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

Codex Hacked a Samsung TV

blog.calif.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 143 posts

Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV

#91

Post by _doctor_love »

alfanick wrote: post #26

I had truly good “hacking” session with Codex. It’s not hacking, I wasn’t breaking anything, just jumping over the fences TP-Link put for me, owning the router, inside the network, knowing the admin password. But TP-Link really tried everything so you cannot access the router you own via API. They really tried to be smart with some very very broken and custom auth and encryption scheme. It took some half a day with C…

If you're into it, you could always re-flash your TP-Link hardware with some open-source firmware that is more automation friendly. I used to be intimidated by it, but a friend showed me how to do it and it's remarkably simple and pain-free (provided it's a commonly supported router of course).

Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV

#92

Post by alfanick »

_doctor_love wrote: post #91
alfanick wrote: post #26

I had truly good “hacking” session with Codex. It’s not hacking, I wasn’t breaking anything, just jumping over the fences TP-Link put for me, owning the router, inside the network, knowing the admin password. But TP-Link really tried everything so you cannot access the router you own via API. They really tried to be smart with some very very broken and custom auth and encryption scheme. It took some half a day with C…

If you're into it, you could always re-flash your TP-Link hardware with some open-source firmware that is more automation friendly. I used to be intimidated by it, but a friend showed me how to do it and it's remarkably simple and pain-free (provided it's a commonly supported router of course).

ofc I could, but no project supports this specific hardware (Archer NX600) - I'm very happy with my solution :)

Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV

#93

Post by m463 »

alfanick wrote: post #92
_doctor_love wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're into it, you could always re-flash your TP-Link hardware with some open-source firmware that is more automation friendly. I used to be intimidated by it, but a friend showed me how to do it and it's remarkably simple and pain-free (provided it's a commonly supported router of course).

ofc I could, but no project supports this specific hardware (Archer NX600) - I'm very happy with my solution :)

I wonder what the effort would be to port openwrt to it? It might be easy if there are adjacent routers on the same chipset.

Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV

#94

Post by luxuryballs »

ceejayoz wrote: post #76
luxuryballs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

of all the benign technical possibilities this is actually pretty fun

I'm not sure I see "an AI can find insecure unknown bluetooth devices and compromise them" as entirely benign. I shiver to think how many such devices are probably in my house.

with LLMs able to pump out surplus code for anyone I really think the future of a dystopian sci-fi where you carry a device that can hack random objects around you is starting to materialize

Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV

#95

Post by joenot443 »

> [1] Browser foothold: we already had code execution inside the browser application's own security context on the TV,

Does anyone know what the author meant by this? Are they talking about a web browser run on the TV?

Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV

#97

Post by qingcharles »

alfanick wrote: post #26

I had truly good “hacking” session with Codex. It’s not hacking, I wasn’t breaking anything, just jumping over the fences TP-Link put for me, owning the router, inside the network, knowing the admin password. But TP-Link really tried everything so you cannot access the router you own via API. They really tried to be smart with some very very broken and custom auth and encryption scheme. It took some half a day with C…

I have one of these Smiirl flip counters. It runs a version of OpenWrt without the web UI, but has a uhttpd to serve an api. I'm hoping Mythos can help me find an exploit to get into it and enable ssh since they have now disabled the simple api switch that would let you turn it on.

https://www.smiirl.com/en/counter/facebook/5d/

Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV

#98

Post by JTbane »

alfanick wrote: post #37
srcreigh wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any tips to share? I tried to do something similar but failed. My router has a backup/restore feature with an encrypted export, I figured I could use that to control or at least inspect all of its state, but I/codex could not figure out the encryption.

It's on my long list of projects "to-opensource" (but I need to figure out licensing, for those things CC-BY-SA I think is the way to go), I don't want a random lawyer sitting on my ass though. I started with a simple assumption: if I can access the router via web-browser, then I can also automate that. From that the proof-of-concept was headless Chrome in Docker and AI-directed code (code written via LLM, not using…

Why not just use the GPL? It basically covers the same stuff Creative Commons Share-alike does.

Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV

#99

Post by cute_boi »

ctoth wrote: post #89
bryancoxwell wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a bit of a pain of a time trying to get Claude to work with ghidra. What you’re describing seems like a better alternative, would you agree?

I've had a lot of luck with pyghidra-mcp -- give it a try :)

Well i have tried and it only works for simple use-case.

Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV

#100

Post by qingcharles »

layer8 wrote: post #79

It’s important to note that Codex was given access to the source code. In another comment thread that is currently on the front page ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47780456 ), the opinion is repeatedly voiced that being closed source doesn’t provide a material benefit in defending against vulnerabilities being discovered and exploited using AI. So it would be interesting to see how Codex would fare here witho…

There are two levels below having the source. One is having the binary of the firmware, which could be decompiled by the AI and understood. And then the worst-case is what I'm dealing with currently, which is where there is no access to the firmware binary and the firmware is stored on the PCB in such a way to prevent sticking a chip clip on it and forcibly extracting it, so you're totally blind. (Just as you would be with a completely remote attempt)
Post reply on HN