Live data from Hacker News

Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

signal.org

31–40 of 352 posts

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#31
post #7

This is truly a hacker’s retort. It attacks Cellebrite's ability to operate by casting doubt on the reports generated by the product that their customers may wish to use in court. It places them in legal peril from Apple, and removes any cover Apple would have to not take legal action. (I assume someone at Apple knew they were shipping their DLLs?) It makes a thinly-veiled threat that any random Signal user's data ma…

I really seriously doubt that anyone would ever advance the idea that Signal had deliberately framed them by creating false data on their phone. I don't see this as much more than pointing out that Cellebrite has vulnerabilities, just like the ones they exploit.

You wouldn't imply that Signal had framed you. You would imply that someone else had framed you using the same vulnerabilities as Signal has now indicated exists. i.e. You can't trust Cellebrite because it's now known to be trivial to subvert their software. It's also difficult for Cellebrite to prove that there aren't remaining vulnerabilities in their software since Signal didn't disclose the problems they found and won't do so unless Cellebrite discloses the exploits they claim to be using in Signal.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"fell off the back of a truck" is an idiom [1]. It's not meant literally. [1] https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/fell-off-the-back-of-a-t...

It's like "a little bird told me".

The "parallel construction" of the civilian world.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that trouble becaused a bag conveniently "fell from a truck". All in all I'm really happy for all this.

Indeed, how convenient . If it truly did fall off the truck right while he is on a walk then there is the possibility that is a rubber duckie attack. This is basically the equivalent of leaving a USB flash drive lying around. I hope the author took the necessary precautions when reverse engineering the device. Companies like cellebrite have deep connections to certain three letter communities that staging this sort o…

I think we can be relatively confident that the connected machine was airgapped and perhaps run in a VM.

Perhaps even in a faraday cage..

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#34
post #7

This is truly a hacker’s retort. It attacks Cellebrite's ability to operate by casting doubt on the reports generated by the product that their customers may wish to use in court. It places them in legal peril from Apple, and removes any cover Apple would have to not take legal action. (I assume someone at Apple knew they were shipping their DLLs?) It makes a thinly-veiled threat that any random Signal user's data ma…

All that trouble becaused a bag conveniently "fell from a truck". All in all I'm really happy for all this.

I am happy to see the bag survived its most untimely truck tumble while remaining a e s t h e t i c a l l y - - - p l e a s i n g.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public disclosure about the Apple DLLs could potentially be used to drag Apple into any legal case between somebody versus Cellebrite. The disclosure needs to be public versus private or under seal or whatever to absolve the Cellebrite counterparty of any liability from reverse engineering. Suddenly Apple is now in potential collusion with Cellebrite. Or maybe not. This public disclosure makes the threat of Disco…

I think they mention Apple in an attempt to force them to defend their copyright, else they risk losing it. I assume Apple will choose to file for copyright infringement than risk being accused of collusion and lose the copyright on that iTunes or parts of it.

That's not how copyrights work, you're confusing it with trademarks.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#36
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really seriously doubt that anyone would ever advance the idea that Signal had deliberately framed them by creating false data on their phone. I don't see this as much more than pointing out that Cellebrite has vulnerabilities, just like the ones they exploit.

You wouldn't imply that Signal had framed you. You would imply that someone else had framed you using the same vulnerabilities as Signal has now indicated exists. i.e. You can't trust Cellebrite because it's now known to be trivial to subvert their software. It's also difficult for Cellebrite to prove that there aren't remaining vulnerabilities in their software since Signal didn't disclose the problems they found an…

You can't just claim an unknown entity framed you and hope to get anywhere. Heck, you could just as well claim that Cellebrite themselves had it in for you.

Cellebrite has never claimed any particular exploits in Signal. Signal is exploitable in this particular way for entirely obvious and common reasons.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#37
post #6

So I wonder, why disclose this? This will just prompt Cellebrite to improve its security process and sandbox the entire tool. If they wanted to destroy the credibility of the tool, using the vulnerabilities to silently tamper with the collected data or even leaking it online would be a much better option and hit them without any warning, not only jeopardizing those cases but forever casting doubt on not just Cellebri…

Any court case where Cellebrite's tools have been used are now in jeopardy since the defence can just say that they were hacked by someone else. There's now reasonable doubt that Cellebrite can't be trusted. This damages their reputation with governments too.

Not really. The same circumstances exist for almost all digital evidence. Of course, a lot of Cellebrite usage is extrajudicial already.

Re: Exploiting vulnerabilities in Cellebrite UFED and Physical Analyzer

#40
post #6

So I wonder, why disclose this? This will just prompt Cellebrite to improve its security process and sandbox the entire tool. If they wanted to destroy the credibility of the tool, using the vulnerabilities to silently tamper with the collected data or even leaking it online would be a much better option and hit them without any warning, not only jeopardizing those cases but forever casting doubt on not just Cellebri…

It seems to be a retaliatory measure against this:

> When Cellebrite announced that they added Signal support to their software, all it really meant was that they had added support to Physical Analyzer for the file formats used by Signal.

Your case is valid about potential judiciary impact, but it would require for Signal to monitor cases involving Cellebrite and step forward to help the defense while unprompted to do so. Furthermore, Cellebrite clients seems to include entities that do not care so much about a fair trial.

Post reply on HN