TLDR: An AMI testkey was used in production by a bunch of manufacturers. The key has now been leaked.

    • Dyskolos
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      3 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      It’s not just you (as is with all these kinds of questions). It’s an observable trend. As complexity rises, potential for errors rise.

      • leisesprecher
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        3 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        I don’t think it’s complexity as such, but bad management and/or lack of care in general.

        • Ptsf
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          3 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Dollar dollar bills, ya’ll.

    • faebudo
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      3 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      The layoffs are finally paying off

  • sylver_dragon
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    3 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    As much “doom and gloom” as the article pushes, I kinda feel that the compromised keys being well known makes detection easier. The malicious binary needs to be signed with one of these keys, this means that there will be very specific structures (e.g. the public key) at well known locations in the file. This is exactly the type of threat which anti-virus is good at detecting. Assuming a network’s security folks aren’t completely asleep at the switch, these attacks should get picked up and blocked pretty fast.

    There is a reason attackers spend so much time and effort obfuscating code and keeping files off the disk. While A/V may be a pretty terrible security control and easily bypassed in many cases, watching for files with well known patterns is one of the few things A/V tends to do well.