this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
358 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59607 readers
3790 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xia@lemmy.sdf.org 54 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I wonder if that backdo... ermmm... i mean... undocumented feature... will be useful for ios jailbreaking.

[–] bg10k@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 11 months ago

It’s gonna be a “yikes” from me, dawg

[–] JATtho@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Shorter version: Operating systems set up hardware locks and protections to confine processes, and once set up, they cannot be undone. (the hardware + OS denies modifications to the security policy)

  • Attacker broke out from the app sandbox. (attacker can run code in the infected process)
  • Broke out of the process. (gained root access; attacker can run anything)
  • Broke into the kernel space (gained 100% control over the hardware)
  • Corrupted some kernel memory via a damm magic MMIO accesses nobody knows (hardware vulnerable)
  • Bypassed protections that kernel set up earlier such that it cannot accidentally modify itself.
  • Finally broke the kernel via hardware exploit thus the attacker got rootkit level access.

Getting arbitrary code execution and root access is one thing, but breaking out from the damm kernel configured hardware protections is insane.

They basically managed to flip a "read-only" switch to "modify-as-much-as-you-like". The infected device at this point is broken beyond repair, as the firmware(s) may have been tampered with. End result is a terrestrial spy brick.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago

Not only that, but using an initial exploit which could be remotely triggered with NO user interaction or visibility. That's scary shit

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

This is a nightmare, but thank you for detailing this. Having only read a little bit of this and not understanding it, it seems like the exploit works even if the recipient does not open or interact with the malicious message? Is that what i'm understanding?

If so, i'm officially stapling my tin-foil hat to my head and never using a cell phone again.

[–] JATtho@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

The attack is spread via iMessage. A vulnerable device merely needs to receive a bad message with PDF attachment. --> A Remote code execution. No user interaction.

Yikes. Indeed.

The attack entry point is via bad TrueType font + PDF attachment that only needs to processed once. Once a process touches that, the attack vector begins and exploits are chained until they get kernel mode access. After getting kernel mode access all hope is lost, the attacker owns the device.

Only sliver of hope is that fixing the attack entry point blocks the current attack. And that bug is:

This attachment exploits the remote code execution vulnerability CVE-2023-41990 in the undocumented, Apple-only ADJUST TrueType font instruction. This instruction had existed since the early nineties before a patch removed it.

But unless all the CVEs are patched, it is just matter of time a new attack entry point is found.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Makes me laugh because of how cultishly people claim iphone is secur, yet we keep hearing how susceptible it really is to attacks. There is a real disconnect there.

I would feel foolish making these claims, and paying more for a device that's only real achievement is a walled garden.

[–] sirfancy@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This is kind of a ridiculous take. I hate iPhones, but this is not a "hurr durr iPhones bad and insecure" moment. I implore you to look at the sophistication of this attack. The attack chain is so ridiculously long and complex, and only because of the security of the iPhone. This is not a script kiddie attack, and could only be executed by a very determined party.

No device is secure, and any and all computers could potentially fall victim to an attack like this, but it is absolutely ignorant to say that iPhones don't offer any more security than other devices.

[–] hansl@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

FYI: I don’t think you’re replying to someone acting in good faith.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

That's called projection.

[–] tgxn@lemmy.tgxn.net 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah absolutely. This line from the article summs it up pretty well... ""What we do know—and what this vulnerability demonstrates—is that advanced hardware-based protections are useless in the face of a sophisticated attacker as long as there are hardware features that can bypass those protections.""

Edit: We also have no idea how many zero days there are in Android, either. 🤷‍♂️ But at least it's a bit more open source than iOS 😂

[–] sirfancy@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yeah. The moral is "every and all devices have an unknown number of zero-days inactive or actively being exploited at any given time", not "iPhone is just as insecure as everything else". There's a difference, and credit is deserved where it's due.