I have a lot to say about Signal’s Cellebrite hack

Re:I have a lot to say about Signal’s Cellebrite hack by spoonjim on Sunday May 16, 2021 @03:08AM (#27171827)

If Cellebrite was disclosing these vulns when they found them, there would be no business, thus no Cellebrite, thus they wouldn’t have found them. “Destroy Cellebrite” is a possible outcome but “Have Cellebrite release 0days when they find them” isn’t.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I have a lot to say about Signal’s Cellebrite hack by kstrauser on Sunday May 16, 2021 @03:25AM (#27171889)

Their terrible business model isn’t my concern. And “keep security vulnerabilities secret and hope that we’re the only ones who can use them” is, indeed, terrible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I have a lot to say about Signal’s Cellebrite hack by spoonjim on Sunday May 16, 2021 @04:43AM (#27172224)

Right, so your beef with Cellebrite is that they exist (fair) not that they hoard 0days (which is a necessary condition for them to exist).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I have a lot to say about Signal’s Cellebrite hack by Kim_Bruning on Sunday May 16, 2021 @11:46AM (#27174434)

I disagree with your re-casting of the parent's statement. I believe the parent said that they are in fact opposed to Cellebrite's hoarding of 0-days.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I have a lot to say about Signal’s Cellebrite hack by kstrauser on Sunday May 16, 2021 @12:03PM (#27174570)

I’m not sure how you came up with that incorrect conclusion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I have a lot to say about Signal’s Cellebrite hack by ric2b on Sunday May 16, 2021 @01:54PM (#27175575)

Any 0-days they find can be used on already confiscated devices even if they report them and the manufacturer issues a fix, so their business could in theory still work.

[ Parent | on HN ]