6 comments

  • dev_l1x_be 0 minutes ago
    Not surprised, many of these vendors are doing crazy things, insane defaults, broken security, hardcoded values. Security is not a priority, I get that, but at the very least some baseline check would be nice (no hardcoded credentials for starting)
  • grommz 1 hour ago
    The US Department of War IP adresses baked into the firmware is the bigger story here. Note to self: never buy a Korean security product.
    • hhh 1 hour ago
      I do know of at least one company who has black-holed the entire DoD ip space and are using it for internal space, which is why I gave a speculation warning... it's really strange regardless.
      • ErroneousBosh 28 minutes ago
        I recently troubleshot an installation for someone where at some point in the past they'd picked 1.1.1.0/24 as their address range because "all that 192 stuff was silly and too complicated".

        You know, I'm not sure I can explain how I feel about this properly without waving the shotgun around.

        • cyanydeez 7 minutes ago
          Sounds like someones on the path to sovereign citizenship. I can't wait for our cyber-sovereign citizenships who deny various IP ranges coming from the government's domain naming system.
        • inigyou 11 minutes ago
          Yet another thing ipv6 solves. Yeah you can do the officially supported fdXX:XXXX:XXXX:... but you can also just pick something like 1::1 and it's unlikely to conflict with the current global range.

          If you're gonna do that, though, it's better if you use fd00:... or one of the other assigned ranges so it's still in the standard range. OSes use this as a heuristic for source address selection.

          • Matuzy 3 minutes ago
            > Yet another thing ipv6 solves. ... it's unlikely to conflict with the current global range

            I'm not familiar with IPv6's details, could you elaborate on this? To me, this reads like you're saying that IPv6 solves the problem by having low adoption rates rather than an actual function of the protocol.

          • kowbell 5 minutes ago
            "all that 192 stuff was silly and too complicated... but this fd00: stuff is easy peasy!"
      • bflesch 39 minutes ago
        This will trip up most SOC workflows in funny ways, and I like it.

        IPs having a global distinction between public/private is a convention, but local routing can widely differ.

        Same with the "China Cyberattacks" - the guys sitting on top of my outgoing fiber can simulate any IP address they want to me.

      • kotaKat 1 hour ago
        there's a couple subnets I (ab)use in the DOD IP space for my home network knowing they'd never put them on the open internet. it's also fun to throw logging for a loop if someone digs.

        22.0.0.0/8 - it's basically free real estate!

        • walrus01 28 minutes ago
          the entirety of 10/8 and 172.16/12 and 192.168/16 wasn't large enough for your house?
          • ErroneousBosh 21 minutes ago
            I work for a large organisation that has various blocks scattered around 10./8, some with highish values for the second octet and some with lowish values, so say 10.129.0.x/24 and 10.3.0.x/24 to pick just two out of a couple of thousand.

            But one of our vendor networks uses 10.32.x.x/32 for various radio gateways, and the radios themselves all locally expose (this is where I give away too big a clue as to what I do) 10.0.0.101 as a management address that emits important link status data.

            So you can imagine what a godawful bùrach everyone's routing tables are.

          • kotaKat 26 minutes ago
            i deal with a lot of nerds that are all interconnected with one another and nobody can agree on a common subnet for their houses when we all decide to exchange routes internally. ;)
        • cryptonym 44 minutes ago
          I have seen ISP doing CGNAT on DOD IP space.
    • walrus01 16 minutes ago
      > Note to self: never buy a Korean security product.

      The Canadian Navy very recently made a major choice and agreed with you

      https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=hanwha+oc...

  • RyJones 2 hours ago
    When I cared, I found out that a lot of OBD-II dongles shipped with the same MAC, which gave you access to everything on a bunch of websites.

    You can curse the storm, but the wind will come.

    • netsharc 1 hour ago
      how did "same MAC" lead to "access to everything"?

      Was the website's security based on MAC, which presumably is supplied by the client? If so, I guess.. typical IoT.

      • RyJones 1 hour ago
        buy any dongle that sells for under $100 on amazon. they all have the same mac, and come with 'bespoke' apps to let you do things to your car. those apps are all thin wrappers on code widely shared; they use the MAC of the dongle as the keystone for ID.

        Short story: buy one cheap dongle on Amazon, dump the MAC (00:11:22:AA:BB:CC IIRC; it's been 15 years since I cared) and you have auth to all of the apps everywhere.

        Reminder: the Bluetooth logo comes, mostly, from self-certification.

        • londons_explore 21 minutes ago
          I bought 3 from 3 different vendors and they all have totally different Mac addresses.

          Internally they're all Bluetooth to serial chips, and another pic16xxxx chip which does serial to canbus.

          I guess the Bluetooth serial chips probably have programmable Mac addresses, but equally they normally ship with a globally default one unless you flash a different one onto it.

        • andreareina 29 minutes ago
          Amazing! I have the same MAC address on my luggage!
        • inigyou 9 minutes ago
          Why do the apps need auth?
  • IshKebab 22 minutes ago
    LLMs have truly killed obfuscation. It only worked previously by making things extremely tedious but AI doesn't care about that.
    • llm_nerd 17 minutes ago
      And it's worth considering that obfuscation only ever worked against casuals for whom tedious was a bridge too far. Nation state actors and criminal hacker groups, on the other hand, consider the tedious entirely worth it.
      • walrus01 10 minutes ago
        > consider the tedious entirely worth it.

        Entirely without LLMs, I'm imagining an office of North Korean compsci graduates doing astonishingly tedious tasks, for whom an office job on a basic Linux computer and slightly better diet and nice apartment put them in the top 1-2% of living standard in the country.

      • inigyou 8 minutes ago
        Pirates checked Denuvo, once considered the king of DRM.
  • whalesalad 39 minutes ago
    I bought some ambient room lighting recently. You cannot control them without a proprietary app. This bugged me ... so I grabbed an APK from the Google store, unpacked it, and found essentially keys to the kingdom: api keys for the backend, api keys for shopify, etc. Haven't done anything with this knowledge yet.
    • Ecsta 28 minutes ago
      There's a lot of public keys that don't give you any special access, unless the dev is really bad.

      Anyone who cares about security will be using App Attest or the Google store equivalent.

      • JTbane 6 minutes ago
        >Anyone who cares about security

        I have something hilarious to tell you about IoT apps

    • inigyou 8 minutes ago
      Everything can be controlled without a proprietary app. Hope you reverse engineer the protocol and publish how to do it.
  • that_guy_iain 30 minutes ago
    I bet someone returned that security camera.