Please beware the false parity of 'experts'. Random technical ppl aren't sources on difficult threat intel topics. Open speculation isn't substantiation for denials ('More details plz'). And neither is technical solipsism ('Everything can be faked! I'd do better than this!').
This uncoordinated flailing is being used to substantiate state interests that would rather not have the spotlight shined on them. We'll all do well to display sound judgement.
For a relevant discussion from half a decade ago-
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Alright, let's add some substance to this Pegasus discussion. Contrary to what you might read, research into NSO has been going on for years and has involved a lot of great research groups (@citizenlab, @kaspersky, @Lookout, to name a few). It has also included leaks.
Folks are speculating about how we might know about the targets of Pegasus customers. NSO simultaneously claims that they don't know their customers targets but at the same time they know that none of the @AmnestyTech infections are real. Two obviously incompatible statements.
Assuming NSO doesn't have access to their customers targets, a list of targets of interest would have to come from a structural fault in the agent/exploit delivery infrastructure that NSO uses. We have a high-level view of how that system is architected.
As to NSO’s blanket denial of having any access to how their customers use their software, that’s not entirely true by design —they manage the exploit delivery infrastructure for their clients. This is a hard-earned lesson from the HackingTeam days—
HT had a lot of woes attempting to idiotproof their payload building and exploit delivery process. The former was characterized by a prompt urging operators NOT to upload to VT (aimed primarily at dim Saudi operators). Exploits were handled more carefully via support portal—
The support portal required a backdoor created with the HT masternode and a lure document of the customer’s choosing. HT would create the exploit-laced file and host it via a one-time link that the operators could deliver in the method of their choosing.
Unbelievable work by @AmnestyTech, done in spite of @Apple’s reticence to provide means to verify the integrity of iOS devices. What’s it going to take for Apple to stop burying its head in the sand?
These remarks on the limitations when inspecting iOS devices should give us pause… there’s a mistaken belief that privacy is protected by limiting checks on system integrity and correlation of anomalies. What privacy is protected in these cases? (@tim_cook@radian)
I love Apple products. Wonderful things are regularly done under the hood to increase the cost of attack. But it’s clearly not enough to tinker with security engineering alone. Plenty of unscrupulous actors are finding it affordable and we can’t even tell how big that iceberg is.
Ok, I have to admit this @Apple vs. @CorelliumHQ business just doesn’t sit right with me. Let me @ @tim_cook and pretend to have some meaningful engagement regarding Apple’s larger security dilemma. #Thread
Everyone knows I’m a huge Apple fanboy. Until the cheese grater Mac Pro came out, I more or less had one of every apple product in my house (with some wiggle room). While I may gripe about missing function keys, there’s no system I’d rather use than MacOS and iOS.
I’ve also, at diverse points in my career, had the privilege to report ongoing APT campaigns directly to Apple alongside colleagues (h/t @craiu) and was treated kindly by folks invested in securing the Apple ecosystem within the means available to them.
1st point is that we (private sector threat intel researchers) mistook the provenance of Neuron and Nautilus. NCSC’s previous advisory denounced the use of both tools alongside Turla’s staple rootkit and we assumed new tools from the Turla devs but it seems they’d been stolen.
Keep in mind that the advisory is hinting at some dev access, some infrastructure access, but perhaps not complete access to Iran’s full operational stack. Turla first deploys the tool to their rootkit victims for testing and further functionality.
Those non-existent norms were originally shattered by Flame subverting the actual Windows Update mechanism via an unheard of md5 collision to impersonate signing certs (implemented in its GADGET module).
Flame really doesn't get the credit it deserves as the first public harbinger of so many trends we'd come to know all too well in cyberespionage over the following 7 years.