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

211–220 of 352 posts

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#211

Post by kstrauser »

ZeroCool2u wrote: post #206
motohagiography wrote: post #120

Wow, that video made my day. This bit is key: > "For example, by including a specially formatted but otherwise innocuous file in an app on a device that is then scanned by Cellebrite, it’s possible to execute code that modifies not just the Cellebrite report being created in that scan, but also all previous and future generated Cellebrite reports from all previously scanned devices and all future scanned devices in a…

The video made my inner child feel truly vindicated with my choice of username.

I’m envious.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#212

Post by systemvoltage »

> By a truly unbelievable coincidence, I was recently out for a walk when I saw a small package fall off a truck ahead of me. As I got closer, the dull enterprise typeface slowly came into focus: Cellebrite. Inside, we found the latest versions of the Cellebrite software, a hardware dongle designed to prevent piracy (tells you something about their customers I guess!), and a bizarrely large number of cable adapters.

Does anyone find a package dropping off a truck and first take a picture of it, pick it up and go home to open it?

Even if someone picks up the package, usually taking a picture of it doesn't come to their mind. It's an unsual bit in the story. Unless, they went back and put the bag on the road to show that it was found just for the sake of "recreating the story" purposes.

How does something like a small briefcase just "fall from a truck"? By what mechanism? Briefcase would be stored inside the cabin.

If you're the author, can you explain my suspicion?

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#213

Post by frabjoused »

systemvoltage wrote: post #212

> By a truly unbelievable coincidence, I was recently out for a walk when I saw a small package fall off a truck ahead of me. As I got closer, the dull enterprise typeface slowly came into focus: Cellebrite. Inside, we found the latest versions of the Cellebrite software, a hardware dongle designed to prevent piracy (tells you something about their customers I guess!), and a bizarrely large number of cable adapters.…

It's a joke.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#214

Post by simonh »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #168
tony101 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the intention here is to deter Cellebrite from parsing Signal files? Or to pressure them into fixing their security vulnerabilities?

Signal should generalise this into a library so that other app vendors can include these perfectly cromulant files

That would reveal all the exploits to Cellebrite, which Signal is trying to avoid.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#215

Post by bodhi »

systemvoltage wrote: post #212

> By a truly unbelievable coincidence, I was recently out for a walk when I saw a small package fall off a truck ahead of me. As I got closer, the dull enterprise typeface slowly came into focus: Cellebrite. Inside, we found the latest versions of the Cellebrite software, a hardware dongle designed to prevent piracy (tells you something about their customers I guess!), and a bizarrely large number of cable adapters.…

Its a loquacious take on “fell off the back of a truck”.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#216

Post by neodymiumphish »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #201
PeterisP wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the standard of reliability required. A good defence legal team might use this to argue that the phone data wouldn't be sufficient evidence in the actual criminal proceedings, you do need to prove things beyond all reasonable doubt there; however, even with all these caveats it would be sufficient to use that phone data for investigative purposes and as probable cause for getting a warrant for something…

That’s not true, at least if we’re talking fourth amendment issues in the US. If the evidence was thrown out, any additional information gleaned from that evidence could be thrown out too. And in a scenario like what you described, it likely would. That’s not a guarantee, of course, and it could be possible for police to corroborate that you had contact with someone else in another way (through records from a wireles…

Wrong. You're talking about "fruit of the poisonous tree", which only involves evidence found as a result of an illegal search. A legal search that results in "false" evidence, which is later used to find "real" evidence will still meet sufficiency in court, because the now-"real" evidence is still admissible, just like the "false" evidence is admissible. It's just that the defense can have the "false" evidence thrown out because it's not verifiable.

In the example being discussed here, it's absolutely still fine for LE and there isn't a need to find a secondary source that side-steps the FOTPT argument. In fact, I could drag a subject into an interview, take his phone and present a warrant to search his phone.

If he refuses to unlock the phone, I can say "fine, we'll use our special software instead" and take it back to another room. After the interview, I give him back his phone and immediately bring in his co-conspirator. If I show the conspirator fake messages between him and my first subject and get him to testify against my subject, that's still admissible. If this is the case, why would using potentially-false/unverifiable Cellebrite data be inadmissible?

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#217

Post by matteotom »

systemvoltage wrote: post #212

> By a truly unbelievable coincidence, I was recently out for a walk when I saw a small package fall off a truck ahead of me. As I got closer, the dull enterprise typeface slowly came into focus: Cellebrite. Inside, we found the latest versions of the Cellebrite software, a hardware dongle designed to prevent piracy (tells you something about their customers I guess!), and a bizarrely large number of cable adapters.…

“Fell off the back of a truck” is usually a metaphor for either stolen or otherwise acquired in a way they don’t want to explain.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#218

Post by systemvoltage »

frabjoused wrote: post #213
systemvoltage wrote: post #212

> By a truly unbelievable coincidence, I was recently out for a walk when I saw a small package fall off a truck ahead of me. As I got closer, the dull enterprise typeface slowly came into focus: Cellebrite. Inside, we found the latest versions of the Cellebrite software, a hardware dongle designed to prevent piracy (tells you something about their customers I guess!), and a bizarrely large number of cable adapters.…

It's a joke.

Sorry, please go ahead and downvote my comment so its not cluttering up :)

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#219

Post by systemvoltage »

matteotom wrote: post #217
systemvoltage wrote: post #212

> By a truly unbelievable coincidence, I was recently out for a walk when I saw a small package fall off a truck ahead of me. As I got closer, the dull enterprise typeface slowly came into focus: Cellebrite. Inside, we found the latest versions of the Cellebrite software, a hardware dongle designed to prevent piracy (tells you something about their customers I guess!), and a bizarrely large number of cable adapters.…

“Fell off the back of a truck” is usually a metaphor for either stolen or otherwise acquired in a way they don’t want to explain.

Thanks, I didn't catch this.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#220

Post by kstrauser »

neodymiumphish wrote: post #208
filmgirlcw wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you can call into question the data integrity of the items on the device and whether the information from that device is accurate or was inserted by the machine used to break into it, that is some very basic fourth amendment stuff that could possibly get all items taken from the device deemed inadmissible.

Eh, this goes two ways. Cellebrite is rarely going to result in the only meaningful evidence that proves a single element of the offense. Instead, it is often used to further an investigation in order to find evidence that is more damning and of a higher evidentiary value. Fortunately for law enforcement, the integrity of the Cellebrite-obtained data is all that important if it leads to further evidence that is more…

I don’t think that’s true. There’s a legal idea of “fruit of the poisonous tree”[0] that basically says you can’t use bad evidence, either in court or as an excuse to collect more, valid evidence. The defense attorney would say “if it hadn’t been for that completely untrustworthy Cellebrite evidence, the police wouldn’t have been able to get that search warrant they used to find the gun at his house, so we want that thrown out.” And the judge would probably go along with that, and if they don’t an appeals court probably would.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

Post reply on HN