Hacker News Reader

Comment by MishaalRahman | Hacker News Reader

1. We don't know what mitigation steps have been applied. However, it seems that at least some affected vendors are still signing their apps with compromised platform certs: https://www.apkmirror.com/?post_type=app_release&searchtype=...

2. Unknown. Could be multiple independent hacks of the OEM or an ODM, could be an insider, etc.

3. The attack vector is usually sideloading.

View on HN

The latest November Samsung firmware for a phone in front of me has android.uid.system signed by the compromised certificate with SHA256 fingerprint 34df0e7a9f1cf1892e45c056b4973cd81ccf148a4050d11aea4ac5a65f900a42. This certificate is provided by com.samsung.android.svcagent version 6.0.01.6 which is also signed with the same compromised 34df0e7a9f1cf1892e45c056b4973cd81ccf148a4050d11aea4ac5a65f900a42 certificate. The latest version of com.samsung.android.svcagent I could find is 7.0.00.1[1] which has a creation date of 2 September 2022 and also provides the compromised 34df0e7a9f1cf1892e45c056b4973cd81ccf148a4050d11aea4ac5a65f900a42 certificate.

On top of that, at least for the S21 series Samsung phones in their Common Criteria evaluated mode seemingly use the compromised 34df0e7a9f1cf1892e45c056b4973cd81ccf148a4050d11aea4ac5a65f900a42 certificate provided by earlier version 5.0.00.11 of com.samsung.android.svcagent[2]. I couldn't find a published applications list for S22 series phones in Common Criteria mode but suspect com.samsung.android.svcagent 7.0.00.1 from 2 September 2022 would be more recent anyway.

[1] https://apkcombo.com/svc-agent/com.samsung.android.svcagent/...

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3Adocs.samsungknox.com...

Good to know!

It seems some of the malicious applications were pre-installed system update tools on cheap MediaTek devices, so no sideloading needed if that's the case.

I think the attack vector cannot be simply said to be "being able to run software of your choice on your device". We don't describe victims of emails with malicious attachments as having been compromised via the attack vector "sideloading" (or whatever the non-mobile equivalent of the word is). With this framing, it gets really easy to see sideloading as an evil that must be disallowed for our own good and we end up with devices that can do nothing that is not, with every update of every app again and again, judged to be allowable by an overseas vendor from another culture. What would be a better description though, something like installing software from a malicious source?

Android controls the App Store better than email controls side loading. I wouldnt recommend people side load unless they’re capable of auditing packages they’re loading, the equivalent recommendation in the desktop world is application allowlisting.

The general public has proven that they’re not capable of any type of sanity check to the point where I would call sideloading dangerous.

It is a matter of practical fact that only a small proportion of the Andriod-using public chooses to use the software of their choice by sideloading. Mentioning sideloading in this context shouldn't be interpreted as an attack upon or a dispargement of the practice of sideloading. I, as an Android user, am happy to learn that the (main?) vector of attack happens to be sideloading. (if true) This informs the broader conversation and helps individual Android users gague the likelihood of whether they have may have been directly affected.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com