Solution from U-tec…app update! Now we need you to sign up for the app, give us your email address and name, we’ll figure out your location 😃!
Fucking retards want me to tell them when I’m home and when I lock the door! WTF! I just wanted a lock that I could monitor from the web and the ulock was it. But now the company wants me to sign into the app (tell them I need to unlock or lock my lock) whenever I need to use the lock. They ofcourse get access to my camera because lock, and my files because lock, and location because lock.
Now I need to login to my blendtech account so I can make a smoothie. But first I need to login to my LGE account so I can get frozen berries and milk from the fridge. I also need to login to IKEA so I can get some apples my table and to costco.com so I can step around the kitchen on their flooring… excuse me, my flooring. But first, home Depot, if you’re really listening, toto toilets really are the best.
who else but a genius would buy a social media company, remove the things that made it functional and useful, reintegrate and allow to overpopulate elements that made it worse, and destroy a multi-billion dollar icon and name render useless a word that the thing you bought created and is universally understood because he thinks calling stuff X is cool?
I just can’t imagine the galaxy level intellect that can take a brand whose name was the action and completely ruin the branding and change it to something generic.
You know he did on purpose right? He wanted to destroy it and make unfucuntional. Twitter was a great place for people to organize and allowed people to get access to breaking news faster.
Also progressive politicians and activists could gain a following and get their ideas to millions.
Also it was a great way to take grievances straight to corporations. If you had problem or terrible service and posted to Twitter most times they jump to fix the issue since your post could be seen by their followers etc.
It had a lot great benefits and was a nice tool to fight against the 1%. He saw that and why he wanted it so bad.
It’s also why he destroying it all done on purpose.
Because he wants to also use it to push fascism into the mainstream. The fact that people still use the site and won’t stop posting articles about Elon just shows that people still care about the site.
I say we focus on an alternative site and make it mainstream and fuck x or Twitter whatever the hell he wants to call it.
I think you’re giving him way too much credit. Ever since the PayPal days he had this idea for an, “everything app,” a digital-marketplace/wallet/messaging/social media/anything-else-you-could need-online-app called X. The concept and name are profoundly stupid, but he was so dedicated to his vision he got booted from PayPal because he wouldn’t give up on it. I think it’s much more like he legitimately believes he can make Twitter into this bloated super-app (and maybe make some changes for the right-wing trolls that support him along the way) rather than slowly killing the app he payed $44 billion to aquire.
In November 2022, LastPass, a password manager service, suffered a data breach in which hackers stole password vaults containing encrypted and plaintext data for over 25 million users. Since then, there has been a series of cryptocurrency thefts targeting individuals in the tech industry, totaling more than $35 million. These thefts primarily targeted individuals deeply integrated into the cryptocurrency ecosystem, including employees of crypto organizations and venture capitalists.
Researchers, led by Taylor Monahan, CEO of MetaMask, have identified a common factor among these victims: they had previously used LastPass to store their “seed phrase,” which is a critical private key for accessing their cryptocurrency investments. Armed with this seed phrase, attackers can instantly access and transfer the victim’s cryptocurrency holdings.
The LastPass breach exposed vulnerabilities in its security, particularly related to the master passwords and encryption settings. LastPass users who stored important passwords, especially for cryptocurrency accounts, are urged to change their credentials immediately and migrate their crypto holdings to offline hardware wallets. Alternatives like 1Password, which offer additional security layers like a Secret Key, are recommended.
While the research suggests a strong link between the LastPass breach and the cryptocurrency thefts, it’s challenging to definitively prove causation. Nonetheless, security experts advise taking immediate action to protect digital assets.
I couldn’t quickly find an answer to this, but would setting the “UseRoutes” option in systemd-networkd to false prevent the dhcp client from using the option 121 routes?
If so, would this be a possible mitigation for linux devices using systemd?
According to Leviathan, there are several ways to minimize the threat from rogue DHCP servers on an unsecured network. One is using a device powered by the Android operating system, which apparently ignores DHCP option 121.
Relying on a temporary wireless hotspot controlled by a cellular device you own also effectively blocks this attack.
“They create a password-locked LAN with automatic network address translation,” the researchers wrote of cellular hot-spots. “Because this network is completely controlled by the cellular device and requires a password, an attacker should not have local network access.”
Leviathan’s Moratti said another mitigation is to run your VPN from inside of a virtual machine (VM) — like Parallels, VMware or VirtualBox. VPNs run inside of a VM are not vulnerable to this attack, Moratti said, provided they are not run in “bridged mode,” which causes the VM to replicate another node on the network.
Short version of this attack, it involves split routing for the tunnels. A lot of clients will have a default route-all to send traffic through the VPN. There is however a limitation to this because the tunnel itself needs a route from the local nic to connect to the VPN endpoint and establish the tunnel, otherwise you end up with a chicken and egg where you can’t establish the VPN. By taking advantage of the DHCP option to set preferred routes (really anything more specific than 0.0.0.0/0) it can tell the host system to send the specified traffic through the local gateway rather than the tunnel’s virtual adapter.
One relatively simple fix if you happen to have a fancy router/firewall on the edge of the network that handles the VPN would be to use policy based routing rather than relying on the underlying network configuration. Static route tables would be possible too, but in theory that could be overridden by just sending a more specific route again than what was set statically.
I think that mitigation requires two things for it to work.
You need to use a a Type 2 hypervisor (like Virtualbox, VMware Workstation/Fusion).
That VM needs to be configured in NAT mode.
The two primary ways you can configure a network for a local virtual machine are NAT and Bridged.
Bridged mode places your VM effectively on the same network as your host OS, meaning that any DHCP server that exists on your network (rogue or otherwise) will give your virtual machine and IP.
In NAT mode, the virtualization platform itself includes a DHCP server to dole out IPs, and handle the routing between your virtual machine and your host OS’s network.
The thought process is that if you trust your laptop, the DHCP address handed out for NAT mode will not have the VPN breaking DHCP option and your VPN inside the VM will not have it’s route table screwed with.
As I understood it, VPNs don’t work in this threat model because it’s essentially routing traffic through a compromised router before it ever reaches the VPN, so the VPN acts normally but there’s a snooper before you ever connect to it
Huh? I thought the whole point of a VPN is to encrypt all traffic between my PC and the VPN server. Please be so kind and educate me on anything I have a misconception of:
For example, I use Safing Portmaster and I have set it up in a way where all the packets have to go through their VPN and if they don’t, they get dropped before they leave my PC.
Before that I was running openvpn with a killswitch, which I thought besically did the same, it had a tunnel to the VPN server and if it is down, no packet leaves the PC.
I have set it up in a way where all the packets have to go through their VPN and if they don’t, they get dropped before they leave my PC.
That is the function of a firewall and not of the VPN. As I understand portmaster it does both. But that is not normal VPN behavior.
VPNs are not magic. They are a piece of software that encrypt traffic and send it to a special server. They do that by creating a virtual Internet connection (think like pluging in an additional Ethernet cable or connection to an addition WiFi at the same time). Everything that is sent through the virtual connection is encrypted. Your system now has (at least) two valid Internet connections (one real and one virtual). For every packet it sends it needs to decide which connection it should send it from. This is decided by something called the routing table. When you start the VPN it will put two routes into the table.
traffic going to the VPN server goes through the real connection (so the encrypted VPN traffic is routed correctly)
everything else goes through the virtual connection (the VPN tunnel where it gets encrypted)
The attack described is a way how a network router can add a new route into your devices routing table to basically override the second route from the VPN. The route is still there, there just is another one that has a higher priority.
A VPN is not the ultimate authority over your network traffic. It is just another program sending and recieving taffic.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think I get it now!
I did look into it with ip route show when using nothing vs portmaster vs openvpn and it is just like you said, when using openVPN it just creates additional routes with a higher priority, but the normal route is still open.
I’m not saying it could not happen, but when you use VPN, the local network equipment does not determine protocols, the VPN infrastructure and it’s configuration in the device do. Any local connection, including the internet gateway, just serve as the road for those packets to go out or come in.
If anyone thinks I’m wrong, please let me know, I’m not 100% certain this is the case, but it is my understanding of how VPNs work.
You aren’t wrong, per se, I think you just don’t fully grasp the attack vector. This is related to DHCP option 121, which allows routes to be fed to the client when issuing the ip address required for VPN connectivity. Using this option, they can send you a preferred default route as part of the DHCP response that causes the client to route traffic out of the tunnel without them knowing.
E. It would likely only be select traffic routing out of the tunnel. I could, for example, send you routes so that all traffic destined for Chase Bank ip addresses comes back to me instead of traversing the tunnel. Much harder to detect.
Oh crap! That’s concerning as hell. I’m going to try that in my PFSense and test it with ProtonVPN, Tailscale, Wireguard to my UnRaid and NordVPN. See if maybe any of them have a way of hardening that, or at least completely dropping the packages if not.
If no VPN can be hardened for this, is there a chance that Tor or I2P can be used to avoid it instead?
In our testing, the VPN always continued to report as connected, and the kill switch was never engaged to drop our VPN connection.
This is the only place they mention kill switch. I feel like it needs a slight clarification on whether it was enabled and didn’t work, or if was just disabled and therefore not “engaged”.
Full tunnel would not mitigate this attack because smaller routes are preferred over larger ones. So, sure, 0.0.0.0/0 is routed over the tunnel, but a route for 8.8.8.8/32 pointing to somewhere layer2 adjacent, pushed via DHCP option 121, would supercede that due to being more specific.
Full tunnel using routing wouldn’t work but many full tunnel implementations use a shim where once the Tunnel is connected, the system route table isn’t referenced anymore, so you can put as many static routes etc as you want, but all traffic will hit the VPN interface before routing is done. For example Cisco any connect removes route look-up from the TCP/IP stack of the local system.
If the locks really are exploitable, and if the landlord is aware of the vulnerability – and my guess is that the landlord may have no idea whether or not the things are vulnerable or how much to trust the guy, dunno what the bar is – it sounds like they might have liability if someone commits a crime using the lock exploit.
Landlord Liability for Criminal Activity in a Rental Property
In addition to being responsible for injuries to your tenants that may be the result of dangerous structural conditions or environmental health hazards on your rental property, you can potentially be liable for injuries arising from the criminal activities of third parties. While this may not seem fair at first, this responsibility falls under your general duty to provide a safe and habitable living environment to your tenants, as well as local and a handful of state laws.
Preventing Crime and Minimizing Liability
Some of the most effective steps you can take toward keeping your tenants safe are also the most affordable, and they start with preventing crime from occurring. Maintaining good lighting on the exterior of the building, in parking areas, and in hallways, as well as sturdy and well-functioning locks on doors and windows are two of the most basic ways to stave off criminal activity. Many local housing and building codes may have rules regarding security measures such as locks, so be sure you are meeting or exceeding those requirements.
Responding to Reports or Concerns of Criminal Activity
In order to maintain the security of your rental property, and to minimize potential liability in the event that you are sued following a criminal incident, it is advisable to respond promptly to any tenant safety concerns or suggestions, and also to be forthcoming with your knowledge of any criminal activity in the area that may be relevant to your tenants. Further, if a tenant alerts you to a possible security compromise, such as a situation in which a tenant’s backpack containing their ID and keys has been stolen, it is worthwhile to pay the cost of quickly changing any necessary locks to prevent harm to your tenant as well as to lessen your legal liability should a subsequent break-in occur.
Negligent Security Lawsuits
A tenant may be able to sue their landlord for inadequate security if they can show that their landlord failed to exercise reasonable care or give adequate warnings, and a foreseeable injury resulted.
That doesn’t give specific state laws, but it does sound like there’s at least potential liability issues.
krebsonsecurity.com
Hot