maemo.org - Talk - Security (NSA, Android app, any app, OS...)

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)

- Brainstorm (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=47)

- - Security (NSA, Android app, any app, OS...) (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=92021)

Re: Security (NSA, Android app, any app, OS...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by juiceme (Post 1416529)

It's only too bad this kind of backdoor cannot be prevented on devices that have modems that can directly access the device memory (all Qualcomm chipsets, that is...)

Jolla that is, too! :(

Re: Security (NSA, Android app, any app, OS...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by peterleinchen (Post 1416678)

Jolla that is, too! :(

Yes, that is unfortunate.
If I had the possibility I'd want to stay clear of all Qualcomm products, but unfortunately we do not have that luxury :(

Originally Qualcomm was a spinout of US Defence industry, to commercialize the research done on CDMA technologies. Even today there are close ties between the defence contractors and US government three-letter-agencies.

Re: Security (NSA, Android app, any app, OS...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by szopin (Post 1416506)

Relevant: http://redmine.replicant.us/projects...GalaxyBackdoor

Yesterday there was an update to the topic already stating
"Samsung Backdoor May Not Be as Wide Open as Initially Thought"

Quote:

Earlier today, we talked about how the Replicant team found a potential backdoor in Samsung’s proprietary radio software. As demonstrated in a proof-of-concept attack, this allowed certain baseband code to gain access to a device’s storage under a specific set of circumstances. But upon closer inspection, this backdoor is most likely not as bad as it was initially made out to be.

A few hours after posting our previous article on the alleged backdoor, a highly respected security expert who wishes to remain anonymous approached us, stating that the way in which the proof-of-concept attack was framed by the Replicant team was a bit misleading. Essentially, it boils down to the POC requiring a modified firmware with with security features disabled. Thus, if a user is running an updated version of the official firmware, this attack will not work. To that end, the Replicant team even states in their write-up that SELinux would considerably restrict the potential files that the modem can access, such as those on the /sdcard partition.

Now, another highly trusted security researcher (XDA Recognized Developer djrbliss) has gone on record with Ars, stating that there’s “virtually no evidence” that this is indeed a true backdoor, although his reasons are a bit different. There is absolutely no indication at this time that the baseband file access can be controlled remotely. Rather, this is only a “possibility,” since the baseband software is proprietary. Instead, it’s far more likely that this was only ever intended to write radio diagnostic files to the /efs/root directory, as that is is the radio user’s home directory.

In summary, we shouldn’t rush to replace our Samsung phones just yet. There is absolutely no evidence to state that this can be controlled remotely. And even if it were possible, using SELinux, which is set to Enforcing in stock firmware, would restrict the radio user’s access.

Re: Security (NSA, Android app, any app, OS...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amboss (Post 1416571)

maybe you misinterpreted something. My Browser (de_de) shows 4.2.2014 which is February 4th

Where? My three browsers (MicroB, Firefox and now, just for the laugh, IE10) all show "Paul Kocialkowski, 02/04/2014 06:57 PM" near at the end, next to the link to the patch - as well on the top of the patch page. It's hard-coded in the page sources, not browser or locale dependent. Which was my point :)

Re: Security (NSA, Android app, any app, OS...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RX-51 (Post 1416711)

Yesterday there was an update to the topic already stating
"Samsung Backdoor May Not Be as Wide Open as Initially Thought"

Ehh... we accidentally left open a way to read all your files as root (when it came out 4 years ago on the galaxy S), just like this accidental comment in the code makes the encryption vulnerable and every other backdoor pretending to be a genuine slip. It's good that later firmwares leave only sdcard vulnerable somewhat patching the hole, but dismissing it based on no evidence of it being actually triggered remotely? I'll leave my tin foil hat on

Re: Security (NSA, Android app, any app, OS...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by pichlo (Post 1416713)

The server probably does not locate you in North America it seems (the only place where month comes first). The hardcoded part is determined with your request prior to the receiving of the html code, that is when you send your request for delivery to the server. I have checked with MicroB, Firefox (both 17.0.9 ESR and 27.0.1) and IE9, all stating "Paul Kocialkowski, 04.02.2014 18:57"
Date representation has always been an issue (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country for reference) when using slash as separator.

Re: Security (NSA, Android app, any app, OS...)

Scary **** indeed...a nice read though...

"The National Security Agency has built a surveillance system capable of recording “100 percent” of a foreign country’s telephone calls, enabling the agency to rewind and review conversations as long as a month after they take place, according to people with direct knowledge of the effort and documents supplied by former contractor Edward Snowden."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...f19_story.html

Re: Security (NSA, Android app, any app, OS...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amboss (Post 1417480)

The server probably does not locate you in North America it seems (the only place where month comes first).

The point is that it DOES think I am in North America :) If the content is dynamically generated - and indeed what is presented to you would suggest that to be the case - then it is generated based on the wrong premise. You speak English? So you must be American! :)

Re: Security (NSA, Android app, any app, OS...)

See, it got me confused again. ;)