By continuing to use the site or forum, you agree to the use of cookies, find out more by reading our GDPR policy

Over the last few years, researchers have found a shocking number of vulnerabilities in seemingly basic code that underpins how devices communicate with the Internet. Now, a new set of nine such vulnerabilities are exposing an estimated 100 million devices worldwide, including an array of Internet-of-things products and IT management servers. The larger question researchers are scrambling to answer, though, is how to spur substantive changes—and implement effective defenses—as more and more of these types of vulnerabilities pile up. Dubbed Name:Wreck, the newly disclosed flaws are in four ubiquitous TCP/IP stacks, code that integrates network communication protocols to establish connections between devices and the Internet. The vulnerabilities, present in operating systems like the open source project FreeBSD, as well as Nucleus NET from the industrial control firm Siemens, all relate to how these stacks implement the “Domain Name System” Internet phone book. They all would allow an attacker to either crash a device and take it offline or gain control of it remotely. Both of these attacks could potentially wreak havoc in a network, especially in critical infrastructure, health care, or manufacturing settings where infiltrating a connected device or IT server can disrupt a whole system or serve as a valuable jumping-off point for burrowing deeper into a victim's network. All of the vulnerabilities, discovered by researchers at the security firms Forescout and JSOF, now have patches available, but that doesn't necessarily translate to fixes in actual devices, which often run older software versions. Sometimes manufacturers haven't created mechanisms to update this code, but in other situations they don't manufacture the component it's running on and simply don't have control of the mechanism. “With all these findings, I know it can seem like we’re just bringing problems to the table, but we're really trying to raise awareness, work with the community, and figure out ways to address it,” says Elisa Costante, vice president of research at Forescout, which has done other, similar research through an effort it calls Project Memoria. “We've analyzed more than 15 TCP/IP stacks both proprietary and open source and we've found that there's no real difference in quality. But these commonalities are also helpful, because we've found they have similar weak spots. When we analyze a new stack, we can go and look at these same places and share those common problems with other researchers as well as developers.” The researchers haven't seen evidence yet that attackers are actively exploiting these types of vulnerabilities in the wild. But with hundreds of millions—perhaps billions—of devices potentially impacted across numerous different findings, the exposure is significant. Siemens USA chief cybersecurity officer Kurt John told Wired in a statement that the company “works closely with governments and industry partners to mitigate vulnerabilities … In this case we’re happy to have collaborated with one such partner, Forescout, to quickly identify and mitigate the vulnerability." The researchers coordinated disclosure of the flaws with developers releasing patches, the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and other vulnerability-tracking groups. Similar flaws found by Forescout and JSOF in other proprietary and open source TCP/IP stacks have already been found to expose hundreds of millions or even possibly billions of devices worldwide. Issues show up so often in these ubiquitous network protocols because they've largely been passed down untouched through decades as the technology around them evolves. Essentially, since it ain't broke, no one fixes it. “For better or worse, these devices have code in them that people wrote 20 years ago—with the security mentality of 20 years ago,” says Ang Cui, CEO of the IoT security firm Red Balloon Security. “And it works; it never failed. But once you connect that to the Internet, it’s insecure. And that’s not that surprising, given that we've had to really rethink how we do security for general-purpose computers over those 20 years.” The problem is notorious at this point, and it's one that the security industry hasn't been able to quash, because vulnerability-ridden zombie code always seems to reemerge. “There are lots of examples of unintentionally recreating these low-level network bugs from the '90s,” says Kenn White, co-director of the Open Crypto Audit Project. “A lot of it is about lack of economic incentives to really focus on the quality of this code.” There's some good news about the new slate of vulnerabilities the researchers found. Though the patches may not proliferate completely anytime soon, they are available. And other stopgap mitigations can reduce the exposure, namely keeping as many devices as possible from connecting directly to the Internet and using an internal DNS server to route data. Forescout's Costante also notes that exploitation activity would be fairly predictable, making it easier to detect attempts to take advantage of these flaws. Visit OUR FORUM to learn more.

FLoC is a recent Google proposal that would have your browser share your browsing behavior and interests by default with every site and advertiser with which you interact. Brave opposes FLoC, along with any other feature designed to share information about you and your interests without your fully informed consent. To protect Brave users, Brave has removed FLoC in the Nightly version of both Brave for desktop and Android. The privacy-affecting aspects of FLoC have never been enabled in Brave releases; the additional implementation details of FLoC will be removed from all Brave releases with this week’s stable release. Brave is also disabling FLoC on our websites, to protect Chrome users learning about Brave. Companies are finally being forced to respect user privacy (even if only minimally), pushed by trends such as increased user education, the success of privacy-first tools (e.g., Brave among others), and the growth of legislation including the CCPA and GPDR. In the face of these trends, it is disappointing to see Google, instead of taking the present opportunity to help design and build a user-first, privacy-first Web, proposing and immediately shipping in Chrome a set of smaller, ad-tech-conserving changes, which explicitly prioritize maintaining the structure of the Web advertising ecosystem as Google sees it. For the Web to be trusted and to flourish, we hold that much more is needed than the complex yet conservative chair-shuffling embodied by FLoC and Privacy Sandbox. Deeper changes to how creators pay their bills via ads are not only possible, but necessary. The success of Brave’s privacy-respecting, performance-maintaining, and site-supporting advertising system shows that more radical approaches work. We invite Google to join us in fixing the fundamentals, undoing the harm that ad-tech has caused, and building a Web that serves users first. The rest of this post explains why we believe FLoC is bad for Web users, bad for sites, and a bad direction for the Web in general. FLoC harms privacy directly and by design: FLoC shares information about your browsing behavior with sites and advertisers that otherwise wouldn’t have access to that information. Unambiguously, FLoC tells sites about your browsing history in a new way that browsers categorically do not today. Google claims that FLoC is privacy improving, despite intentionally telling sites more about you, for broadly two reasons, each of which conflate unrelated topics. First, Google says FLoC is privacy preserving compared to sending third-party cookies. But this is a misleading baseline to compare against. Many browsers don’t send third-party cookies at all; Brave hasn’t ever. Saying a new Chrome feature is privacy-improving only when compared to status-quo Chrome (the most privacy-harming popular browser on the market), is misleading, self-serving, and a further reason for users to run away from Chrome. Second, Google defends FLoC as not privacy-harming because interest cohorts are designed to be not unique to a user, using k-anonymity protections. This shows a mistaken idea of what privacy is. Many things about a person are i) not unique, but still ii) personal and important, and shouldn’t be shared without consent. Whether I prefer to wear “men’s” or “women’s” clothes, whether I live according to my professed religion, whether I believe vaccines are a scam, or whether I am a gun owner, or a Brony-fan, or a million other things, are all aspects of our lives that we might like to share with some people but not others, and under our terms and control. FLoC adds an enormous amount of fingerprinting surface to the browser, as the whole point of the feature is for sites to be able to distinguish between user interest-group cohorts. This undermines the work Brave is doing to protect users against browser fingerprinting and the statistically inferred cohort tracking enabled by fingerprinting attack surface. Google’s proposed solution to the increased fingerprinting risk from FLoC is both untestable and unlikely to work. Google proposes using a “privacy budget” approach to prevent FLoC from being used to track users. First, Brave has previously detailed why we do not think a “budget” approach is workable to prevent fingerprinting-based tracking. We stand by those concerns, and have not received any response from Google, despite having raised the concerns over a year ago. And second, Google has yet to specify how their “privacy budget” approach will work; the approach is still in “feasibility-testing” stages. Google is aware of some of these concerns, but gives them shallow treatment in their proposal. For example, Google notes that some categories (sexual orientation, medical issues, political party, etc.) will be exempt from FLoC, and that they are looking into other ways of preventing “sensitive” categories from being used in FLoC. Google’s approach here is fundamentally wrong. First, Google’s approach to determining whether a FLoC cohort is sensitive requires (in most cases) Google to record and collect that sensitive cohort in the first place! A system that determines whether a cohort is “sensitive” by recording how many people are in that sensitive cohort doesn’t pass the laugh test. Second, and more fundamental, the idea of creating a global list of “sensitive categories” is illogical and immoral. Whether a behavior is “sensitive” varies wildly across people. One’s mom may not find her interest in “women’s clothes” a private part of her identity, but one’s dad might (or might not! but, plainly, Google isn’t the appropriate party to make that choice). Similarly, an adult happily expecting a child might not find their interest in “baby goods” particularly sensitive, but a scared and nervous teenager might. More broadly, interests that are banal to one person, might be sensitive, private or even dangerous to another person. The point isn’t that Google’s list of “sensitive cohorts” will be missing important items. The point, rather, is that a “privacy preserving system” that relies on a single, global determination of what behaviors are “privacy sensitive,” fundamentally doesn’t protect privacy, or even understand why privacy is important. Visit OUR FORUM for more.

A timely reminder has been shared of how the current global chip famine has affected processor prices, in this case specifically for the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X. While retailers who have tried to stay close to MSRP are invariably out of stock, those with Ryzen 9 5950X CPUs to sell are mostly setting astronomical price tags for the Zen 3 powerhouse. Those looking to snag a 16-core, 32-thread AMD Ryzen 9 5950X for a reasonable price will already be aware of how difficult a task that has become. The 2021 global chip shortage, caused by a combination of the coronavirus pandemic, companies shifting to a work from home strategy, and previously unpredictable rocketing demand, has led to much-wanted PC parts, especially high-end units like the Ryzen 9 5950X CPU and GeForce RTX 3090 GPU, being sold at greatly inflated prices. A recent Reddit post by a Redditor called locutusuk68 has triggered quite a discussion on the popular social website on this processor-pricing theme, with an accompanying screenshot revealing how the UK retailer Overclockers is currently selling the top-end Zen 3 processor for a staggering £959.99 (US$1,316/AUD$1,726). The MSRP for the Ryzen 9 5950X AMD is US$799, while PC builders in the UK may have expected to pay in the region of £750 (US$1,028/AUD$1,349) for the chip. In fact, one of the country’s largest electronics retailers, Currys, has the 16-core part listed for that fair price along with a price match guarantee. Of course, it’s out of stock. Shopping around does not really deliver much relief, because those stores that look like they might offer reasonable deals may either be unfamiliar (Box - £849.99) or have incredibly limited stock (CCL - £899). A listing on eBay for multiple units of the Ryzen 9 5950X has a “buy it now” offer at £1,085.49 (US$1,488/AUD$1,952) per part, while a retailer called OnBuy takes the biscuit with a price tag of £1,099.95 (US$1,508/AUD$1,978). In fact, just for added shock value, there is even a mention of AMD’s Ryzen 9 5950X being priced at an insane £1,480.72 (US$2,030/AUD$2,662). Of course, this same discouraging picture for desktop DIYers exists in other markets: Best Buy also has a price match guarantee for the Zen 3 part at US$799 but is sold out, and if you take a look at Amazon there is sometimes stock listed as available – but in some cases, you have to be willing to part with US$1,288.99. However, retailers that are reliant on low unit sales are just utilizing an age-old business tactic of price hiking when demand exceeds supply. An accusatory finger can be pointed at Team Red, but did AMD really reckon on a million Ryzen 5000 unit sales within a few weeks of release? Supply is apparently ramping up, so arguably the best thing desktop PC builders can do right now is holding on. Eventually, supply will catch up with demand and prices will fall…or Zen 4 might even be around by the time that happens. Follow this and more by visiting OUR FORUM.