> The researchers developed a proof-of-concept device — the warship, which has a similar size to a small phone — into a package and dropped it off in the mail. The device, which cost about $100 to build, was equipped with a 3G-enabled modem, allowing it to be remote-controlled so long as it had cell service. With its onboard wireless chip, the device would periodically scan for nearby networks — like most laptops do when they’re switched on — to track the location of the device in its parcel.
This is beyond belief to me and an example of why there are more security breaches than would happen if everyone out there (security researcher in particular and ironic) wasn't eager for their glory of discovering an exploit that very well might have taken years to uncover if at all.
So they come up with an idea, create and proof of concept, then they publicize it so that actual hackers can be turned on to a new idea under the guise that they are going to prevent a problem so that people can protect against it.
> “If we can educate a company about an attack vector like this, it dramatically reduces the likelihood of the success of it by criminals,” Henderson said.
Like all the other similar 'research' it completely ignores that it is also educating people who will now know of the exploit and it will give them ideas on what can be done.
We're in a predator-prey relationship. And the stakes are enormous. You can bet something like this actually has been done in the wild before. In fact, governments do things like this regularly. The only question is if it's worth your effort to protect yourself from it.
This is beyond belief to me and an example of why there are more security breaches than would happen if everyone out there (security researcher in particular and ironic) wasn't eager for their glory of discovering an exploit that very well might have taken years to uncover if at all.
So they come up with an idea, create and proof of concept, then they publicize it so that actual hackers can be turned on to a new idea under the guise that they are going to prevent a problem so that people can protect against it.
> “If we can educate a company about an attack vector like this, it dramatically reduces the likelihood of the success of it by criminals,” Henderson said.
Like all the other similar 'research' it completely ignores that it is also educating people who will now know of the exploit and it will give them ideas on what can be done.