How I Hacked a Router
disconnected.io
How I Hacked a Router
1–10 of 96 posts
Re: How I Hacked a Router
#2Interesting read. On thing i do not understand is why software updates/packages are still not cryptographically signed. It's a common thing on Linux. Notepad++ provides checksums[0] for their packages - so (i assume) they are actually aware of the problem.
[0] http://sourceforge.net/p/notepad-plus/discussion/1290588
Re: How I Hacked a Router
#3Interesting read. On thing i do not understand is why software updates/packages are still not cryptographically signed. It's a common thing on Linux. Notepad++ provides checksums[0] for their packages - so (i assume) they are actually aware of the problem. [0] http://sourceforge.net/p/notepad-plus/discussion/1290588
Sure, but if you're MITMing DNS, you just serve a copy of the Notepad++ download page (or whatever) whose listed checksum matches that of your backdoored executable, so that's not a problem in this scenario.
Re: How I Hacked a Router
#4Interesting read. On thing i do not understand is why software updates/packages are still not cryptographically signed. It's a common thing on Linux. Notepad++ provides checksums[0] for their packages - so (i assume) they are actually aware of the problem. [0] http://sourceforge.net/p/notepad-plus/discussion/1290588
Many applications will require signed updates, but considering how much software the average person has on their computer (especially a tech geek), odds are at least one will upgrade over regular HTTP.
And that's all an attacker needs.
Re: How I Hacked a Router
#5Interesting read. On thing i do not understand is why software updates/packages are still not cryptographically signed. It's a common thing on Linux. Notepad++ provides checksums[0] for their packages - so (i assume) they are actually aware of the problem. [0] http://sourceforge.net/p/notepad-plus/discussion/1290588
[deleted]
Re: How I Hacked a Router
#6Interesting read. On thing i do not understand is why software updates/packages are still not cryptographically signed. It's a common thing on Linux. Notepad++ provides checksums[0] for their packages - so (i assume) they are actually aware of the problem. [0] http://sourceforge.net/p/notepad-plus/discussion/1290588
Sure, but if you're MITMing DNS, you just serve a copy of the Notepad++ download page (or whatever) whose listed checksum matches that of your backdoored executable, so that's not a problem in this scenario.
Thats exactly what i mean - checksums are useless in this scenario. They should have been signed with a key your computer knows. (Retrieved before the first install)
Re: How I Hacked a Router
#7I'm curious how the email attack worked, don't most web-based email services flag emails that come from one domain, but contain a link to another?
Re: How I Hacked a Router
#8I'm curious how the email attack worked, don't most web-based email services flag emails that come from one domain, but contain a link to another?
Yes, they should. I'd be curious to hear more details about that.
I'd also like to know what domain was used for phishing, since you would think an infosec guy would either hover over the button/link before clicking, or get suspicious when he sees his browser load a site that isn't linkedin.com before redirecting.
Re: How I Hacked a Router
#9I'm curious how the email attack worked, don't most web-based email services flag emails that come from one domain, but contain a link to another?
Yes, they should. I'd be curious to hear more details about that. I'd also like to know what domain was used for phishing, since you would think an infosec guy would either hover over the button/link before clicking, or get suspicious when he sees his browser load a site that isn't linkedin.com before redirecting.
Exactly, I'm not much of a techie, but checking the domains of suspicious links is the first thing I do.
Re: How I Hacked a Router
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but if you're MITMing DNS, you just serve a copy of the Notepad++ download page (or whatever) whose listed checksum matches that of your backdoored executable, so that's not a problem in this scenario.
Thats exactly what i mean - checksums are useless in this scenario. They should have been signed with a key your computer knows. (Retrieved before the first install)
Oh, I see what you mean. I wish I saw a way for that to happen in the Windows ecosystem, although I suppose the "Windows Store" might drive evolution in that direction.