on HN