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

Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 372 posts

Re: Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

#361

Post by mike_d »

subscribed wrote: post #360
mike_d wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OS in lockdown mode has multiple features disabled [...] while GrapheneOS is just... ...disabling features. Android Auto, Google Pay, enhanced GPS, SafetyNet, push notifications, support for any apps requiring device integrity, etc. They aren't redesigning and re-implementing these features securely, they are reducing attack surface just like lockdown mode.

>> [...] while GrapheneOS is just... > ...disabling features. Android Auto, Google Pay, enhanced GPS, This is broadly false, not just misleading but false. - Android Auto: working wired or wireless without problems - Google Pay: app vendor choice to put it behind DEVICE_INTEGRITY check, not OS vendor. NFC payments work just fine with other vendors. - enhanced GPS: whatever that means, is most likely false. Users don'…

I fail to see any meaningful difference between breaking and disabling a feature.

Re: Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

#362

Post by subscribed »

mike_d wrote: post #361
subscribed wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> [...] while GrapheneOS is just... > ...disabling features. Android Auto, Google Pay, enhanced GPS, This is broadly false, not just misleading but false. - Android Auto: working wired or wireless without problems - Google Pay: app vendor choice to put it behind DEVICE_INTEGRITY check, not OS vendor. NFC payments work just fine with other vendors. - enhanced GPS: whatever that means, is most likely false. Users don'…

I fail to see any meaningful difference between breaking and disabling a feature.

So you fail to see the difference between AOSP functionality and proprietary Google services?

So why are we even discussing?

Most of the alleged issues you raised are either untrue or broken *by Google*, by design, and yet you attribute them to GOS.

Somehow you also decided to bundle the functionality broken by Google with the security improvements available without turning on any specific, special mode.

What disabled features are you talking about? Face unlock? :)

Re: Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

#363

Post by bigyabai »

astrange wrote: post #355
anonym29 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Security theater for marketing purposes. End users have no way of verifying that their cloud backups are encrypted, and Apple is the same company that complied with the NSA's illegal, unconstitutional conspiracy to conduct warrantless bulk surveillance on American citizens and lie about it to congress: PRISM. Fortunately, no intelligence officials faced any consequences whatsoever for perjuring themselves to congress…

If you think Apple lied about this you can sue them for securities fraud, as it's illegal to lie to shareholders.

I know Apple lied to me about it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...

Their justification is that they were federally prohibited from admitting that the surveillance existed. So no, you couldn't sue them because the fed won't admit that the software exists until their pants are around their ankles.

Re: Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

#364

Post by ls612 »

strcat wrote: post #350
ls612 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mental model of this is “Apple releases new iOS with security patches -> time passes before cellebrite develops an AFU exploit -> Eventually Apple patches the exploit -> go to step 1”. By adding auto reboot Apple ensured that since lots of the time is spent in the stage where the latest iOS has no AFU exploit and AFU becomes BFU before that changes, and thus they are stuck with only extracting whatever is unencryp…

Cellebrite and other companies can develop exploits using independent sets of bugs. Cellebrite is also not the only company developing exploits. These companies (or governments) don't have to wait until the bugs they use get patched or mitigated before they develop more exploits. They can also develop exploits against Beta releases of Android and iOS rather than waiting for it to be used by a large audience. That mak…

I think the biggest deal with phone security is extracting E2E messages & data or local files on the phone, since most other things the government can subpoena from the service providers if they can't hack the phone. Does doing that require FFS, BF, or AFU capability?

Re: Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

#365

Post by astrange »

bigyabai wrote: post #363
astrange wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think Apple lied about this you can sue them for securities fraud, as it's illegal to lie to shareholders.

I know Apple lied to me about it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-... Their justification is that they were federally prohibited from admitting that the surveillance existed. So no, you couldn't sue them because the fed won't admit that the software exists until their pants are around their ankles.

There isn't such a justification. They can refuse to answer questions but they can't proactively lie. And if they were ordered to lie I'm not aware of anything that indemnifies them for securities fraud either.

Re: Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

#366

Post by Andromxda »

chopin wrote: post #343
russianGuy83829 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GrapheneOS is seemingly working with an OEM to make a GrapheneOS smartphone. Its probably not samsung, but would still be an established vendor

I'd love this for a Fairphone.

It definitely won't be Fairphone. See https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115379774100353715 and

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114874684738751793

Re: Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

#367

Post by Andromxda »

preisschild wrote: post #311
russianGuy83829 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GrapheneOS is seemingly working with an OEM to make a GrapheneOS smartphone. Its probably not samsung, but would still be an established vendor

They are not making a "GrapheneOS smartphone", they are just helping providers make their new devices compatible with the security requirements, so GrapheneOS can be installed on it. But GrapheneOS will not come by default AFAIK.

It's totally possible that there will be an option to buy the device with GrapheneOS preinstalled https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114749924008111970

Re: Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

#368

Post by rollcat »

fragmede wrote: post #341
rollcat wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firmware is not OS. Your machine is a distributed system. The firmware is what runs a specific node. Yes they usually have DMA, shared busses, etc. That's an implementation detail.

An implementation detail where TLAs could theoretically get root remotely? Seems like a bit more than a detail to be glossed over.

Free firmware can have a security issue and root your device.

A working IOMMU will stop both free- and non-feee firmware from rooting your device.

These concepts are orthogonal.

Re: Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

#369

Post by chasil »

subscribed wrote: post #359
chasil wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that Magisk can be applied to Graphene if the final device lock step is not applied. I might try that if I elevate it to my daily driver. I'm not comfortable without root. I have the absolute right to have root on my device. I don't know why Graphene didn't just take Trebuchet.

> I understand that Magisk can be applied to Graphene if the final device lock step is not applied Unless you relock the bootloader you are forfeiting major avenue into your phone (and it's not really, fully GOS - because you keep most important protections off). But it's your choice of course. You'd be probably better off just creating your own OS image with preinstalled root libraries, etc. > I'm not comfortable wi…

I have been running Lineage since my first Cyanogen install on my HTC Incredible.

An unlocked bootloader is standard operating procedure for me by force of habit.

Re: Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

#370

Post by jujube69 »

strcat wrote: post #148
overfeed wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be a total mindfuck if it turns out that Graphene is less secure[1] than stock Pixel, and this is all part of an ANOM-style honeypot operation that has Feds hyping it up, to trick interesting targets into adopting a less-effective security posture. 1. Such as via slower 0-day responses, for instance. This is a thought experiment, I'm nor alleging that this is what it is.

GrapheneOS is an open source project which was started in 2014 by people with an existing history working on open source projects. It has existed for over 11 years. It resisted a takeover attempt by a company sponsoring it. It's entirely funded by donations with no strong ties to any company, no government grants, etc. We don't accept strings attached funding, only donations. The core people working on the project ha…

How is Pixel 8 BFU vulnerable and Pixel 9 is not? (considering both with GrapheneOS, according to the chart) Even with MTE? What is the difference?
Post reply on HN