Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 352 posts

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#131

Post by zie »

jjoonathan wrote: post #58
idlewords wrote: post #52

This is pretty irksome. I get how satisfying it must feel, but the one thing I want as a Signal proponent is for the app to be boring and reliable. That means make it easy to use enough to be mainstream, squash bugs, and do all the lovely security work you do. That does not mean adding stuff like untraceable cryptocurrency payments or very publicly tweaking the noses of law enforcement, and bragging about how you're…

Signal isn't going to actually do it, they know how that would end, they're just playing the FUD game in the other direction. Which I am 100% on board with.

The client code is open source, so it should be pretty easy to tell if they actually do it.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#132

Post by wglb »

Zak wrote: post #116
wglb wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is unlikely to be the case, despite the vulnerabilities that are described. The process of e-discovery is rife with risks of this sort. When you forensically collect data from a random set of devices from a party that may or may not have porn, HIPAA, GDPR, sample viruses, malware, who know what all. The short version of it even if the inhaling of this data crashes the device, there are mitigations and protection…

The vulnerability claimed here doesn't necessarily crash the computer running the software. It runs arbitrary code, and said code is able to modify the data Cellebrite extracts. It is not clear whether it is possible to detect whether data collected in the past is compromised. There may be mitigations, but without knowing the full details of the exploit, it sounds a lot like reasonable doubt to me. A good lawyer woul…

If the data is off on another server, it seems unlikely that past cases can be compromised.

There are a whole set of rules about challenging evidence, including electronic evidence. Keep in mind that the other side gets a crack at it also. It is unlikely that the whole case would be thrown out because of a corrupted file. Reasonable doubt is not part of the forensic process--this is what a jury needs to consider to render a verdict.

As pointed out elsewhere, many uses of this tool are extrajudicial.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#134

Post by franga2000 »

TheGeminon wrote: post #127
barbazoo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it, can anyone elaborate on what they are talking about there?

They are implying that future versions of Signal will drop random files on your phone that "may or may not" cause damage to Cellebrite systems. They are basically putting the threat out that if you use Cellebrite on Signal in the future, you might not get the data you expect, and at worst, it may corrupt the report/evidence. This also brings into question the chain of custody, as an untrusted device being imaged can…

Damn, a chain of custody where the thing in evidence is also part of not only its own chain but also those of other evidence acquired afterwards? I can't imagine what kind of case law exists around that, but I'm sure it's hilarious!

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#135

Post by wglb »

tptacek wrote: post #68
godelski wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're failing some basic security it isn't going to give much confidence. But also users don't know now if their systems will explode if they try to gather Signal (or other app) data.

The quality of forensics software is extremely low; a similar story was once written about EnCase, and had zero impact on any legal case anywhere.

As in https://www.securityweek.com/forensics-tool-flaw-allows-hack...., yet it is used in cases large and small, civil, criminal, federal state.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#137

Post by da_big_ghey »

supergirl wrote: post #114
paddlesteamer wrote: post #3

> In completely unrelated news, upcoming versions of Signal will be periodically fetching files to place in app storage. These files are never used for anything inside Signal and never interact with Signal software or data, but they look nice, and aesthetics are important in software. I wish I could see those files in action...

signal wants to pick a fight with a grey company that gets money for cracking apps? not a good idea

one could view make of an e2e encrypt app that is cause problem for polices as "not a good idea" but there must be some person for to do it.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#138

Post by baby »

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #106
baby wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing reactions like GP’s I’m surprised at how many people don’t know this expression.

If English is your second language, you may not have come across it. It's a very informal and infrequent idiom.

FWIW we have the exact same expression in French “c’est tombé du camion”

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#139

Post by CloselyChunky »

baby wrote: post #138
f38zf5vdt wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If English is your second language, you may not have come across it. It's a very informal and infrequent idiom.

FWIW we have the exact same expression in French “c’est tombé du camion”

Dito for German: "vom Laster gefallen"

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#140

Post by saagarjha »

carstenhag wrote: post #130
sodality2 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are more advanced typically than just extracting data from a phone. Not sure to which extent they advertise it brazenly though. Fairly certain they blog about it a lot

the cellebrite ambassador we talked to (as private company) basically bragged they were the ones that unlocked the San Bernadirno iPhone. I'm sure towards government officials and Law Enforcement they brag even more.

But they weren’t, that was Azimuth: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/14/azimuth...
Post reply on HN