• floofloof
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    196
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Industrial CT scanner manufacturer Lumafield imaged an O.MG USB-C cable revealing sophisticated electronic components secreted within the connector.

    The headline is clickbait I think. The whole point of the O.MG cable is to hide electronics in the connector. It’s advertised as a hacking tool. The analysis of what can be seen in there may be interesting, but it’s not like this is secret knowledge.

    https://shop.hak5.org/products/omg-cable

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      And has been available for years… Why this is news today is beyond me. I’m pretty sure I saw these cables on hak5’s site over 5 years ago.

    • OutlierBlue
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      7 days ago

      So the manufacturer isn’t spying on you, it just designed a product so someone else could hack you instead? That doesn’t make it sound any better.

      The end result is the same: be careful what cables you plug into your device.

      • kn33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        76
        ·
        7 days ago

        The end result is the same: be careful what cables you plug into your device.

        Sure, but this is clickbait at best. It’s not a revelation that this cable contains that hardware.

      • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        67
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Its designed to be used for pen testers so they don’t have to spend $20,000 on the alternative cable. Its a single cable thats costs like $200, so im not really worried many people are going to get hacked because they accidentally bought a $200 cable.

        • Arbiter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          The bigger concern is a supply chain attack, where an actor targets a specific buyer or agency with these cables.

          • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            7 days ago

            Yeah that makes sense, im no expert but whats that saying ‘physical access is root access’ or something along those lines. Id imagine this is true (in spirit at least) about the cables.

          • Delta_V@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 days ago

            The capability itself is concerning. This bespoke cable might cost $200, but what would the unit cost be if a state decided to mass produce them?

            • Arbiter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 days ago

              Even at 200 per unit a state actor could certainly see it as worth the cost for a specific attack.

      • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        7 days ago

        The intended use for this kind of product is that you hire a company to break into your company, and then tell you how they did it so that criminals (or, if you’re someone like a defence contractor, foreign spies) can’t do the same thing later. Sometimes they’re also used by journalists to prove that the government or a company isn’t taking necessary precautions or by hobbyists at events where everyone’s aware that everyone else will try to break into their stuff. There’s typically vetting of anyone buying non-hobbyist quantities of anything, and it’s all equipment within theoretical reach of organised crime or state actors, so pentesters need to have access, too, or they can’t reasonably assess the real-world threat that’s posed.

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        7 days ago

        There are plenty of hacking devices on the market equal or worse than this. The truth is you want these devices available in the public so people are award of them and nerds can learn how to protect against them.

        The malicious inclined wont care about legal availability and some tinkers will make them if not only for the technical challenge.

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        These sorts of tools and knowledge should be free and open, so people can test their own systems and learn how to defend against them. They aren’t inherently bad themselves. As with firearms, it’s all about what you do with it.

        Hiding a potential exploit from the general public does them no good.

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      Seriously cool piece of kit! I have no use for it whatsoever, but can’t help but wish I did.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    EDIT: Working now! Article is up!

    Every other page on Tom’s Hardware is loading for me just fine but this article is just pulling up a completely blank document?

    • JohnnyCanuck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      They probably pulled the article since it was bullshit, based on the other comments.

    • Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      same here; other articles there load fine but this one gives me HTTP 500 with content-length 0.

      (the empty body tag in your screenshot is generated by firefox while rendering the zero-length response from the server, btw.)