Slashdot Mirror


Android Hacked Via NFC On the Samsung Galaxy S 3

An anonymous reader writes with an item from The Next Web: "Security researchers participating in the Mobile Pwn2Own contest at the EuSecWest Conference in Amsterdam [Wednesday] demonstrated how to hack Android through a Near Field Communication (NFC) vulnerability. The 0day exploit was developed by four MWR Labs employees (two in South Africa and two in the UK) for a Samsung Galaxy S 3 phone running Android 4.0.4 (Ice Cream Sandwich). Two separate security holes were leveraged to completely take over the device, and download all the data from it."

135 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. So am I safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This was hacked via NFC. But I live in Pittsburgh, and the Steelers are in the AFC.

    So I can assume I am safe?

    1. Re:So am I safe? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No. Your defense is weak.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:So am I safe? by nighthawk243 · · Score: 1

      Pittsburgh's going to win the Superb Owl since they'll just hack the phones of the NFC team and disable their alarm clock. Can't lose a game if the other team doesn't show up.

    3. Re:So am I safe? by Noone+Thirty · · Score: 1

      so until the real refs are back noone is safe!

      Maybe so, but I'm still not taking any chances.

    4. Re:So am I safe? by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

      Go stillers!

  2. And... iOS6 by jkflying · · Score: 5, Informative

    At the same event, they also hacked iOS6. Just to give an unbiased view...

    --
    Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    1. Re:And... iOS6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You must be new here.

    2. Re:And... iOS6 by jkflying · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read the link:
      http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/19/dutch-security-researchers-hack-apple-iphone-4s-exploiting-safari/

      They did it via a malicious webpage, which IMO is even worse than via NFC.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    3. Re:And... iOS6 by jkflying · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They did it via a malicious webpage. I said hack, not jailbreak.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    4. Re:And... iOS6 by grub · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was trying to reply to myself with that but here's a several minute delay between posts. :(

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    5. Re:And... iOS6 by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      But it's certainly not using passive NFC.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    6. Re:And... iOS6 by TeRanEX · · Score: 5, Funny

      At the same event, they also hacked iOS6. Just to give an unbiased view...

      So apple can now sue Samsung because they copied the 'security issues'-feature from the iphone into the Galaxy?

    7. Re:And... iOS6 by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 2

      They both have web exploits but the Android variety can be triggered simply by being nearby an attacker. The iOS one needs a tricked user.

    8. Re:And... iOS6 by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      To give the unbiased view, a hack via website is bad, but one via NFC seems a lot worse (although one hopes you would be suspicious when a stranger starts holding your android up to his; its not exactly "stealthy").

    9. Re:And... iOS6 by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also for unbiased view, Pwn2Own is turn based as far as I remember. So any gloating that X device was first to be pwned is meaningless. Teams register before the contest. Team order is chosen randomly (drawing straws, 12 sided dice, whatever). The first team decides which device to be hacked and is given a time period to do so. If they succeed, they get the device. If the first team fails, the second team gets their chance and choice of device. If the first team succeeds, the next team with an unhacked device goes. Some teams register for multiple devices to get a better chance to win something.

      So gloating that iOS or Androd was first to be pwned is useless. It doesn't tell anything about ease of hack or relative security of devices. What matters if they were pwned.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:And... iOS6 by emho24 · · Score: 1

      It seems like you have never used NFC on Android devices. On my Android tablet and smartphone, you have to physically press them together and make sure you hit the "sweet spot". It doesn't work when the devices are inches apart.

      --
      You must gather your party before venturing forth.
    11. Re:And... iOS6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Worse? People visit a dozen websites everyday, but how often do they bump phones with somebody else?

      More than that, to prevent NFC hack you just have to flip it off, but to prevent hack via rogue ad iframe... well, if it was Android, you could just block the ads, for example, even with hosts file, or use a different browser, but on iOS you're SoL.

      Good thing for Apple this is before iOS6 release, not right after.

    12. Re:And... iOS6 by Zizagoo · · Score: 1

      You have to tether your iOS 6 device to hack it. With this Galaxy 3 NFC hack, a stranger could do it sitting next to you on the bus.

      ...with your phone unlocked, and your volume muted, and they'd have to touch the exact spot in the middle of that giant phone without being noticed...

    13. Re:And... iOS6 by sarysa · · Score: 1

      I for one keep my device close, and only leave my phone lying under my car's seat or at home. (For extended periods of time) It doesn't take a security researcher to get my data if they could get close enough for NFC. NFC's real working range is less than 2 centimeters. (You might get lucky beyond 2, but you see what I mean) TFA states that the exploit can also be delivered with more conventional means, so I see no purpose for this article except to cause a panic about NFC. Pretty shameful. And people wonder why Android users claim the media is in Apple's pocket.

      --
      Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
    14. Re:And... iOS6 by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      2 centimeters is pretty darn close. How close do you stand to people?

    15. Re:And... iOS6 by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 2

      The idea being that it's ok to have an insecure wireless interface on your smartphone as long as you don't have to be *too* close to it for it to work?

      NFC stations are not usually on other people, they're in stores and random other places that entice you to use it. A hacked or augmented genuine NFC reader could be made to steal your data, for example.

    16. Re:And... iOS6 by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Worse? People visit a dozen websites everyday,

      Not ones I don't know well...

      How often do they bump phones with somebody else?

      Presumably only when you are outside Apple store lines mocking Apple users? That judging from the short historical documentary I watched. That's just the time an Apple fan might strike with a bump attack though.

      to prevent hack via rogue ad iframe...

      You have to wait a week or so for the next update, which 90% of the users will get.

      Good thing for Apple this is before iOS6 release, not right after.

      Nope. iOS6 is out. But it doesn't mean they can't do a quick update, in fact they usually do.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    17. Re:And... iOS6 by hobarrera · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ever been on the subway or a bus? It's around 0cm in either of those during some hours of the day.

    18. Re:And... iOS6 by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I did not say that, I only meant the attack vector is pretty small.

      Scanning/running random code in public is as dumb as running an exe you get in an email.

      My phone has NFC, that shit is turned off.

    19. Re:And... iOS6 by rjr162 · · Score: 2

      You didn't read the article did you?

      "The security researchers used a malicious webpage to send the iPhone 4S’ address book, browsing history, photos, and videos to a server of their choice. It was a drive-by download attack, meaning the user just has to go to the website, but doesn’t have to click (err, tap) on anything to have their data stolen. Furthermore, the site does not crash the browser, so the user is oblivious to losing their data."

      Yeah, that sounds just like jailbreaking doesn't it?

    20. Re:And... iOS6 by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 2

      It is indeed. The difference is your average Joe is fairly likely to know now that he shouldn't click on a link from an unknown address, or his email AV will have sanitized it first. Even if he keeps NFC turned off most of the time (which is not the default) he'll still have to turn it on to, for example, pay for something, and I think that's when it will be most dangerous.

    21. Re:And... iOS6 by rjr162 · · Score: 1

      Again, another person who can't read :)

      "The security researchers used a malicious webpage to send the iPhone 4S’ address book, browsing history, photos, and videos to a server of their choice. It was a drive-by download attack, meaning the user just has to go to the website, but doesn’t have to click (err, tap) on anything to have their data stolen. Furthermore, the site does not crash the browser, so the user is oblivious to losing their data."

      Yup, really sounds like it's tethered to me. You folks are getting "jailbreak" and "hacked" completely mixed up somehow....

    22. Re:And... iOS6 by von_rick · · Score: 1

      If you are standing that close and are being creepy, NFC hack is less of a concern. Getting kicked in the balls is the bigger concern.

      --

      Face your daemons!

    23. Re:And... iOS6 by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      2 centimeters is pretty darn close. How close do you stand to people?

      Just offer a public charging station for the phones - lots of people will willingly set their phone within the requisite distance for NFC, no questions asked - even at DefCon or BlackHat, where they should know better.

      Also, there have been eavesdropping attacks demonstrated that work at a distance of several meters.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    24. Re:And... iOS6 by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Samsung will defend themselves by claiming their vulnerability is an inferior implementation compared to iOS's.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    25. Re:And... iOS6 by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      iOS6 being hacked doesn't change that NFC is a busted technology.

    26. Re:And... iOS6 by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      At the same event, they also hacked iOS6. Just to give an unbiased view...

      ...and CNET has more details... http://m.cnet.com/news/iphone-4s-samsung-galaxy-s3-hacked-in-contest/57516966

    27. Re:And... iOS6 by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Worse? People visit a dozen websites everyday,

      Not ones I don't know well...

      An Android user could respond in the same way to make the android marketplace malware argument non sequitur. Dismissing a browser flaw on the basis that you don't visit malicious sites is obviously pretty silly.

    28. Re:And... iOS6 by mjwx · · Score: 1

      To give the unbiased view, a hack via website is bad, but one via NFC seems a lot worse (although one hopes you would be suspicious when a stranger starts holding your android up to his; its not exactly "stealthy").

      To give a perspective from security, a hack via a web browser is worse because it's not proximity dependent and cant be switched off. An attack via NFC requires your attacker to be physically close and NFC can be turned off.

      What isn't clear from the article is if this is a vulnerability in Android or in the S-Beam application used for NFC file transfers on the SGS3. But the article stated the attack is initiated by uploading a malicious file, so there are three really huge hurdles to this attack.

      1. You have to be in NFC range. Depending on the hardware, this could be between a few centimetres to several metres (I think the max radius of NFC is about 5 metres but under real world conditions it's measured in milimetres).
      2. You have to have NFC switched on.
      3. You have to accept a malicious file.

      The simple workaround is switching off NFC in the setting menu. I've got a GNex and not an SGS3 so I've never used S-Beam so I cant say if you can deny access to anyone trying to upload a file.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    29. Re:And... iOS6 by mjwx · · Score: 1

      So gloating that iOS or Androd was first to be pwned is useless. It doesn't tell anything about ease of hack or relative security of devices. What matters if they were pwned.

      What matters is how easily and how quickly (in terms of "go to pwned") they were pwned.

      A web browser vulnerability concerns me more than a NFC vulnerability where an attacker has to upload a malicious file. A web browser vulnerability can get you anywhere, you just have to navigate to a site with the malicious code. With an the NFC vulnerability, you have to have your phone centimetres from mine.

      From the article about the IOS vulnerability

      The security researchers used a malicious webpage to send the iPhone 4Sâ(TM) address book, browsing history, photos, and videos to a server of their choice. It was a drive-by download attack, meaning the user just has to go to the website,

      So if my favourite site, IOS.foo.com gets hacked and the malicious code is implanted, it's quite likely I'd get compromised.

      What people forget is that in the real world it is very, very easy to direct people to malicious sites and very, very hard to stay within centimetres of people without being noticed.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    30. Re:And... iOS6 by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      They both have web exploits but the Android variety can be triggered simply by being nearby an attacker. The iOS one needs a tricked user.

      NFC also needs to be turned on for the exploit to work. Android users therefore have a workaround (turn NFC off if/when not needed) that doesn't involve not surfing the web.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    31. Re:And... iOS6 by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      it's not specifically an NFC vulnerability. They just used NFC for, I presume, dramatic purposes. It could have been done with an email or a webpage. It's also a much more severe vulnerability. They achieved complete control of the device, including the ability to make phone calls. "What are all these 1-900 numbers, honey? And why is our phone bill $6,000?"

      Finally, Apple actually updates the OS on existing devices, so theirs will likely be fixed in short order. Does Samsung ever update its Android devices? (I really don't know the answer to that. Maybe they do it all the time).

    32. Re:And... iOS6 by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Do you mean to say that you actually read the article and you still don't know that NFC was simply the conduit they chose to deliver the exploit? Turning off NFC does not fix the underlying problem. It's by far the least likely way for this exploit to be delivered.

    33. Re:And... iOS6 by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 1

      Ya I've heard mixed information on whether NFC is on by default or not. Either way there's still a web exploit on both which means Android is at best no more secure, and at worse, less.

    34. Re:And... iOS6 by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I can't remember if NFC was enabled on my phone when I got it. It isn't enabled now, and I've always been a bit unsure about it.

      I believe the exploit is fixed in JB so I wont need to worry soon.

      I think the Android ecosystem needs to put more emphasis on bugfix/security updates, and force manufacturers to keep on top of them. Feature updates are not a primary concern - I got the phone I paid for.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
  3. Well that stinks by halfEvilTech · · Score: 1

    Hopefully they actually patch something like this, but knowing Verizon, AT&T, etc it won't for at least 6 months

    1. Re:Well that stinks by dmacleod808 · · Score: 2

      Whilst if Apple acknowledges the security issue, they will fix it pretty quick for ALL devices, OTA.

      --
      There Can Be Only One...
    2. Re:Well that stinks by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      How are service providers involved in what updates you install on your OS, which is not developed or maintained by them?

    3. Re:Well that stinks by CoolVC · · Score: 2

      Good question. That's part do the reason I have an iPhone. Less carrier involvement in everything.

  4. Is it really such a big deal? by pablo_max · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am not totally sure why these handset hacks are always such big news. What are the chances that this can happen to a normal person? One, you would need to have NFC enabled, which people may do, but at least I never do by default. Two, you need physical access to the handset.
    Has it not been the case for a very long time that if you lose your handset that someone can use it, NFC or no NFC? Oh, and they need to trigger the exploit 185 times before it worked. I think we are still reasonably safe.

    1. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by CimmerianX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Hacks just prove that there is a rush to implement new technology without considering the security implications of the tech.

      This is just history repeating itself. Every company wants to be the first to announce this brand new, 'cool' feature, but none will wait for the 'geeks' to test it for security issues.

    2. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Hacks just prove that there is a rush to implement new technology without considering the security implications of the tech.

      This is just history repeating itself. Every company wants to be the first to announce this brand new, 'cool' feature, but none will wait for the 'geeks' to test it for security issues.

      The irksome thing is that, while NFC is mildly novel in terms of the RF tricks(supporting both active/passive RFID-type use cases and short-range active/active ones), and I could see there being some teething pains on that side, these attacks are on NFC as an external data bus that wasn't attended to properly... Some sort of 'specially crafted responses cause hard lockup on $FOOCORP NFIC123 chips with firmware 1.0A' attack would be bad; but more or less par for the course. A more generic 'Hi guys! We added another wireless interface to your phone that happily talks to anything nearby by default, and even automatically executes certain local commands based on what it hears, that's cool, right?" mistake is... unimpressive.

      NFC may be new; but the fact that an easily accessible external bus would be an attack vector, against which you should be on your guard, sure isn't. It's less clunky that having some 80's 25-pin RS-232 port on the back of your phone; but it's conceptually pretty similar.

    3. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by vawwyakr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that is pretty key here, 185 times at the range of less than and inch or so is basically someone sitting there next to you pretty much touching you for 5 minutes. Obviously this is something that needs to be fixed but I'll hold off on my panic just yet. Even if it worked on the first try someone would have to first identify you as having a vulnerable phone, and where you have if (ie which pocket, etc) then get so close as to be practically touching you and then they have to hope that you have nfc enabled. This isn't some sort of thing you can do just casually walking down the street. It might be an issue for a particular person being targeted but not very likely for a random attack.

    4. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      One, you would need to have NFC enabled, which people may do, but at least I never do by default.

      What ARE the uses for NFC right now. I know google wallet works for the galaxy nexus and a few phones by sprint, and ISIS hasn't come out yet, but what are people actually doing with it besides hacking phones and thinking about how at some point in the future, they'll be able to buy coffee with their phone?

    5. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by wile_e8 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Launching Tasks
      Sharing Wifi

      Just a couple I use off the top of my head

    6. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by vawwyakr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So that assumption here is what? Someone walks down the street bumping into random strangers repeatedly hoping that:

      1) The bump into the side where the strangers phone was being held.
      2) The two phones are perfectly at the same height (presumably in a pocket).
      3) The strangers phone is vulnerable.
      4) They have NFC enabled.
      5) They could hold the phones in contact for the about of time necessary to transfer both an overloaded filed (presumably exceeded a buffer limit) and THEN also transfer the app compromised app that allows the actual hack to work (over a connection with a maximum bandwidth of a few hundred kbits/s).
      6) Then after the hack succeeded they remained in contact long enough for the data from the strangers phone to be transferred back to the hackers phone.

      All with anyone noticing? That's all assuming they fix whatever issue was causing it to need to be run 185 times before it finally worked? Assuming those 185 times were the incremental transfers of all the data needed? Again I'm still not scared. And this is fixed in Jelly bean (which my S3 is running...doom on you close talking random guy on the street thinking you finally found someone with an S3 to stand uncomfortably close to!).

    7. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by vawwyakr · · Score: 1

      Missed the part about walking down the street, ok so what other anonymous situations do you see? On the bus? Or are we talking about pickpockets? I can see this as an issue for non-anonymous situations (I know that guy and his phone is vulnerable) but for random situations I can't see a lot that would be overly successful. Perhaps you can help me see some of these situations instead of just cussing at me and calling me names?

    8. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by danomac · · Score: 1

      If someone bumped into me 185 times, I'd notice and do something about it.

    9. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by vawwyakr · · Score: 1

      184 though....I'd just sit back and enjoy it.

    10. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      1) No challenge there.
      2) Try a few times, you're bound to have luck sooner or later - pocket heights don't vary that much.
      3/4) It's the default, and what most average users will have.
      5) Just a few seconds will do.
      6) The attacker can run anything on the target phone. I expect that whatever he runs would steal the data through other means, and not NFC (ie: email? remote server?)

    11. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by kqs · · Score: 1

      I am not totally sure why these handset hacks are always such big news. What are the chances that this can happen to a normal person? One, you would need to have NFC enabled, which people may do, but at least I never do by default. Two, you need physical access to the handset.

      I'm guessing it's a bigger deal to those who RTFA and see that this flaw can also be exploited by web and email; they just used NFC because it was novel. But true, it's not a big deal to people who like to complain but hate to be informed.

      I'm saddened that so many of these people also choose to vote. Perhaps a little quiz at the polls: "Did Obama say that business owners didn't build their own businesses? Did Romney say that he wants to fire people? Did you ever, for more than 1.3 seconds, have a doubt that Obama was born in the US?" Any "yes" answers means that your vote is ignored for the next 6 years.

    12. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by danomac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, at about 182 I might raise an eyebrow!

    13. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Great, and how long do you think it will be until all of them are upgraded to the "current version"? a year? 2 years? Never is my guess.

    14. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      You've never met a woman have you? Sorry that was rhetorical - it is /. after all....

      "Miss stop touching me, stop holding yourself so close, stop letting your hands roam all over my body..."

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    15. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Great, and how long do you think it will be until all of them are upgraded to the "current version"? a year? 2 years? Never is my guess.

      I would say get a Nexus were it not for the tarnishing given the line by the Verizon debacle so I'll just say get a Nexus with GSM. And if the Galaxy Nexus isn't your speed then wait just a couple of months until Google releases the planned multiple simultaneous Nexus lines. As far as patching and new versions of the operating system go, Google is updating Android and releasing security fixes responsibly but it is still up to the OEMs to actually release for their individual handsets. The formula works though if market share is the goal and my understanding is that for Google, it is. More people using internet capable smartphones = more people viewing ads. And unlike the iPhone or any other competitor, Google's presence on the vast majority of Android handsets is a given and won't be changing any time soon.

      For the general consumer, I'm not convinced that most even care about Android functionality updates. Many users of the OS are smartphone first-timers and would be loath to install anything that made significant changes to how the phone looked or behaved. OEMs do need to focus on security updates though as that is a genuinely pressing issue. Much more so than whether Aunt Tilly is running ICS or Jellybean in my opinion.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    16. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      And none of that changes the fact that there is, and will continue to be, a lot of NFC enabled android phones out there that are vulnerable -- basically forever. Android has now become the new windows XP; Vulnerable with patches taking years to get to end users, and millions of users who don't patch their systems even when they are available.

    17. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Android has now become the new windows XP; Vulnerable with patches taking years to get to end users, and millions of users who don't patch their systems even when they are available.

      I hate to be the one to break the news to you but every OS has unpatched vulnerabilities. Every. Single. One. Check Secunia or your favorite security site if you don't believe me and marvel at the number of known security holes that vendors have left unadressed. There are something like 500 million Android devices in the wild. When some malware epidemic of epic remote Pwnage happens then you can call Android the new Windows XP. Many hackers might consider an Android device an even juicier target than XP since it is almost guaranteed to contain intimate personal details. Yet life goes on and despite the weekly scare stories the security press likes to churn out, Android users are mostly free from pretty much any malware that they didn't explicitely install themselves either by pirating apps, using third party unvetted app stores, or the rare malicious app that slips through Google's fingers and ends up on the official Play Store (a rarity that is only getting harder for authors to succeed at since Google started really paying attention). My daily driver is a fully updated Galaxy Nexus but you'll have to pardon me for not getting too up in arms over my assortment of lesser Android devices as they've all been trundling along on whatever version of Android they shipped with/got updated to and not a one has yet to show any signs of being the worse for it.

      a lot of NFC enabled android phones out there that are vulnerable

      By an attack that requires the victim's phone to first actually be on (NFC deactivates when the screen is off), within a very small number of centimeters aligned at just the right place with the attacker's device, in communication for an extended period of time, have NFC actually on at all, and the user to be totally oblivious as a stranger who both miraculously is on the ball enough to strike at just the right moment and takes advantage of all of these variables being perfectly aligned for him to do his dirty work. Um, yeah. Maybe I should play the numbers too since I'm apparently the recipient of the cosmos' so ridiculously contrived you can still smell the glue statistical outlier joke of the day award. Or I'll just have a shirt printed saying "The Universe hates me and all I got was this lousy t-shirt".

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    18. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      By an attack that requires the victim's phone to first actually be on (NFC deactivates when the screen is off), within a very small number of centimeters aligned at just the right place with the attacker's device, in communication for an extended period of time, have NFC actually on at all, and the user to be totally oblivious as a stranger who both miraculously is on the ball enough to strike at just the right moment and takes advantage of all of these variables being perfectly aligned for him to do his dirty work. Um, yeah. Maybe I should play the numbers too since I'm apparently the recipient of the cosmos' so ridiculously contrived you can still smell the glue statistical outlier joke of the day award. Or I'll just have a shirt printed saying "The Universe hates me and all I got was this lousy t-shirt".

      Or maybe you should actually try and think. How difficult would it be to place a NFC skimmer next to or on top of that Mcdonald's payment console? Your device would be on, and within range. Oh, yes, I'm sure no one could do that, that hasn't been done before. I think you should get a shirt printed, but choose another slogan.

    19. Re:Is it really such a big deal? by vawwyakr · · Score: 1

      Hey some random woman rubs up against me 185 times...I will get suspicious! 184....just good times.

  5. Jelly bean fixes this? by Terry+Pearson · · Score: 2

    The article eludes to the fact that Jellybean may fix this. All the more reason for carriers and manufactures to expedite upgrades.

    1. Re:Jelly bean fixes this? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      By 'upgrade', you mean the new handset that you get for 'free' when you sign my two-year service contract, right consumer?

    2. Re:Jelly bean fixes this? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Which the carriers may or may not ever provide.

      So your security is a crap shoot.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Jelly bean fixes this? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      By 'upgrade', you mean the new handset that you get for 'free' when you sign my two-year service contract, right consumer?

      Cyanogen Mod.

    4. Re:Jelly bean fixes this? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      The carrier has nothing to do with this, it's just the manufacturer's problem, or maybe Google's in the long run, but no-one else's.

    5. Re:Jelly bean fixes this? by Terry+Pearson · · Score: 1

      The carrier has nothing to do with this...

      If you are not on a custom Rom, you will not get an upgrade until 1) The manufacturer provides the approved upgrade, and 2) The carrier determines whether they will push OTA the upgrade. While the carrier may not always be a huge part of the upgrade, they make it happen in the end. All the more reason to jump on XDA and get a custom rom for your device.

    6. Re:Jelly bean fixes this? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup. For a Nexus device you will probably get security updates for about 1.5 years from the date that the device was FIRST announced (ie passed out at IO or whatever). For any other device you probably won't ever get an update, unless somebody manages to totally own the thing will it is still being advertised on TV.

      If you care about updates on Android don't ever buy anything but a Nexus device, and don't buy the Nexus device unless it is no more than a few months old. I'd say in a few months the Nexus 7 is going to be obsolete as far as updates go (sure, it will still get them, but likely for only a year after you buy it). I think two years is the minimum a phone should be supported, but if you want that you need to buy an iPhone (if you buy a 4s TODAY you'll probably STILL get updates for a full two years). I love Android, but the lack of updates just kills me.

    7. Re:Jelly bean fixes this? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      You could just download the update from the net/using the OS's update mechanism. If your ISP filters this, just use WiFi.

  6. DEFCON 20 by phantomcircuit · · Score: 2

    This was demonstrated at DEFCON 20. He live demo'd rooting an android device using NFC to open the browser and a brwoser exploit to gain root. https://www.defcon.org/html/defcon-20/dc-20-speakers.html#Miller

  7. Not exactly practical by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Given the short range and low bandwidth (424 kilobits/s) of NFC technology, this is more of an esoteric attack than a practical one. I think I'd notice someone shadowing me with a hand at my pocket to connect to my Nexus S via its NFC chip and pull data from it...
    Still, it's a show of force (and vulnerabilities).

    --
    Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    1. Re:Not exactly practical by jkflying · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They don't need to. Just upload a little executable that sends everything over wifi/3G to them, and listens to new commands over those interfaces as well.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    2. Re:Not exactly practical by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The more worrisome thing is probably that NFC is built in in the hope that swiping it all over the place against untrusted devices will become a normal behavior(sort of the way that attacks against the USB charge/data port are wildly impractical, until random charging kiosks start popping up in airports and all over the place, at which point behavioral protection goes out the window, and a bunch of systems intended only to connect to your home PC start getting shoved into god-knows-what...). Sure, as an attack to execute against the phone in your pocket, it is only marginally more practical than making a stab for the USB port; but if the happy-magic-future-of-even-more-middlemen-and-fees comes to pass, you'll see anywhere between several and dozens of readers a day getting a chance to try whatever they want when you shove your phone onto the pad(plus, if ATMs and mag stripe skimming are any indication, it will be about 20 minutes before somebody comes out with a nice little stick-on thin-circuit-in-rugged-sticker NFC 'skimmer' that can be planted on top of legitimate NFC pads and will do its best to MitM legitimate conversations or attack devices while they converse with the genuine NFC pad and log the results).

    3. Re:Not exactly practical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's only short range with standard consumer equipment. There's nothing stopping someone from boosting the signals. It's like claiming wifi or bluetooth is secure because the range is within your building. That malicious guy over there has no problem using a booster (or even just a simple yagi)

    4. Re:Not exactly practical by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Aside from the fact that just sticking a skimmer onto real Coca-Cola kiosks would be cheaper? Nothing at all. Same basic reason that ATM card skimmers are more common than full fake ATMs.

  8. It's a good thing I don't go bumping/grinding by BMOC · · Score: 3, Informative

    against random hackers while having my cell phone in my pocket at the geek-overloaded dance clubs on a regular basis... I guess I'm safe for now.

    Key phrase from the report: by holding two Galaxy S 3s next to each other .

    --
    I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
    1. Re:It's a good thing I don't go bumping/grinding by Zizagoo · · Score: 1

      But practically any app which interacted with an NFC reader would force the phone into write mode, which blocks incoming packets. Otherwise you'd never get the chance to write...

    2. Re:It's a good thing I don't go bumping/grinding by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1

      Like sitting on the bus/train?

      The trick is to get onto the bus/train smelling really bad, so nobody will dare get close to you. Many people seem to already be employing this technique.

  9. to be fair by batistuta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you also need to have NFC enabled on your Galaxy for this to work. NFC is enabled by default, sure. But it can be disabled easily. I also find myself living happily without NFC, but not without tethering, which I use daily during my bus commute.

    So my point is that both vulnerabilities suck, and which one sucks the most depends solely on your use-case. There is no point in saying that one device is more secure than the other, both Apple and Google seem to suck big time here. You should not store any sensitive data on your phone.

    1. Re:to be fair by ToastedRhino · · Score: 2

      you also need to have NFC enabled on your Galaxy for this to work.

      No, you don't. If you take a minute to RTFA you'll see this:

      The attack isn’t limited to NFC though; it can also be abused via other attack vectors, such as malicious websites or email attachments.

      They chose to use NFC for the novelty effect. This could just as easily have been done via a malicious website.

      Yes both vulnerabilities suck, but they are not equal. For instance, the iOS attack allowed the stealing of contacts, pictures, video, and browsing history. Things that are supposed to be protected in iOS, but in this case weren't sufficiently so. The Android attack allowed the execution of arbitrary code. These two things are not the same, though both definitely need to be fixed ASAP. And to be fair, JB may have already patched the holes in Android, provided people can actually get it on their phones this is a really good thing.

    2. Re:to be fair by rjr162 · · Score: 1

      Weird.. on my International Galaxy S III (GT-i9300T) the NFC was disabled by default. Must be something the carriers decide

    3. Re:to be fair by batistuta · · Score: 2

      you also need to have NFC enabled on your Galaxy for this to work.

      No, you don't. If you take a minute to RTFA you'll see this:

      The attack isn’t limited to NFC though; it can also be abused via other attack vectors, such as malicious websites or email attachments.

      Yes, you do. What you are describing is a different way to accomplish the attack. As an end user, I don't care if the underlying exploit is similar, I only care about how I can be affected by it. This leads to the next point.

      They chose to use NFC for the novelty effect.

      No, they've chosen NFC because now more phones have it, but mostly because it allows accomplishing the attack without any user intervention at all. People could avoid getting hacked from visiting malicious websites, simply by limiting themselves to trusted sites. Most people only frequent their usual places. But the NFC is a hidden vector that many users are not even aware of.

      As I've mentioned in my first post, I could live with an NFC or browser vulnerability, but not with a tethering one. Other people will think the opposite. At the end of the day, these news make wish you didn't depend on your cell phone so much, because there are always security holes in there.

      I find it funny when automotive industry push to connect their cars to the network, as if they could do any better.

  10. Re:NFC no thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, YOUR an idiot.

  11. NFC Doesn't Work That Easily by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Informative

    With this Galaxy 3 NFC hack, a stranger could do it sitting next to you on the bus.

    No, they'd have to be sitting next to me on the bus AND physically touch my phone with another device long enough to trigger NFC AND I have to have NFC enabled AND keep the devices in physical contact long enough for the download to complete OR hope that I have an active data connection AND the right web browser set as my default so their specially crafted web page loads to root my device...
    Except that (since I have like six web browsers installed) it requires me to interact with the phone to pick the web browser to open the page... A lot more difficult to arrange than "sitting next to someone".

    Also, the ASLR implementation is known to be incomplete on ICS. It's apparently fully fixed on Jelly Bean, so this hack shouldn't be possible on the S3 in a couple months, when the update is rolled out. Likewise, all of the Nexus NFC devices have been updated to Jelly Bean, so they're secure.

    Yeah, it's sad that the hack was possible, but it was due to flaws in the OS, not due to problems with NFC, and only under a very contrived set of circumstances...

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    1. Re:NFC Doesn't Work That Easily by hobarrera · · Score: 2

      1) Average users don't install several browsers.
      2) On a subway or any other crowded enviroment, it's not hard to stay that close to someone for plenty of time.
      3) "Rolled in a few months" can also be read as "All S3's will be vulnerable for several more months".
      4) Average users don't change the defaults, including disabling the NFC.

    2. Re:NFC Doesn't Work That Easily by rjr162 · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to mention I received an update last night on my S3 (international GT-i9300T). It wasn't super large, and it didn't change the OS version #, so I'm not sure if it was a patch for the NFC already pushed out or what it may have related to. Maybe Samsung's website will list it?

    3. Re:NFC Doesn't Work That Easily by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      And guess what, you're not the average android owner. So the little story you typed out doesn't really mean anything. it was a waste of time.

    4. Re:NFC Doesn't Work That Easily by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yes, effectively if they could get close enough to your phone, they might as well just outright steal it.

    5. Re:NFC Doesn't Work That Easily by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Except everything I typed out applies to the average android owner. Even my Mom has two web browsers installed, the default the phone came w/ and Dolphin. With mobile versions of Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and hundreds of apps out there that also offer to open URLs when prompted...

      Really that's the least important part of the story. The important part is them somehow holding their phone to mine back-to-back long enough to do the exploit 185 times. It's much more likely they'd just pickpocket my phone at that point. Anyone going on about "Ever been in a crowded subway!?" has obviously never tried to use NFC.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  12. Going to sum up what I see as the threat here by vawwyakr · · Score: 1

    I posted this above but here's what I see (maybe I'm missing something so help me out). So that assumption of danger here is what? Someone walks down the street bumping into random strangers repeatedly hoping that:

    1) The bump into the side where the strangers phone was being held.
    2) The two phones are perfectly at the same height (presumably in a pocket).
    3) The strangers phone is vulnerable.
    4) They have NFC enabled.
    5) They could hold the phones in contact for the about of time necessary to transfer both an overloaded filed (presumably exceeded a buffer limit) and THEN also transfer the app compromised app that allows the actual hack to work (over a connection with a maximum bandwidth of a few hundred kbits/s).
    6) Then after the hack succeeded they remained in contact long enough for the data from the strangers phone to be transferred back to the hackers phone.

    All with anyone noticing? That's all assuming they fix whatever issue was causing it to need to be run 185 times before it finally worked? Assuming those 185 times were the incremental transfers of all the data needed? Again I'm still not scared. And this is fixed in Jelly bean (which my S3 is running...doom on you close talking random guy on the street thinking you finally found someone with an S3 to stand uncomfortably close to!).

    1. Re:Going to sum up what I see as the threat here by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      I posted this above but here's what I see (maybe I'm missing something so help me out).
      So that assumption of danger here is what? Someone walks down the street bumping into random strangers repeatedly hoping that:

      1) The bump into the side where the strangers phone was being held.
      2) The two phones are perfectly at the same height (presumably in a pocket).
      3) The strangers phone is vulnerable.
      4) They have NFC enabled.
      5) They could hold the phones in contact for the about of time necessary to transfer both an overloaded filed (presumably exceeded a buffer limit) and THEN also transfer the app compromised app that allows the actual hack to work (over a connection with a maximum bandwidth of a few hundred kbits/s).
      6) Then after the hack succeeded they remained in contact long enough for the data from the strangers phone to be transferred back to the hackers phone.

      All with anyone noticing? That's all assuming they fix whatever issue was causing it to need to be run 185 times before it finally worked? Assuming those 185 times were the incremental transfers of all the data needed? Again I'm still not scared. And this is fixed in Jelly bean (which my S3 is running...doom on you close talking random guy on the street thinking you finally found someone with an S3 to stand uncomfortably close to!).

      This could be done similar to the way Bank Card Skimmers work. Place a fake nfc device in a situation where a real one would be likely (gas station pump for example). Then sit and wait for people to try and use it.

    2. Re:Going to sum up what I see as the threat here by megalomaniacs4u · · Score: 1

      An episode of NCIS had a girl bumping into strangers with a NFC skimmer http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1683271/ NCIS season 8 episode 8 - Enemies Foreign

    3. Re:Going to sum up what I see as the threat here by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      I posted this above but here's what I see (maybe I'm missing something so help me out).

      So that assumption of danger here is what? Someone walks down the street bumping into random strangers repeatedly hoping that:

      1) The bump into the side where the strangers phone was being held.

      2) The two phones are perfectly at the same height (presumably in a pocket).

      3) The strangers phone is vulnerable.

      4) They have NFC enabled.

      5) They could hold the phones in contact for the about of time necessary to transfer both an overloaded filed (presumably exceeded a buffer limit) and THEN also transfer the app compromised app that allows the actual hack to work (over a connection with a maximum bandwidth of a few hundred kbits/s).

      6) Then after the hack succeeded they remained in contact long enough for the data from the strangers phone to be transferred back to the hackers phone.

      All with anyone noticing? That's all assuming they fix whatever issue was causing it to need to be run 185 times before it finally worked? Assuming those 185 times were the incremental transfers of all the data needed? Again I'm still not scared. And this is fixed in Jelly bean (which my S3 is running...doom on you close talking random guy on the street thinking you finally found someone with an S3 to stand uncomfortably close to!).

      All ya gotta do is knock the stranger out. This just helps hackers not physically steal phones. Because stealing phones is wrong. :>

  13. Only on Slashdot by EGSonikku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone discusses an NFC hack to root and steal data off Android and half the posts are "Apple isn't secure either!"

    Focus people! Slashdot is supposed to be the home of Linux and Open Source and über hacks! Why isn't anyone deceminating how this hack works and posting some kind of work-around that isn't just "Don't use NFC" (a feature which Apple gets derided for not having)?

    Remember, a fix isn't "Don't use NFC and switch to another browser." Let's assume a user *likes* NFC, and *likes* his web browser as it is. Lets *fix* the problem here. Any thoughts or conjecture?

    --
    - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
    1. Re:Only on Slashdot by vawwyakr · · Score: 1

      Well based on the article it sounds like its already fixed in the current version of Android. So not much to focus on I suppose?

    2. Re:Only on Slashdot by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Well based on the article it sounds like its already fixed in the current version of Android. So not much to focus on I suppose?

      The 2% of Android users that have the current version are safe then!

    3. Re:Only on Slashdot by vawwyakr · · Score: 1

      Well the 5% who have a phone with NFC and Android ICS are in trouble huh? I wasn't saying that the discussion isn't interesting I'm just saying that the OP's comment that we have to focus on finding a solution isn't really relevant since it's already fixed in the OS and NFC can be disabled if you haven't been updated.

    4. Re:Only on Slashdot by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I was just being facetious - I admit this issue isn't as big as the story is making out (although any 0 day exploit is serious). I was just bringing up a counter point to the claim that the issue didn't matter because Jelly Bean fixes it, when only a couple of weeks ago slashdot ran a story about how the bulk of Android users are at least one version behind, and in some cases stuck there for good (unless they root their phone).

    5. Re:Only on Slashdot by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Well the 5% who have a phone with NFC and Android ICS are in trouble huh?

      NFC is not a requirement. That was merely how they chose to deliver the payload.

  14. Sure, exactly the same by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, iOS6 was hacked. So if you were lured into visiting some bad web site site someone could potentially see your address book and photos - Oh no!

    Meanwhile everyone you bump with the S3 could be a carrier of a filthy, filthy disease that would render your entire system open to keyloggers or whatever.

    The iOS6 attack is read only, the NFC attack write...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Sure, exactly the same by rjr162 · · Score: 1

      Android
      Settings -> NFC off.
      Attack vector disabled!

      iPhone
      Settings -> Browser of.... damn

      and who says a legit site you've been going to for years can't be hacked and have this code planted within (via an iframe or whatever?), or served by a hacked ad network?

    2. Re:Sure, exactly the same by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Settings -> NFC off. Attack vector disabled!

      It's not an NFC vulnerability, that was merely the conduit they chose. So the device you think you just made safe is still vulnerable, and while you sleep it's dialing 1-900-HOT-CHIX all night long. Good luck with that phone bill.

  15. And Still No ATV3 Jailbreak? by meehawl · · Score: 1

    All this cracking and still no way to root the AppleTV 3?

    --

    Da Blog
  16. The real subject is NFC, not Android by perpenso · · Score: 1

    At the same event, they also hacked iOS6. Just to give an unbiased view...

    Actually you seem a little misleading given that the iPhones don't have NFC. I think the true subject of the article is NFC not Android. The fact that iOS and Android can get hacked by a malicious webpage seems a bit off topic.

    Android and Samsung are mentioned prominently only to get people's attention.

    1. Re:The real subject is NFC, not Android by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Does *nobody* RTFA anymore? It is an Android vulnerability. They used NFC as one of several ways to exploit it. They could have done the whole thing without using NFC at all.

    2. Re:The real subject is NFC, not Android by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Does *nobody* RTFA anymore? It is an Android vulnerability. They used NFC as one of several ways to exploit it. They could have done the whole thing without using NFC at all.

      You are actually supporting my suggestion that NFC is the real subject. An Android vulnerability is found, not exactly big news. That NFC can be the exploit vector, that is new and different.

  17. Doesn't surprise me... Samsung software sucks by exabrial · · Score: 1

    Samsung has incredible hardware. The Galaxy series of phones have all been quite remarkable. Their OLED technology puts out color gamut that makes Plasma TVs look like they were painted with pastel watercolors.

    Their software has always blown. Every tried to use GPS on a samsung phone? How about USB mass storage mode? How about SVoice? How about waiting 2 years for ICS to come out on a device? How about USB Host mode on CDMA models? List goes on... They cut so many corners on software to get it out the door.

    They try so hard to be like Apple... they've smoked Apple on the hardware side, but the lack of quality on their software side just completely spoils their phones. So when a 0 day flaw pops up that allows one to completely take over a phone, it doesn't surprise me. Results like this usually correlate with high software engineer turnover with low management turnover, which should points to a solution: fire the management.

    In other news though, I laughed at Person of Interest where the main character hacked other peoples phones by holding them together. Now I'm drinking my cup of shut up tea.

    Samsung(R): Amazing Hardware, Shitty Software (TM)

    1. Re:Doesn't surprise me... Samsung software sucks by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The problem is, the era of hardware differentiation is coming to a crashing close, its all software from here on out.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:Doesn't surprise me... Samsung software sucks by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1
      '

      Samsung has incredible hardware. The Galaxy series of phones have all been quite remarkable. Their OLED technology puts out color gamut that makes Plasma TVs look like they were painted with pastel watercolors.

      There have been reports about problems with the WiFi on the S3. Also the review for the hardware have been favorable except that several reviewers commented that the display on the S3 is noticeably dimmer than the S2 and competing phones (CNET has one such review).

      I'm thinking about getting an S3 but am waiting for the WiFi issue to be resolved. I depend on WiFi calling on my current Android phone when I'm out in the middle of nowhere and WiFi problems is a deal breaker for me. Luckily my current Android phone works well enough for me not to be in a hurry for a replacement.

      They try so hard to be like Apple... they've smoked Apple on the hardware side, but the lack of quality on their software side just completely spoils their phones. So when a 0 day flaw pops up that allows one to completely take over a phone, it doesn't surprise me. Results like this usually correlate with high software engineer turnover with low management turnover, which should points to a solution: fire the management.

      I believe a good smartphone has both good hardware and software. Unfortunately for Samsung, this means that the crappy software on their phone equates to a crappy smartphone. Despite this I think your assessment is a little unfair to both companies. They both have different priorities:

      Samsung is trying to be bleeding edge with their flagship phone, so expect them to push the limits of their software developers. Anyway Samsung seems to be relying on hardware specs on the advertising lately, and so I don't expect them to wait for QA prior to releasing the next big phone. I think most people who already have an Android phone are used to having non-polished software, so Samsung is just addressing the demand for better hardware by the Android enthusiasts who probably root their phone immediately anyway.

      Apple on the other hand is over engineering their phones. They try to not add hardware features that their software isn't ready to support. Most of their market runs the iPhone as is, and therefore I agree with Apple's strategy. J.D. Powers seem to agree that Apple's system engineering approach is satisfying consumer expectations.

      I suspect that if you ask an Android fan what's important they will answer: Open software, fast cpu, cutting edge hardware, removable battery, and expandable memory. If you ask an Apple fan the same question, they will answer: Sleek styling, lightweight, tight-integration with their other Apple products, ease of use, no software issues, a large number of apps, and an easy to use App store. Since both camps have differing objectives and the fan base fervently believe that their world view is the best, we will continue to have these fanboy wars.

      I do find Samsung's current advertising a little distasteful and childish. I hope Samsung doesn't view the Android community that way.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    3. Re:Doesn't surprise me... Samsung software sucks by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      What I've never understood is the non-user replaceable battery with (now almost all) Apple products. Why create a disposable anything at that price? And if its not disposable, why do people sign up to be stuck taking the device (laptop/phone) to the Apple Store so they can overcharge labor and materials?

      Regardless of how great the phone may be (or laptop for that matter.) If I can't change the battery myself, I'm not buying it. That holds true for any device.... There's no need for that shit THIS far into commodity hardware. Back when equipment was fragile and new (and expensive), maybe I could see it, but these days people should at least have a choice. If, after all is said and done, someone's all thumbs, by all means take it to a store and have them replace the battery. Telling ME I have to just lost that company a sale. I may be in the minority, but I can't figure out why... convenience it ain't. Going to the damn Apple Store like some junkie needing a fix because Jobs' zombified corpse wanted all his toys hermetically sealed is just beyond stupid. The worst part of it is, Apple's products went from "closed" to "semi-open if you're not a technophobe" to "fairly open" back to "sealed with a curse"... laptops and all. I mean, RAM too? Who the hell are they kidding with that crapola? The Mac Pro is still "open", but they update that with the same frequency a turtle walks around the world. (Not to mention it's overpriced.) I guess I'm a dying breed. So be it. Saves me money. :)

      (Speaking batteries, and other things, that's why I don't own a Vita or PSPGo, well, truthfully the only reason I didn't own a Go was it sucked ass....) :)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    4. Re:Doesn't surprise me... Samsung software sucks by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      What I've never understood is the non-user replaceable battery with (now almost all) Apple products.

      To be fair. I'm using the same removable battery that came with my Android phone. My last Android phone that I upgraded from still has its original battery. I haven't purchased a replacement battery for either of my smartphones. I may have been lucky, but I have gone over 2 years of heavy use on my current phone (knock on wood).

      Why create a disposable anything at that price? And if its not disposable, why do people sign up to be stuck taking the device (laptop/phone) to the Apple Store so they can overcharge labor and materials?

      The battery is replaceable, so I think the disposable comment is hyperbole. I don't see it that big a deal to take it to Apple to have it replaced. It's covered by the original warranty and Applecare covers it longer. If you didn't have a service plan and its out of warranty, your looking at $80. Samsung's S3 battery is listed at $70. I can probably find the battery for around $50 online somewhere. So at most, I risk paying an extra $30 on the off chance I need a replacement battery and I don't mind trying my luck at one of those discount battery stores. At the very least, I risk paying an extra $10.

      Anyway it seems people trade-in their old phones for the new one every two years, so the battery is probably a non-issue anyway. Except for those who buy used iPhones.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    5. Re:Doesn't surprise me... Samsung software sucks by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      The battery is replaceable, so I think the disposable comment is hyperbole.

      I wasn't the one to coin that particular phrase, actually. I read it in an editorial from some tech website... it got me to thinking... soldered RAM, sealed cases, no (easily) removable battery.... it's becoming a commodity in the Appleverse. I believe the article made a valid point, and when you start considering the technical background of Apple's stereotypical customer, it doesn't seem so far-fetched. I don't think it'll come to that end, but it certainly brings to the forefront how things are cyclical. We had the freedom and now it's swinging back to removing that freedom (or at the very least, making it extremely difficult for those who aren't buying into the mindset Apple is putting out there.)

      I don't see it that big a deal to take it to Apple to have it replaced. It's covered by the original warranty and Applecare covers it longer. If you didn't have a service plan and its out of warranty, your looking at $80.

      I think you still have to factor in travel time, waiting periods, and so forth. For $70, you can most likely get a replacement Android battery shipped two-day air via Amazon (I did that for my Galaxy S. It was around $39 IIRC.) But the point I think we can take from this is that Apple (and other companies) are trying to wrest control of your devices from you and creating a dependence on their support/help while you own the product. If that's fine with most people, I respect that. I just don't like the idea. It feels like a step backwards. The tech that liberated us and advanced us is becoming another thing that tethers and restricts us. Sure, that's hyperbole, but it sounded good in my head. :)

      I think the iPhone has nice features, and its very stylish, but I do not like the ecosystem surrounding Apple these days. To be fair and honest, I have a G5 tower and a Mac Mini... I have not been pleased with the direction of OS X, and plan to make the Mini an Ubuntu machine... whenever I get a wild hair. :) PPC Linux is a good idea for my boat anchor of a G5, but I need a new HDD as the reason its a boat anchor at the moment. :)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    6. Re:Doesn't surprise me... Samsung software sucks by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I wasn't the one to coin that particular phrase, actually. I read it in an editorial from some tech website... it got me to thinking... soldered RAM, sealed cases, no (easily) removable battery.... it's becoming a commodity in the Appleverse.

      Actually iFixit has determined that the iPhone5 is easier to repair than the previous iPhones.

      I think you still have to factor in travel time, waiting periods, and so forth. For $70, you can most likely get a replacement Android battery shipped two-day air via Amazon (I did that for my Galaxy S. It was around $39 IIRC.)

      Or I could just drive two blocks to my local Apple store and have the battery replaced.

      I have not been pleased with the direction of OS X,

      I haven't had any problems with OS X. With a few tweaks my desktop operates the same it always has. I run mixed environment of Linux/OS X and haven't had my desktop get in the way.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  18. HOW???? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    How is it possible at this age in computer development that we STILL design shit with giant holes in it? I honestly do not understand why it is so hard to make a robust and secure system. Is it because we demand so many features that they cant look at everything? How do you design a program that cannot be exploited? Why is it so very hard?

    --
    Good-bye
  19. On iPhone, can use alternate browser to avoid. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    iPhone
    Settings -> Browser of.... damn

    The exploit (ab)uses privileges Mobile Safari.

    That means ANY other browser you use on the device is safe from this attack, yes even though it's also using webkit. Like Chrome...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:On iPhone, can use alternate browser to avoid. by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      On iPhone, can use alternate browser to avoid.

      That means ANY other browser you use on the device is safe from this attack, yes even though it's also using webkit. Like Chrome...

      Many users (possibly even most) are content with the default browser so this is really a piss-poor solution. Not only that but last I checked iOS only opens links in other apps with Safari. It is doubtful a significant number of the people effected will be able or willing to do what it takes to fix this bug^H^H^H feature. For a mobile OS with one of its primary claims to fame being a satisfactory small-screen internet browsing experience to be so easily exploitable in the normal process of enjoying said experience is just embarrassing. So much for sandboxing and encryption and a walled-garden app store when all the hapless user has to do is surf to a given web page to get their device compromised. Truly shameful.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    2. Re:On iPhone, can use alternate browser to avoid. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Many users (possibly even most) are content with the default browser so this is really a piss-poor solution.

      Not really, it's a temporary fix for those concerned.

      People on Android all over the world are not going to be turning NFC off either even though that is a simple fix.

      As I said, within a week or so Apple will probably issue a patch fix which 90% of people will update to. Android users will have to live with the NFC vulnerability for years, possibly forever depending on the phone maker.

      For a mobile OS with one of its primary claims to fame being a satisfactory small-screen internet browsing experience to be so easily exploitable in the normal process of enjoying said experience is just embarrassing.

      Quite a lot less embarrassing than showing a happy video of people mocking iPhone users in line while they spread malware between themselves by bumping.

      Face it, the Android exploit is about 1000X worse than the Apple one.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  20. Good to know... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    Cool. A security exploit was found and now it can be fixed. A rational person would go, I'll just disable NFC and be okay.

    This being slashdot, we'll have more than our fair share of people insisting that this proves that Android is somehow inferior than their favorite brand of OS. This will in turn lead to Android fans pointing out how the other OS was also hacked. The next thing you know, we have an all out fanboy war on the comments. It's as if Slashdot editors are planning on this.

    Isn't there any cool news for geeks that isn't related to a cell phone?

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    1. Re:Good to know... by kiriath · · Score: 1

      I agree, I'm on the 'Other OS' team - but I still would like to be able to co-exist happily and not have massive flame wars back and forth.

      Any security hole is bad, no matter what it is found in. The real concern should be 'does it get fixed quickly' 'is there a current viable workaround' etc...

      That is why these conventions and contests are held and we should be grateful for them.

    2. Re:Good to know... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      ...Isn't there any cool news for geeks that isn't related to a cell phone?

      In what age group? :)

  21. Re:NFC no thank you by Velorium · · Score: 1

    What you did there. I see it.

  22. News that should surprise nobody by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    The first time I saw NFC demonstrated, with phones receiving and acting on data without user consent, a LOL'd at what a security disaster it would surely be.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  23. That's the great thing about Android by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    It has security holes and attracts malware. iOS only really has security holes.

  24. Re:Take over meaning root access? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    If that's the case, someone is probably already making a root-access-giving program that works through phone-to-phone NFC as we speak.
    Although... transmission through intimate contact? That sounds awfully like an STD...

    I can't wait until that's heard in a patent infringement suit.

  25. When you're using NFC, surely by joh · · Score: 1

    I am not totally sure why these handset hacks are always such big news. What are the chances that this can happen to a normal person? One, you would need to have NFC enabled, which people may do, but at least I never do by default. Two, you need physical access to the handset.
    Has it not been the case for a very long time that if you lose your handset that someone can use it, NFC or no NFC? Oh, and they need to trigger the exploit 185 times before it worked. I think we are still reasonably safe.

    The point is if you're actually using NFC the very device you're rubbing your phone against can run code on it, install software, whatever, without you actually noticing anything.

    Yes, if you're not using NFC you're safe.

    For establishing NFC this is very bad news. It's hardly used anywhere and can already take over your phone if you use it.

  26. You dont actually understand how this attack works by mjwx · · Score: 1

    2) On a subway or any other crowded environment, it's not hard to stay that close to someone for plenty of time.

    Wrong, We are talking milimetres here, it is very hard to keep your device within 2 or 3 centimetres of someone elses for any length of time without being noticed.

    Posting this from the article (which it looks like you haven't read).

    The flaw had to be triggered 185 times in the exploit code in order to overcome some of the vulnerabilityâ(TM)s limitations.

    OK, so they may need to attack me 185 times.

    The real world implications of this aren't significant. But it's good the vulnerability has been found so it can be patched in future versions.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  27. Re:You dont actually understand how this attack wo by hobarrera · · Score: 1

    Ever been on a crowded bus/subway? Distance between people tend to be 0cm at certain times of the day, not hard to put your cell phone next to someone else's pocket.

  28. Re:You dont actually understand how this attack wo by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    Wrong, We are talking milimetres here, it is very hard to keep your device within 2 or 3 centimetres of someone elses for any length of time without being noticed.

    Clearly you don't watch much Japanese porn.

  29. Re:You dont actually understand how this attack wo by hazydave · · Score: 1

    If my phone is in my pocket screen-out, it's going to be nearly impossible to establish an NFC connection in a crowded subway. The phone itself (plus the battery... on my phone, the NFC antenna is actually in the battery, so that it can be close to the back surface) is a pretty good shield.

    --
    -Dave Haynie
  30. It's funny that Android users turn off a feature by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    that the iPhone 5 was criticized by Android fanboys for not having.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  31. Exactly! by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    Android fanboys all over the Net pilloried iPhone 5 for not having NFC.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you