8 ms·

They are all denial of service bugs. I.e. crashes/hangs. No remote code execution or disclosure of sensitive data. Glad they were able to figure out the brandi

by osy 3y ago

They are all denial of service bugs. I.e. crashes/hangs. No remote code execution or disclosure of sensitive data. Glad they were able to figure out the branding though.

bryancoxwell 3y ago
> No [...] disclosure of sensitive data. Not directly, but downgrading to LTE would almost certainly force a UE to expose its IMSI at least.
- gafage 3y ago
  You don't need a baseband exploit for that, just a jammer.
zapcto 3y ago
> At least two other vulnerabilities are not disclosed yet due to confidentiality.
jdiff 3y ago
> Glad they were able to figure out the branding though. That's pretty obviously something someone threw together in a few minutes after grabbing a few [0] random images from the internet. This isn't one of those exploit sites with more effort poured into marketing than the exploits themselves. [0] https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/ghost_1227567 https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/ghost_1227567
coldpie 3y ago
The vulnerability branding trend is stupid, but I'm not sure it's worse for communicating what you're talking about than "CVE-2023-129038, 109239, and 120993" or "Those 5G vulnerabilities from uh I think 2022 or 2023? No not those, the other ones." Is there a better method?
- fragmede 3y ago
  I don't think it's stupid because I can't, off the top of my head, tell you the CVE number for Heartbleed, despite being very involved with it for a couple of weeks. Heartbleed I remember, along with Spectre/Meltdown, but I couldn't name the weak exploits that turn out to be nothing burgers. Log4j could have used a brand though, imo.
  - andrewxdiamond 3y ago
    How often do you need CVE numbers while simultaneously being unable to google for the CVE number?
  - genmud 3y ago
    Because everyone called it heartbleed. I still remember some of the big ones like MS03-026/031, MS08-067, CVE-2005-1042.
fulafel 3y ago
They observed just crashes and they didn't try to research exploitability. Absent more details, and knowing the usual exploitability distribution of C crash bugs, this would seem in doubt still.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by osy 3y ago

They are all denial of service bugs. I.e. crashes/hangs. No remote code execution or disclosure of sensitive data. Glad they were able to figure out the branding though.

bryancoxwell 3y ago

> No [...] disclosure of sensitive data. Not directly, but downgrading to LTE would almost certainly force a UE to expose its IMSI at least.

gafage 3y ago
You don't need a baseband exploit for that, just a jammer.

zapcto 3y ago

> At least two other vulnerabilities are not disclosed yet due to confidentiality.

jdiff 3y ago

> Glad they were able to figure out the branding though. That's pretty obviously something someone threw together in a few minutes after grabbing a few [0] random images from the internet. This isn't one of those exploit sites with more effort poured into marketing than the exploits themselves. [0] https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/ghost_1227567 https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/ghost_1227567

coldpie 3y ago

The vulnerability branding trend is stupid, but I'm not sure it's worse for communicating what you're talking about than "CVE-2023-129038, 109239, and 120993" or "Those 5G vulnerabilities from uh I think 2022 or 2023? No not those, the other ones." Is there a better method?

fragmede 3y ago
I don't think it's stupid because I can't, off the top of my head, tell you the CVE number for Heartbleed, despite being very involved with it for a couple of weeks. Heartbleed I remember, along with Spectre/Meltdown, but I couldn't name the weak exploits that turn out to be nothing burgers. Log4j could have used a brand though, imo.
- andrewxdiamond 3y ago
  How often do you need CVE numbers while simultaneously being unable to google for the CVE number?
- genmud 3y ago
  Because everyone called it heartbleed. I still remember some of the big ones like MS03-026/031, MS08-067, CVE-2005-1042.

fulafel 3y ago

They observed just crashes and they didn't try to research exploitability. Absent more details, and knowing the usual exploitability distribution of C crash bugs, this would seem in doubt still.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]