22.2.18

Apple defuses ‘text bomb’ bug



Apple has fixed an irritating bug that was apt to wreak havoc on many of the company’s products when they attempted to display a single character from the alphabet of Indian language of Telugu, according to a BBC report.
The tech giant has rolled out software updates for all of its consumer operating systems, referring to the now-fixed flaw as a “memory corruption issue” caused by “processing a maliciously crafted string”.
A number of text-based apps crashed, becoming unresponsive or entered an endless bootloop when attempting to show the otherwise little-used character from a language that is spoken by some 75 million people.
The ‘text bomb’ bug afflicted Apple’s own iMessage app as well as third-party services such as Gmail, Twitter, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and Outlook for iOS, whereas Skype and Telegram were reportedly unaffected.
The flaw was present in the operating systems on a broad swath of Apple’s devices – iPhones, iPads, Mac computers, Apple TV boxes, and smartwatches. It has now been addressed with iOS version 11.2.6 for iPhones and iPads, and with watchOS 4.2.3, tvOS 11.2.6, and macOS 10.13.3 for Apple Watch, Apple TV, and Macs, respectively.
The glitch with the Unicode symbol was first spotted by Italian blog Mobile World, with Apple apparently made aware of it on February 12 or earlier, according to The Verge.

The party’s over, kids!
As word of the bug spread, reports began to pour in of pranksters taking to social media apps to post messages that contained the character, thus effectively weaponizing it and borking others’ Apple devices as a result.
To counter the problem, users were advised to delete the entire conversation that contained the Telugu character. This, however, was sometimes easier said than done, and in some cases the affected apps reportedly had to be re-installed.
Over the years, Apple’s devices have grappled with a number of bugs. As recently as last month, the company fixed a ‘text bomb’ flaw after a software developer discovered that a URL link to a specially-engineered website was able to cause a number of issues for devices running macOS and iOS, including freezing and crashing them. In 2015, a sequence of Unicode characters, if sent in a text message, was found capable of crashing and rebooting iPhones.
In 2013, a researcher warned that at least two models of Google’s flagship Nexus Android handsets could be crashed remotely by a flurry of text messages.

21.2.18

Cybercrime weighs most heavily on financial service firms



While not the most frequent victims of cybercrime, firms in financial services are facing higher costs relating to such incidents when compared to businesses in any other sector, a study by Accenture and the Ponemon Institute has found.
The financial services industry was found to incur cyberattack-induced cost of nearly $18.3 million per firm in 2017 following on from an increase of 10 percent year-over-year, and 40 percent since 2014, according to the report, called “2017 Cost of Cyber Crime Study”.
Fifteen sectors in seven countries were measured, with utilities and energy ($17.2 million) coming in second in this regard, followed by aerospace and defense ($14.5 million).
Across all industries, the financial consequences of cybercrimes averaged $11.7 million per firm. This represents a nearly 23-percent hike on the year and a 62-percent surge since 2013.
Meanwhile, the rate of successful breaches per firm in the financial services sector alone jumped from 40 in 2012, to 125 last year. Still, it is lower than the latest figure across the board – 130.
A further breakdown of the overall figures shows that, in all, the actual cost hinges on a number of variables. The factors that enter heavily into the equation include attack types and their frequency, along with the organization’s size and even the country in which an organization is based.
For instance, US companies lead the pack when it comes to the total average cost of cybercrime incidents while Australia is on the opposite side of the range.
As well, malware and web-based attacks were pegged as particularly costly from among nine attack methods under review, as the annualized costs faced by companies due to specifically these types of attacks reached $2.4 million and $2 million, respectively.
Financial services firms turned out to be an outlier here, however, as attacks using malware were among the least costly types of incursions for these companies ($5,000 on average per attack). By contrast, denial-of-service attacks carried the most painful financial sting ($227,000), followed by phishing and social engineering ($196,000).
From among four consequences of a cybercrime, information theft was rated as the most expensive such consequence, followed by business disruption and revenue loss.
The study looked at the immediate costs emanating from cyber-incidents based on the first four weeks after such a breach, rather than dealing with long-term costs of remediation. It is based on nearly 2,200 interviews with IT, compliance and information security practitioners from a sample of over 250 larger-sized companies in Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

19.2.18

How safe are you around your smart TV?


The times when all that our TV sets could do was show us ‘regular’ TV stations are now over. These days, such ‘old-school’ television sets are increasingly being replaced with their ‘smart’ successors, which we can use for streaming video and audio, playing games, browsing the internet, downloading and using apps – all of that thanks to their internet connectivity. This leads to a key question: Are you safe around your smart TV?
This evolution is part of a wider trend that involves connecting consumer electronics and everyday objects to the internet, creating a rapidly growing mass of various Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices in the process.
However, the internet connectivity of smart TVs and the perilous state of security in the IoT space in general has opened the floodgates to a deluge of threats to our privacy and security.
Research has shown that various attacks against smart TVs are possible and practicable, often requiring no physical access to the device or interaction from the user. It has also been demonstrated several times that, once compromised, an Internet-enabled TV can serve as a springboard for attacks at other devices within the same network, ultimately targeting a user’s personal information stored on even juicier targets such as PCs or laptops.
Watching you watching me
Now, you probably enjoy watching your smart TV, but chances are that you don’t want it to watch you, too. But ‘watch its watchers’ is precisely what these TVs can do.
Back in 2013, researchers demonstrated that, by exploiting security holes in some models of Samsung’s internet-capable TVs, it was possible to remotely turn on the built-in camera and microphone. In addition to converting the TVs into all-seeing, all-hearing devices, they were able to take control of embedded social media apps, posting information on the users’ behalf and accessing files. Another researcher highlighted an attack that allowed him to insert fake news stories into the browser of a smart TV.
Malware, too, can find its way into smart TVs that could convert them into bugging devices. In this attack vector, which has also been proven practicable, hackers could create a legitimate app before releasing a malicious update that would then be automatically downloaded onto a smart TV fitted with a built-in microphone.
In 2014, a loophole in a widely used interactive TV standard known as Hybrid Broadcast Broadband TV (HbbTV) came to light. It emerged that malicious attack code could be buried into ‘rogue’ broadcasts and target thousands of smart TVs in one fell swoop, hijacking these as well as other devices in the network, stealing logins, displaying bogus adverts, and even sniffing for unprotected Wi-Fi networks. In addition, the attack was found not to require any special hacking smarts.
Issues with HbbTV were in the spotlight again in 2017. A security researcher demonstrated a technique for deploying a rogue over-the-air signal to compromise internet-enabled televisions. Once taken over by the attacker, the TV could be used for an apparently endless list of malicious actions, including to spy on the user via the TV’s microphone and camera, and to burrow deep into the local network. As many as nine in ten smart TVs sold in recent years were estimated to be prone to this hack. As with the earlier example, the victim would spot no outward signs of something being amiss.
In February 2018, US non-profit organization Consumer Reports released the results of hack tests on internet-connected TVs of five brands, each of which features a different smart TV platform. “Millions of smart TVs can be controlled by hackers exploiting easy-to-find security flaws”, said the organization. The devices were found to be susceptible to rather unsophisticated hacks that would enable an attacker to flip through channels, crank up the volume to blaring levels, install new apps, and knock the device off Wi-Fi – all while working remotely, of course.
The review also found that users need to consent to the collection of very detailed data about their viewing habits – unless they’re ready to forgo some of the smart features of their new smart TV. Over the years, several manufacturers have been found to engage in the behind-the-scenes acquisition of, and trafficking in, data about the viewing habits of consumers.
Having a listen
Concerns about the implications of smart TVs for privacy were also raised in 2015, when Samsung’s ‘voice recognition’ function as another layer of convenience that enables you to give voice commands to your smart TV came to the fore. The company warned its customers who use the voice activation feature on their smart TVs that their private conversations would be among the data captured and shared with third parties. In addition, the voice information picked up in such ‘official snooping’ was not always encrypted, potentially enabling intruders to listen in on private conversations.
All told, the security conversation is here to stay, as a range of private and security concerns persist while more and more consumers are snapping up smart TVs. According to one projection, over 750 million smart TVs will be in use worldwide by the end of 2018.
Smart TVs afford us the opportunity to use them for purposes that are more commonly associated with computers. In fact, that’s what these TVs have become – internet-connected ‘computers’, much like mobile phones. It would no doubt help if we thought of them as such and treated them accordingly.