|
22 Eargesplitten posted:How bad is Bluetooth in a home environment? I would really like to have headphones that don’t involve me constantly rolling over the cable, but I hate the idea of making my network less secure. Generally consumer devices are class 1 and don't do too well beyond... 10 meters I think? Maybe a little less? Having some headphones on while laying in bed/on the couch are hardly going to draw too much worry. If you're using your phone and worried about it, you can always just turn Bluetooth off when not using the headphones. e: added quote for new page
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:does it's a general "apple bad" thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:27
|
|
include knowing that ios and osx are different?
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:How bad is Bluetooth in a home environment? I would really like to have headphones that don’t involve me constantly rolling over the cable, but I hate the idea of making my network less secure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
ChubbyThePhat posted:Generally consumer devices are class 1 and don't do too well beyond... 10 meters I think? Maybe a little less? Having some headphones on while laying in bed/on the couch are hardly going to draw too much worry. If you're using your phone and worried about it, you can always just turn Bluetooth off when not using the headphones. It's not going to suddenly make your WiFi insecure. The real concern is allowing incoming pairing requests to your computer and allowing file transfers. So don't let your computer auto-respond to connection requests. I always manually kick it off on both sides. In the real world, communications with your headphones and speakers are fine. Proteus Jones fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
ChubbyThePhat posted:Generally consumer devices are class 1 and don't do too well beyond... 10 meters I think? Maybe a little less? https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc_press/archives/12/esato_bluetoothcracking.htm definitely set all your bluetooth stuff to only pair manually
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Klyith posted:https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc_press/archives/12/esato_bluetoothcracking.htm hahaha right. I forgot this was a thing :>
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Do you use wifi in your home environment? Yes, is that just as bad? I feel like at this point you have to because even if you have your computers and TV wired, you basically can’t use your phone except on WiFi or LTE. Also I rent so I can’t just knock holes in the wall to run Cat-6 around the place. I’ll make sure we’re set up to pair manually. I know my desktop is, not sure about my wife’s. When I was setting up Windows 10 my face was basically  the whole time as I turned off all of the recommended network settings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Everything is terrible, throw your computer into a dumpster and jump in after it. Your WiFi is probably fine if it's WPA2 and WPS isn't physically an option on the hardware. For headphones, I've got some analog wireless headphones that have a far more impressive range, about 100-200 feet before the interference gets bad. They might be a better fit than Bluetooth if you're not staying within 10 feet of your computer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
This topic is reminding me of something I read about the Bluetooth 4.0 LE variant specifically having some kind of major security issue, can't remember right now and I'm off the clock so don't feel like googling 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Everything is terrible, throw your computer into a dumpster and jump in after it. what's wrong with wps?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:what's wrong with wps? You can't type "woops!" without typing "wps"!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Everything is terrible, throw your computer into a dumpster and jump in after it. https://youtu.be/RD6hPYnR5GM RFC2324 posted:what's wrong with wps? https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/12/30/most-wi-fi-routers-susceptible-to-hacking-through-security-feature/ WPS PINs are easily brute forced. The Fool fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Dec 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
The Fool posted:https://youtu.be/RD6hPYnR5GM welp. i figured it was just that people are dumb and hit the button for no reason
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Bluetooth has nothing to do with your home Wifi if that is what you are getting at...
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
The Fool posted:
The worst thing is that there's some hardware where even if you turn off WPS in the settings, it's still exploitable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Everything is terrible, throw your computer into a dumpster and jump in after it. Oh. So I guess with these things (Amazon lightning deal so I jumped on them) I can’t go to the bathroom with an “accidentally” hot mic on discord? If I do walk away do they usually pair up again once they’re back in range, or does manual mean you have to do it every single time? Never used Bluetooth aside from hooking up a work phone to my work van. I need to see if I can turn WPS off on my router.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:Oh. So I guess with these things (Amazon lightning deal so I jumped on them) I can’t go to the bathroom with an “accidentally” hot mic on discord? The pairing dance is only for the initial connection. The computer keeps a profile for that device based on the BT MAC, so it know to accept a pairing request in future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Happy Friday. https://thehackernews.com/2017/12/windows-update-malware-protection.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Proteus Jones posted:The pairing dance is only for the initial connection. The computer keeps a profile for that device based on the BT MAC, so it know to accept a pairing request in future. Unless you deauth by pretending to be one of them and requesting to do the handshake again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
EVIL Gibson posted:Unless you deauth by pretending to be one of them and requesting to do the handshake again. Lets not scare the boy off, now. But yes, that can happen. I would not put it high on my "this will happen" risk chart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Black Hat Europe wasn't so great this year, but the talk about the WPA2 vuln from the very own researcher who found it was good and a nice high-level summary. I also liked the last part where he corrected all the wrong stuff he read about his research on Internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Happy Friday. I’m getting deja vu
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
After reading the actual release from Microsoft and not a terribly worded (researched?) article, it does not look like there are any actual patches to apply as updating is done by the service itself. https://portal.msrc.microsoft.com/en-US/security-guidance/advisory/CVE-2017-11940 quote:Note: Typically, no action is required of enterprise administrators or end users to install updates for the Microsoft Malware Protection Engine, because the built-in mechanism for the automatic detection and deployment of updates will apply the update within 48 hours of release. The exact time frame depends on the software used, Internet connection, and infrastructure configuration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Servers that don't get outbound HTTPS access won't get it automatically and most orgs don't mirror defender updates on WSUS/SCCM so your backend may be vulnerable
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:what's wrong with wps? Nigh upon trivial to hack. I disable it by default whenever I have a chance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:Servers that don't get outbound HTTPS access won't get it automatically and most orgs don't mirror defender updates on WSUS/SCCM so your backend may be vulnerable We allow outbound HTTPS on our servers and we also mirror defender updates on WSUS, so I guess we're good there. Thanks for clarifying though, I didn't catch that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Happy Friday. AGAIN?!  Edit: So I wasn't just imagining this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
So now we play the waiting game?
BlankSystemDaemon fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Dec 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
"Attacker can gently caress with your BIOS" seems like a big enough prerequisite that any exploit following up on that is just icing on the cake. Is Rutkowska so focused on Management Engine stuff because it has potential to undo the entire foundation of her Qubes system? I could see how that would piss someone off. Build an entire OS around the concept of compartmentalized distrust, then Intel comes along and fucks the whole thing by making something that breaks VM isolation, can't be turned off, and can't be trusted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
It leaves a pretty sour taste even in my mouth - and I didn't make a business around it. I imagine she's feeling downright acerbic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Klyith posted:"Attacker can gently caress with your BIOS" seems like a big enough prerequisite that any exploit following up on that is just icing on the cake. Isn’t TPM supposed to be resilient against altered BIOS?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
I think that's more the role of UEFI than the TPM
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Isn’t TPM supposed to be resilient against altered BIOS? Intel also uses it as part of LaGrange which hooks into EDIT: It wasn't Vanderpool itself that was flawed, but sandsifter did manage to find at least one enterprise hyperrvisor that handled an OPcode wrong, so who knows how many others there are and how easy it is to execute instructions outside the hypervisor. BlankSystemDaemon fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Dec 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
D. Ebdrup posted:Only useful scenario for TPM that I know is for the key, that's burned into the hardware as part of manefacturing, to be used as part of the hash for FDE - which assumes that you don't suspend to disk, have your computer set to restart on panic(), and enable any other disks as bootable. Attestation
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
TPM can be helpful against malicious firmware (including uefi, and, I *think* but am not sure of, Intel ME) EXCLUSIVELY IF it's actually a separate physical hardware TPM. Most motherboards offer TPM that's just some code running in the ME. I believe this is called PTT. Obviously, if ME is compromised, this is worthless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
D. Ebdrup posted:Only useful scenario for TPM that I know is for the key, that's burned into the hardware as part of manefacturing, to be used as part of the hash for FDE - which assumes that you don't suspend to disk, have your computer set to restart on panic(), and enable any other disks as bootable. that first article on drives posted:Müller et al. [4] provide a security evaluation of the hardware-based FDE and compare it to software- Works on Samsung 850s and PM851s I loving love my line of work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Works on Samsung 850s and PM851s That same trick was a thing when softmodding original Xboxes too. They used ATA password protection to prevent people from being able to just plug the hard drive in to a PC, but people discovered that if you hotswapped the IDE cable at just the right time you could get your PC to recognize it after the drive had been unlocked. You could then install your exploit of choice without even requiring one of the vulnerable games. This was also your only hope to unfuck it without a chip if you managed to screw up a softmod without backing up the EEPROM (which stored the ATA password) first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
And in "I am genuinely completely baffled", my Lenovo Yoga 700-11isk, the Skylake (Intel Core m5-6Y54) tablet convertible that tests vulnerable to the Intel Management Engine issues with Intel's detection tools but wasn't on Lenovo's list of vulnerable laptops: A) I called them up, spent way too long on the phone convincing them that "yes, this is something you have to fix not Intel, yes, it tests vulnerable, yes, your latest BIOS update from 10/30/2016 doesn't fix it", and was told they'd have to ask Intel about it. B) A week and change later, it shows up finally on the list of vulnerable laptops with a fix to be released "TBD." C) ...a day later, the laptop vanishes from the list again. Genuinely, what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
gourdcaptain posted:And in "I am genuinely completely baffled", my Lenovo Yoga 700-11isk, the Skylake (Intel Core m5-6Y54) tablet convertible that tests vulnerable to the Intel Management Engine issues with Intel's detection tools but wasn't on Lenovo's list of vulnerable laptops: I'm surprised it even went that far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
gourdcaptain posted:And in "I am genuinely completely baffled", my Lenovo Yoga 700-11isk, the Skylake (Intel Core m5-6Y54) tablet convertible that tests vulnerable to the Intel Management Engine issues with Intel's detection tools but wasn't on Lenovo's list of vulnerable laptops: E: Actually nvm
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 15:57
|
|