Court Filings Show NSO Group Ran Malware Attacks Through Servers Located In California

from the not-immune-from-its-own-carelessness dept

Things are getting even more interesting in Facebook's lawsuit against Israeli malware merchant, NSO Group. Facebook was getting pretty tired of NSO using WhatsApp as an attack vector for malware delivery, which resulted in the company having to do a lot more upkeep to ensure users were protected when utilizing the app.

Unfortunately, Facebook wants a court to find that violating an app's terms of service also violates the CFAA -- something most of us really don't want, even if it would keep NSO and its customers from exploiting messaging services to target criminals, terrorists… and, for some reason, lots of journalists, dissidents, and activists.

NSO finally responded to Facebook's lawsuit by saying it could not be sued over the actions of its customers. Its customer base is mainly government agencies -- including some especially sketchy governments. NSO claims all it does is sell the stuff. What the end users do with it is between the end users and their surveillance targets. Since its customers are governments, sovereign immunity applies… which would dead-end this lawsuit (wrong defendant) and any future lawsuits against governments by Facebook (the sovereign immunity).

NSO's claims it can't be touched by this lawsuit are falling apart. Citizen Lab researcher John Scott-Railton pointed out on Twitter that Facebook's latest filings point to NSO operating its malware servers from inside the United States -- apparently doing far more than simply selling malware to government customers and letting them handle the deployment details.

Facebook's answer to NSO's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit concedes NSO's point: it is not its customers. But that's precisely why it can be sued. From Facebook's response [PDF]:

A flawed premise runs through the motion to dismiss (“MTD”). Defendants contend that they cannot be held responsible for designing and marketing spyware and then deploying it using WhatsApp’s U.S.-based servers, including in California, to hack into WhatsApp users’ devices. Instead, Defendants pin blame on unidentified foreign sovereigns. That argument fails at every turn: Defendants cannot cloak themselves in their putative clients’ immunity; they are accountable for suit in a California court; and the Complaint states valid claims for relief based on Defendants’ unauthorized access to and hijacking of WhatsApp’s servers.

[...]

The statute confers immunity only on foreign states—not private companies who develop and operate their own technology and then claim to act on a foreign state’s behalf.

The claim that NSO Group operates from California (making this venue appropriate for the lawsuit) isn't some distended stretch where malware briefly passed through WhatsApp servers in the US on its way to its targets. Declarations [PDF] by Facebook's expert witnesses show NSO is routing malware deliveries through California data centers. This is only a small part of the list of IP addresses linked to NSO deployments Facebook has uncovered.

Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate screenshot from IP2Location.com obtained on April 22, 2020, for IP address 104.223.76.220. Exhibit 1 shows that IP address 104.223.76.220 is currently located in Los Angeles, California, and is owned by QuadraNet Enterprises LLC.

According to historical IP address location information from Maxmind.com for IP address 104.223.76.220 obtained through the website archive.org, IP address 104.223.76.220 was located in Los Angeles, California, and owned by QuadraNet Enterprises LLC as of May 28, 2019. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate screenshot of the Maxmind.com csv.zip file available for download at archive.org that contains historical IP location information. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate screenshot of the unzipped Maxmind.com csv.zip file showing the date of the files as May 28, 2019. Attached as Exhibits 4a, 4b, and 4c are true and accurate screenshots of the netblock for IP address 104.223.76.220 showing the location and ownership of IP address 104.223.76.220 as of May 28, 2019.

This is the upshot of Facebook's investigation of NSO's WhatApp-based efforts:

NSO used QuadraNet’s California-based server more than 700 times during the attack to direct NSO’s malware to WhatsApp user devices in April and May 2019.

These filings appear to show something very different than what NSO Group has claimed. It is not a blind provider of malware to government agencies. This indicates NSO is purchasing and operating servers stateside that its customers use to deploy malware. And if it runs these servers, then it quite possibly knows who its customers are targeting. This is far more involved than its sworn statements have said. The plausible deniability it's trying to project just isn't that plausible.

Facebook's response points out the logical leap NSO is demanding from the court.

The Complaint alleges targeting of 1,400 separate devices, Compl. ¶ 42, and NSO does not specify who it was working for in each attack. Instead, NSO relies on a conclusory declaration from its CEO Shalev Hulio stating that “NSO markets and licenses its Pegasus technology exclusively to sovereign governments and authorized agencies,” and those sovereigns—not NSO—“operate [the] Pegasus technology.” Hulio Decl. ¶¶ 9, 14-15. But Hulio fails to identify any specific foreign sovereign for whom NSO worked—let alone cite a single contract or any evidence establishing NSO’s purportedly limited operational role.

NSO's options are all unappealing at the moment. It can't hope to settle since its customers aren't going to be willing to give up exploitation of an encrypted messaging app used by millions of people around the world. It also can't be looking forward to continued litigation since that's only going to mean more exposure of its actions and inner workings as the lawsuit drags on. But these are the risks you take when your favored attack vector is another company's service and your payload deliveries route themselves through rented/purchased servers located in the United States.

NSO turned itself into a villain by selling its products to governments wanting to target dissidents, journalists, activists, and attorneys. A little more judiciousness would have gone a long way. Running attacks through services owned by one of the most powerful tech companies in the world may have provided NSO's customers with a broad user base to attack, but it also ensured it would find itself in court facing a well-funded and well-equipped adversary.

Filed Under: cfaa, hacking, jurisdiction, spying, surveillance
Companies: facebook, nso group, whatsapp

Filings In Facebook's Lawsuit Against NSO Show FBI Director Chris Wray Was For Encryption Before He Was Against It

from the just-a-little-awkward dept

I have opined that FBI Director Chris Wray needs to shut the fuck up about encryption. Wray has presented a completely skewed perspective on the issue, following in the footsteps of Jim Comey. Wray claims encryption is leading to a criminal apocalypse, even as crime rates remain at historic lows. He also claims encryption is making it impossible to follow through with investigations, but has presented no evidence to back this claim.

The best argument the FBI could present was its always-growing number of encrypted devices in its possession. In the space of a couple of years, the number jumped from less than 900 to nearly 8,000. This seemed to indicate encryption was a growing problem, but when the FBI tried to verify this number for Congress, it found out it had overstated the amount of locked devices in its possession. In reality, the number of locked devices is likely less than 2,000 -- hardly the apocalypse of impregnability Wray and Comey continuously presented. This was discovered in May 2018. The FBI has yet to hand over an accurate count of these devices.

Now, there's this bit of news, which surfaced during Facebook's lawsuit against malware developer, NSO Group. Chris Wray was for encryption before he was against encryption. Documents filed by Facebook detail Wray's defense of WhatsApp and its encryption in an earlier legal battle while Wray was working for the King & Spalding law firm. [paywall-free link here]

In the earlier case, which has never been made public, Mr. Wray, then a partner at King & Spalding, was hired to “analyze and protect” WhatsApp’s software from a Justice Department effort to weaken its encryption in order to conduct wiretap of a WhatsApp user’s data.

The arguments made by Mr. Wray’s firm in favor of WhatsApp’s encryption may undercut his recent calls to push tech firms — including his previous client WhatsApp — to roll back encryption, a move many security experts have likened to a government “backdoor.”

Facebook wants King & Spalding booted from the case, citing its previous involvement in defending WhatsApp against actions brought against it by the DOJ. Facebook raises a good point: someone with intimate knowledge of WhatsApp's inner workings shouldn't be allowed to use this inside information to defend itself against this lawsuit.

Facebook's redacted motion [PDF] names Chris Wray as one of the litigators with inside information, gleaned during a still-sealed legal proceeding that appears to have dealt with the DOJ seeking a court's permission to break (or block) WhatsApp's encryption to deploy wiretaps.

At the time, WhatsApp was in the process of implementing end-to-end encryption of communications sent on its platform.

[...]

WhatsApp was jointly represented by King & Spalding and ZwillGen PLLC. Specifically, Christopher Wray, Catherine O'Neil, Nick Oldham, and Paul Mezzina of King & Spalding…

Another filing [PDF] -- a letter sent from Facebook's legal reps to NSO Group after it became apparent it was seeking to retain King & Spalding -- names Chris Wray as well.

The man who declared Facebook's move to encrypt Messenger communications as a gift to the world's criminals once defended WhatsApp's encryption against the DOJ's attempt to have it broken or blocked. This apparently occurred around the same time the DOJ was trying to get Apple to break the encryption protecting the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone.

The New York Times learned of the 2015 matter through confidential sources. At the time, the Justice Department was also engaged in a court battle with Apple, pushing the company to unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the gunmen in a shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. The government ultimately dropped its case after security researchers helped them bypass Apple’s security.

The FBI sees no problem with Wray's shifting allegiance to encryption. Its statement to the New York Times says the agency supports Wray, no matter how inconsistent his stance. Apparently, it's fine that he's willing to change his views to match his employer's.

"Like all other lawyers, his duty of loyalty was to his client, and he did not put his personal views ahead of his clients’ interests or allow them to affect the legal work he did for clients. Today, as director of the FBI, his duty is to act in the best interests of the American people.”

If that's his new duty, he's falling short. He's acting in the best interest of the FBI and federal prosecutors -- the same FBI that also used to recommend people secure their devices with encryption. Strong encryption is in the best interests of the American people. Wray isn't serving the nation with nearly as much fervor as he apparently defended encryption back when he was getting paid to defend it. WhatsApp's encryption remains unbroken, despite the DOJ's efforts. If he didn't feel it was worth defending then, he probably shouldn't have defended it. This change of heart doesn't necessarily make him a hypocrite but it is just one more reason he needs to shut the fuck up about the subject.

Filed Under: backdoors, chris wray, encryption, fbi
Companies: facebook, nso, whatsapp

NSO Fires Back At Facebook, Says It's Not Responsible For Malware Deployments By Foreign Governments

from the fair-point-but-doesn't-really-make-NSO-Group-look-any-better dept

NSO Group has finally decided to engage in the lawsuit Facebook filed against it late last year. The Israeli surveillance tech company has shown itself to be pretty cavalier about its market expansion plans. Despite being located in a country surrounded by unfriendly governments, NSO is more than willing to give Israel's enemies something to use against it. Its client list includes Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kazakhstan.

Facebook's lawsuit is questionable and if it wins, it would cause a lot of damage. Facebook is unhappy NSO software uses WhatsApp to deliver malware payloads to targets. But seeking precedent that would criminalize terms of service violations isn't going to help anyone, much less stop NSO from using encrypted messaging apps as attack vectors.

NSO is now firing back. And it makes a point that's true, if not all that sympathetic. It is not its customers. Much like the gun dealer who sells the gun eventually used in a mass shooting, NSO's sales of malware to governments that use them in questionable ways isn't really NSO's fault. It may have provided the surveillance tech, but it is not telling governments who to target or participating in the surveillance directly.

In its first substantive legal filing in the case, filed last week, NSO hit back at WhatsApp and its parent company, Facebook, which it said were seen by governments as “safe spaces for terrorists and other criminals” who – without NSO’s services – could operate “without fear of detection by law enforcement”.

NSO Group also argued that WhatsApp had “conflated” NSO Group’s actions with the actions of NSO’s “sovereign customers”. While NSO Group licenses its signature spying technology, Pegasus, to government law enforcement and intelligence agencies and assists with “training, setup, and installation”, it said it did not operate the technology.

This is NSO arguing it cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. If Facebook doesn't like what these governments are doing with NSO's tech, it's welcome to sue those governments directly. Not that those lawsuits would succeed. We're not the only nation that extends sovereign immunity to government agencies. That's standard operating procedure around the world. This is what NSO is hoping will convince the court to toss the suit.

“For that reason,” the company said in the filing, “permitting this litigation to proceed would infringe critical national security and foreign policy concerns of sovereign governments”.

NSO is also fighting back with a little dirt of its own. Long before it was sued by Facebook, it spent a little time discussing its spyware with the company.

In October 2017, NSO was approached by two Facebook representatives who asked to purchase the right to use certain capabilities of Pegasus, the same NSO software discussed in Plaintiffs' Complaint.

The Facebook representatives stated that Facebook was concerned that its method for gathering user data through Onavo Protect was less effective on Apple devices than on Android devices. The Facebook representatives also stated that Facebook wanted to use purported capabilities of Pegasus to monitor users on Apple devices and were willing to pay for the ability to monitor Onavo Protect users. Facebook proposed to pay NSO a monthly fee for each Onavo Protect user.

Onavo was Facebook's VPN -- one that had little to do with offering privacy to its users. It may have shielded them from others attempting to take a look at their web traffic, but it didn't do anything to prevent Facebook from collecting tons of data on users, which included a whole lot of minors. It was booted from Apple's App Store in 2018 for hoovering up too much sensitive data. Roughly six months later, Facebook killed the faux VPN for good.

Facebook claims this is an "inaccurate" portrayal of its meeting with NSO, but it's not like Facebook has much credibility on the privacy front. Its thirst for data has been unquenchable and its mitigation attempts have been provoked by Congressional inquiries and years of work by privacy activists. It hasn't suddenly become altruistic.

Facebook is right to be concerned about the use of WhatsApp to spread malware. But this lawsuit that attempts to use the already badly-abused CFAA to cover things Facebook doesn't like other people doing is going to cause collateral damage to researchers and journalists, rather than prevent NSO from selling WhatsApp-exploiting malware to government agencies.

Filed Under: cfaa, governments, hacking, liability, malware, privacy
Companies: facebook, nso, whatsapp

It Will Take A Hell Of A Lot More Than Whatsapp Tweaks To Fix Our Global Disinformation Problem

from the ill-communication dept

With increased regulatory pressure surrounding the platform's ability to help distribute disinformation (often to bloody and disastrous effect), Facebook owned Whatsapp this week announced it would be more tightly restricting how app messages can be forwarded. Under the new system, if a user receives a "highly forwarded" message – one which has been forwarded more than five times – that user will only be able to send it on to a single chat at a time. Previously, users could forward these messages on to five people at a time, a limit that was implemented last year.

It doesn't block all message forwarding (you can still smash the forward button individually as many times as you like), but it does implement a little "friction" in a bid to slow mass forwarding in general. Over at the Whatsapp blog, the company explains its thinking:

"Is all forwarding bad? Certainly not. We know many users forward helpful information, as well as funny videos, memes, and reflections or prayers they find meaningful. In recent weeks, people have also used WhatsApp to organize public moments of support for frontline health workers. However, we’ve seen a significant increase in the amount of forwarding which users have told us can feel overwhelming and can contribute to the spread of misinformation. We believe it’s important to slow the spread of these messages down to keep WhatsApp a place for personal conversation."

Last year, Whatsapp says it introduced double arrow labels to indicate that forwarded messages were not from a "close contact," trying to make it clearer which messages were effectively from someone you trust, versus mass forwarded memes or spam. It's not entirely clear yet how impactful this will be in places like India, where, for several years, misinformation has helped fuel violence against religious minorities.

But as we've noted previously, these problems often go well beyond just Whatsapp, making it illogical to place the entire onus for fixing the problems squarely on Whatsapp's shoulders. There's also a mountain of cultural and technical issues (like managing what's sent inside of encrypted messages) that makes the assumption that Whatsapp can "just fix this" overly simplistic. Still, with the app now being used to spread bogus Coronavirus information, the stakes have grown higher, and the calls from regulators and governments to "do more" have grown exponentially.

But again, there's numerous factors at play, and it has long been clear that any solution is likely complicated and multi-faceted.

In many countries, social media applications have been conflated with the internet itself, creating a walled garden "internet" that consists of just a few apps and sources, creating a less open echosphere where it's easier than ever to spread disinformation. Often that's by design as we saw with Facebook's "Zero Basics" program, which attempted to help the company corner developing nation ad markets by offering free access to a Facebook "curated" selection of content -- but not access to the full internet. Add in government censorship, and it gets even more complicated.

That's not to say Whatsapp shouldn't continue to experiment with ideas to slow the spread of mis and disinformation. The company has helped promote a World Health Organization bot aimed at providing more accurate information, and it recently donated $1 million to the International Fact-Checking Network.

But because of the scope and complexity of the problem, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than just Whatsapp tweaks to fix a global, surging disinformation problem. It's going to require a cooperative, global shift in media literacy and critical thinking -- combined with mass collaboration between governments, platforms, academics, and users -- with nary a single silver bullet anywhere in sight.

Filed Under: disinformation, misinformation, sharing, social media
Companies: facebook, whatsapp

Court Order Shows DEA Demanding Tons Of Data From WhatsApp And Bunch Of Other Service Providers

from the routing-around-encryption dept

Encryption may be posing problems for law enforcement investigations, but the problems are not as insurmountable or widespread as certain encryption critics are portraying them. Enormous amounts of data are created by cellphone app users every time they communicate. While the content of communications is often of more evidentiary value, there's still a wealth of information investigators can obtain that isn't protected by encryption.

As investigators are getting more creative, they're also getting more careless. Thomas Brewster of Forbes reports the US government is trying to force WhatsApp to turn over information it has no right to demand from the company -- which also includes information WhatsApp may not even have.

[T]he order, unsealed on New Year’s Eve, asked for information WhatsApp wouldn’t ever provide. That included the identity of other WhatsApp accounts that were created using the same IP address, recovery email, telephone number “or other identifiers”. Investigators at the DEA also wanted the “identity of all accounts that are linked to the account by cookies,” —cookies being little programs that keep track of people’s use of different applications. Then they demanded “IP addresses of any websites or other servers to which the cellphone device or devices connected.” And finally they wanted “post-cut-through dialed digits”—the numbers hit by the user once a call is started.

WhatsApp told Forbes it doesn't collect much of the information being sought here. As for the "post-cut-through dialed digits," those could be considered communications content in certain cases, meaning the trap/trace request being used here is insufficient under the Fourth Amendment. A warrant is required to obtain communications but it appears no warrant has been served to WhatsApp. However, a footnote in the order says the government will make no "affirmative investigative use" of any post-cut-through digits determined to be content. But that puts everyone in the position of trusting an agency known for its liberal use of parallel construction to launder evidence it has questionably obtained.

Investigators aren't limiting themselves to WhatsApp. The search for a Mexican meth dealer runs through a number of other tech companies that might be linked to the WhatsApp user the government is targeting.

[T]he order went further still, telling not only WhatsApp, but also Google and a host of telecom providers or “any other provider of any wire or electronic communications service” to provide a range of more detailed data on any accounts tracked by Facebook’s encrypted chat apps. That included names, addresses, email addresses and credit card numbers.

The data demands were also made of a number of other companies -- data the DEA wanted 24/7 access to as it was gathered. From the proposed order [PDF]:

The United States further requests, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c) and (d), that WhatsApp Inc., Cingular Wireless, Sprint Nextel Corporation, Leap Wireless Communications, Inc., Cricket Communications, T-Mobile USA, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless, Google, and/or any other provider of wire communications service, provide subscriber information as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(2) pursuant to this Order for the accounts revealed by the pen-trap devices to the DEA.

Along with the always-on access, the DEA demanded 24/7 silence from all targeted companies for one year. The silence didn't last, though. WhatsApp challenged the gag order and managed to get this proposed order (which was granted by the judge) unsealed.

The order is broad and it affects a number of service providers. And the order has no end date, allowing the government to harvest metadata and personal info on an ongoing basis in perpetuity. It appears the order was approved the same day the application was made, which strongly suggests the judge did not ask for anything to be modified by the DEA.

Encryption works. It keeps communications secure. But just because there's a wealth of data being generated doesn't mean the government is entitled to all of it. The order shows the DEA has an undercover agent in communication with the target so it's not as if the government is locked out of all communications. The digital playing field has resulted in altered strategies but it did not throw out the rulebook. The loss of a wiretap option doesn't grant permission to operate a data dragnet.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, communications, dea, encryption, warrant
Companies: facebook, whatsapp

Report Says Saudi Prince MBS's Whatsapp Account Personally Sent Jeff Bezos Malware Used To Access His Phone

from the 21st-century-espionage dept

Things sure are getting even more bizarre in the world of the rich, famous, and powerful. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (usually called "MBS") is now being accused of personally being involved in the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone to get data that was eventually used against him by the National Enquirer. This is a soap opera-level story that involves a bit of background.

You may recall that, approximately a year ago, Jeff Bezos put out quite a Medium post, entitled: No thank you, Mr. Pecker, in which he exposed an attempt by David Pecker's National Enquirer to engage in what sure looks like a blackmail effort to silence Washington Post (which Bezos owns) reporting efforts. The post came about a month after the National Enquirer had released evidence of an affair that Bezos was having, including releasing personal text messages (the National Enqurier release came hours after Bezos himself announced he was getting a divorce from his wife). According to Bezos' blog post, the Enquirer had also threatened to release personal photos of Bezos if he did not call off an investigation he had launched into how the National Enquirer had obtained those text messages.

A little over a month and a half later, the investigator that Bezos had hired, Gavin de Becker, announced that he believed Saudi Arabia was involved in obtaining Bezos's personal data, adding a bit of international intrigue to the whole thing. de Becker argued that the evidence pointed to the Saudis much more than Michael Sanchez, the brother of the woman with whom Bezos was having the affair, who had claimed that he had given the data to the National Enquirer. As de Becker noted, Sanchez seemed to be a fall guy to distract from the possible Saudi connection:

My office quickly identified the person whom the Enquirer had paid as a source: a man named Michael Sanchez, the now-estranged brother of Lauren Sanchez, whom Bezos was dating. What was unusual, very unusual, was how hard AMI people worked to publicly reveal their source’s identity. First through strong hints they gave to me, and later through direct statements, AMI practically pinned a “kick me” sign on Michael Sanchez.

de Becker's investigation pointed out that the National Enquirer had contacted Sanchez first about the affair, suggesting that the attempt to work with him may have been a case of parallel construction, rather than an original source.

Saudi Arabia's potential involved was fascinating -- as the Saudi government, and MBS, have apparently been upset about the Washington Post publishing columns critical of the Saudi government by Jamal Khashoggi -- the journalist who was then killed by Saudi operatives in late 2018, in an operation that many blamed on MBS, and which MBS has eventually taken responsibility for. That murder has brought a lot more critical attention to MBS and his efforts to stomp out criticism.

So now we finally get to the latest news, in which the Guardian first reported that the real way that Bezos' text messages and photos were accessed was because MBS sent Bezos a Whatsapp message that contained the malware payload.

The encrypted message from the number used by Mohammed bin Salman is believed to have included a malicious file that infiltrated the phone of the world’s richest man, according to the results of a digital forensic analysis.

This analysis found it “highly probable” that the intrusion into the phone was triggered by an infected video file sent from the account of the Saudi heir to Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post.

The two men had been having a seemingly friendly WhatsApp exchange when, on 1 May of that year, the unsolicited file was sent, according to sources who spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity.

A related story noted that Bezos and MBS had met a few weeks earlier at a Hollywood dinner organized by filmmaker Brian Grazer and agent Ari Emanuel (what a dinner that must have been) at a time when MBS was trying to ingratiate himself with both the American tech and entertainment industries (efforts that began to run into some issues after the murder of Khashoggi). Bezos and MBS apparently began communicating by Whatsapp after that dinner, and in the midst of the conversation, MBS passed along the link.

The Guardian understands a forensic analysis of Bezos’s phone, and the indications that the “hack” began within an infected file from the crown prince’s account, has been reviewed by Agnès Callamard, the UN special rapporteur who investigates extrajudicial killings. It is understood that it is considered credible enough for investigators to be considering a formal approach to Saudi Arabia to ask for an explanation.

While the Guardian does not share the full report (or even say who wrote it), Vice Motherboard has since obtained the report, and provides even more details:

The report, obtained by Motherboard, indicates that investigators set up a secure lab to examine the phone and its artifacts and spent two days poring over the device but were unable to find any malware on it. Instead, they only found a suspicious video file sent to Bezos on May 1, 2018 that “appears to be an Arabic language promotional film about telecommunications.”

That file shows an image of the Saudi Arabian flag and Swedish flags and arrived with an encrypted downloader. Because the downloader was encrypted this delayed or further prevented “study of the code delivered along with the video.”

Investigators determined the video or downloader were suspicious only because Bezos’ phone subsequently began transmitting large amounts of data. “[W]ithin hours of the encrypted downloader being received, a massive and unauthorized exfiltration of data from Bezos’ phone began, continuing and escalating for months thereafter,” the report states.

The report highlights that this new massive amount of data flow "never returned to baseline" suggesting that the link certainly did something to his phone that started sending all Bezos' data elsewhere. The report includes some fairly fascinating screenshots, including first how Bezos and MBS connected on Whatsapp:

And then there's a screenshot of the random video link that supposedly lead to the infection of Bezos' phone:

The story then gets even crazier, as it alleges that a few months later, MBS sent two more odd texts to Bezos:

The first such text was sent to Bezos from MBS' account on November 8, 2018, and contained a single photograph of a woman resembling Lauren Sanchez, with whom Bezos was having a then-secret personal relationship. For context, this was after the relationship would have been obvious to persons with access to private texts, calls, and images on Bezos' phone, but months before the relationship was known or reported publicly. The photo and the cryptic caption were sent precisely during the period Bezos and his wife were exploring divorce. "Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License agreement. In the end you have to ignore everything and click I agree." (Memes such as this were available on the Internet, however the content of the text was not typical of any past communication from MBS, making it likely it was sent with reference to Bezos' personal life events at the time.

The second text was also somewhat creepy -- and also somewhat counterproductive. The two hadn't communicated for a while, and yet just a couple days after Bezos was given a briefing about how the Saudis were mounting a big online campaign against him, MBS randomly texted Bezos not to believe everything he's heard:

The second text demonstrates awareness of non-public information that could have been gained via surveillance of Bezos' phone was sent to Bezos from MBS's WhatsApp account, after more than three (3) months of no communication between the parties. On February 14, 2019, Bezos was provided a detailed briefing about the extent of the Saudi online campaign against him. The briefing was provided in two (2) calls on the Bezos' phone. This text evinces an awareness of what Bezos had just been told:

It seems a bit galaxy brain to suddenly pop up with a message like, telling Bezos not to believe all he'd heard about Saudi attempts to hack him, in a manner that basically would confirm that the Saudi's had access to his private conversations. Though, to be fair, it is possible that MBS's message was not in reference to private briefings, but rather in reference to Bezos' own Medium blog post (referenced at the top of this story) which had come out a week earlier, and had mentioned the possibility of Saudi involvement with the National Enquirer. So there is a potentially non-nefarious explanation for this particular text.

However, it does seem that it was this latter text that caused Bezos and de Becker to begin seriously investigating whether or not the Saudis had hacked Bezos' phone, because it was the very next day that de Becker agreed to get Bezos' phone analyzed.

In response to all of this, two UN Special Rapporteurs, Agnes Callamard, UN Special Rapporteur on summary executions and extrajudicial killings, and David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, have put out a call for an investigation into MBS's role in all of this:

"The information we have received suggests the possible involvement of the Crown Prince in surveillance of Mr. Bezos, in an effort to influence, if not silence, The Washington Post's reporting on Saudi Arabia. The allegations reinforce other reporting pointing to a pattern of targeted surveillance of perceived opponents and those of broader strategic importance to the Saudi authorities, including nationals and non-nationals. These allegations are relevant as well to ongoing evaluation of claims about the Crown Prince's involvement in the 2018 murder of Saudi and Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.

"The alleged hacking of Mr. Bezos's phone, and those of others, demands immediate investigation by US and other relevant authorities, including investigation of the continuous, multi-year, direct and personal involvement of the Crown Prince in efforts to target perceived opponents.

"This reported surveillance of Mr. Bezos, allegedly through software developed and marketed by a private company and transferred to a government without judicial control of its use, is, if true, a concrete example of the harms that result from the unconstrained marketing, sale and use of spyware. Surveillance through digital means must be subjected to the most rigorous control, including by judicial authorities and national and international export control regimes, to protect against the ease of its abuse. It underscores the pressing need for a moratorium on the global sale and transfer of private surveillance technology.

"The circumstances and timing of the hacking and surveillance of Bezos also strengthen support for further investigation by US and other relevant authorities of the allegations that the Crown Prince ordered, incited, or, at a minimum, was aware of planning for but failed to stop the mission that fatally targeted Mr. Khashoggi in Istanbul.

At a time when Saudi Arabia was supposedly investigating the killing of Mr. Khashoggi, and prosecuting those it deemed responsible, it was clandestinely waging a massive online campaign against Mr. Bezos and Amazon targeting him principally as the owner of The Washington Post."

The whole story is completely crazy -- and feels like a made up Hollywood movie of the kind Grazer might produce -- rather than a true story involving two of the world's richest and most powerful men. Anyway, in the meantime, never click on random videos sent to you by rich autocrats with a history of oppression.

Filed Under: ari emmanuel, brian grazer, david pecker, gavin de becker, hacking, jeff bezos, malware, mbs, mohammad bin salman, phones
Companies: whatsapp

European Law Enforcement Officials Upset Facebook Is Warning Users Their Devices May Have Been Hacked

from the screw-the-little-people,-we've-got-bad-guys-to-hack dept

Oh boy. Facebook has just added fuel to the anti-encryption fire. And by doing nothing more than something it should be doing: notifying users that their device may have been compromised by malware.

The Wall Street Journal article covering this standard notification is full of quotes from government officials who aren't happy a suspected terrorist was informed his phone had possibly been infected by targeted malware. [Non-paywalled version here.]

A team of European law-enforcement officials was hot on the trail of a potential terror plot in October, fearing an attack during Christmas season, when their keyhole into a suspect’s phone went dark.

WhatsApp, Facebook Inc. ’s popular messaging tool, had just notified about 1,400 users—among them the suspected terrorist—that their phones had been hacked by an “advanced cyber actor.” An elite surveillance team was using spyware from NSO Group, an Israeli company, to track the suspect, according to a law-enforcement official overseeing the investigation.

Facebook is no fan of NSO Group. In fact, very few people are fans of NSO Group, other than their customers, which have included UN-blacklisted countries and a number of governments that rank pretty high on the Most Human Rights Violated charts. Facebook sued NSO back in November, making very questionable allegations about CFAA violations. Facebook's servers were never targeted by NSO's malware. Only end users were, which makes it pretty difficult for Facebook to claim it has been personally (so to speak) injured by NSO's actions.

Back to the matter at hand, Facebook didn't just warn suspected terrorists about detected malware.

WhatsApp’s Oct. 29 message to users warned journalists, activists and government officials that their phones had been compromised, Facebook said. But it also had the unintended consequence of potentially jeopardizing multiple national-security investigations in Western Europe about which Facebook hadn’t been alerted—and about which government agencies can’t formally complain, given their secret nature.

Would these government officials rather have not been warned about threats? Were any of these government officials receiving warnings the same ones now complaining the warning allowed a terrorism suspect to vanish? Maybe so. The one quoted in the article seems very short-sighted.

On the day WhatsApp sent its alert, the official overseeing the terror investigation in Western Europe said, he was stuck in traffic on his way to work when a call came in from Israel. “Have you seen the news? We’ve got a problem,” he said he was told. WhatsApp was notifying suspects whom his team was tracking that their phones had been hacked. “No, that can’t be right. Why would they do that?” the official said he asked his contact, thinking it a joke.

"Why would they do that" indeed. Maybe to protect their users from cybercriminals and state-sponsored hackers. It's not about allowing suspected criminals to dodge law enforcement, even though it will undoubtedly have that effect. It's about keeping users and their communications protected -- users that include journalists, activists, and government officials.

This response indicates the investigators pursuing the suspected terrorist would rather hundreds of innocent people be harmed than someone suspected of terrorism go free. But it really doesn't matter what unnamed officials think about Facebook's "you may have been compromised" notifications or the harm these might do to ongoing investigations. Facebook's voluntary warnings will soon be mandatory in Europe. By the end of 2020, all service providers and telcos will be obligated to warn customers of security threats.

That fact -- and the apparent willingness to allow innocent people to be victimized by targeted attacks -- makes the article's closing statement all the more ridiculous.

Gilles de Kerchove, the European Union’s counterterrorism coordinator, says encryption shouldn’t allow criminals to be “less accountable online than in real life.”

I have no idea what that means. I know what the official thinks it's supposed to mean -- that "online" is bad because sometimes criminals get away -- but even that interpretation doesn't make sense. Criminals discover their phones have been tapped and stop using those lines. Criminals talk to each other in person to avoid creating records of conversations. Criminals get tips from other criminals they're under surveillance. This stuff just happens. Investigations don't always run smoothly.

A standard warning about possibly-compromised devices and services is just good business -- something that protects everyone who uses the service, not just the people governments think are OK to protect. These warnings are essential and they benefit everyone, not just the people governments want to lock up.

Filed Under: disclosure, europe, hacking, law enforcement, malware, terrorists
Companies: facebook, nso group, whatsapp

Facebook's Sues Israeli Malware Marketer With A Lawsuit That Aims To Make An Easily-Abused Law Even More Abusable

from the OK-BOOMER dept

Facebook is suing Israeli exploit developer NSO Group for utilizing WhatsApp to target 1,400 users with malware that allowed NSO's clients to circumvent the chat app's end-to-end encryption.

That NSO is being accused of helping bad people surveill good people is not news. NSO is not very selective when it comes to selling malware, putting its powerful tech in the hands of governments that seem just as likely to target NSO's home country as they are to target local dissidents, journalists, and activists. NSO's software and cavalier approach to sales have been exposed by multiple Citizen Lab investigations, which have outed NSO's sales to blacklisted countries.

Facebook's lawsuit [PDF] basically echoes the findings of Citizen Lab.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco, messaging service WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook Inc (FB.O), accused NSO of facilitating government hacking sprees in 20 countries. Mexico, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain were the only countries identified.

WhatsApp said in a statement that 100 civil society members had been targeted, and called it “an unmistakable pattern of abuse.”

Abusive it is, especially when you're trying to tout the benefits of end-to-end encryption, only to have a malware developer show you how easy it is to route around these protections. NSO's malware was spread using WhatsApp's video chat feature, which apparently allowed government agencies to eavesdrop on communications and possibly access device contents.

This isn't the only lawsuit NSO is facing.

NSO came under particularly harsh scrutiny over the allegation that its spyware played a role in the death of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul a little over a year ago.

Khashoggi’s friend Omar Abdulaziz is one of seven activists and journalists who have taken the spyware firm to court in Israel and Cyprus over allegations that their phones were compromised using NSO technology. Amnesty has also filed a lawsuit, demanding that the Israeli Ministry of Defense revoke NSO’s export license to “stop it profiting from state-sponsored repression.”

This matters enough to NSO for it to engage in a very limited charm offensive. It has promised to abide by UN guidelines on human rights abuses, which means it's going to have to trim a few countries off its client list. It also claims to have saved the lives of "tens of thousands" of people. It's a great claim to make, especially when no one really expects you to back up it up with evidence or data.

But the lawsuit Facebook is pursuing is questionable, if not a bit dangerous. Facebook likely doesn't have a way to block NSO clients from accessing WhatsApp. It has permanently deleted the accounts of every employee of NSO Group it could find for "violating" Facebook's terms of use. But it's helpless to root out accounts used by NSO's customers, since these aren't nearly going to be as obvious as those belonging to people who list NSO as their employer.

That explains the lawsuit and Facebook's desire to obtain a permanent injunction against NSO Group, blocking it from utilizing WhatsApp to spread malware. But the lawsuit is on pretty shaky legal ground. Worse, if Facebook somehow prevails, the much-abused CFAA will be rewritten in a way that's going to harm plenty of people who've never sold malware to known human rights abusers.

Here's Wired's Andy Greenberg (and defense attorney Tor Ekeland) explaining just one of the problematic aspects of Facebook's lawsuit.

To make that charge stick, WhatsApp will have to show that NSO obtained illegal access to WhatsApp's own systems. Given that NSO's targets were WhatsApp users rather than, say, WhatsApp's servers, they'll have to find an argument that they, as the plaintiff, were the victim. "The fundamental question is, what’s the unauthorized access?" says Ekeland. "You might be able to argue that NSO hacked WhatsApp and not just their users. Maybe they’re trying to make that argument. But they’re not being clear about it, and that lack of clarity is an attack vector for the defendant."

Facebook's on a clear path if it chooses to stick with the argument NSO violated its terms of service. Those terms specifically forbid reverse-engineering code or sending malware via the app. But even if it's limited to that, the obvious solution is for Facebook to ban NSO from using its services. That may be close to impossible to do since Facebook doesn't have access to its client list or their user accounts. Arguing past that point may cause problems, though.

While it may work out for Facebook to have the CFAA cover "uses of our stuff that we don't like," it's going to harm a lot of other people. Security researchers, regular researchers, and anyone else who might use Facebook's platform or apps in a way Facebook doesn't like could be prosecuted or sued under this definition. While it's plainly advantageous for Facebook to force all users to use its products only in a way it approves, the downside is a garden with higher walls that put users completely at the mercy of Facebook. Since terms of use can be rewritten on the fly and applied immediately, Facebook could go after "violators" who aren't even aware they've actually violated anything.

Adding to Facebook's hurdles is a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling (this lawsuit is filed in the Ninth Circuit) that says scraping a site for data -- even when forbidden by the terms of use -- isn't necessarily a violation of the CFAA. Making this tougher for Facebook is there's no evidence it ever gave NSO prior notice its abuse of WhatsApp was forbidden. The lack of notice makes it a bit more difficult for Facebook to claim NSO knowingly violated the terms by using WhatsApp to distribute malware. It will be tough to prove NSO clients had unauthorized access, especially since Facebook didn't get around to permabanning anyone until after it filed its lawsuit.

I'm no fan of NSO and its client list, but I'm no fan of Facebook's lawsuit, either. An opinion finding using internet services in a way their developers don't like is not the precedent we need -- not if we're going to keep pushing for a safer internet for everyone. It will allow dominant players to establish rules that benefit the platforms and stave off competition from third-party offerings that attempt to address shortcomings major platforms refuse to correct. It will also prevent researchers from making online services safer or better, which will be a net loss for all platform users, even if it prevents a handful of authoritarians from exploiting a single service to target the people they think need more surveilling.

There's a lot at stake here but Facebook can't see past its immediate (and somewhat convenient, given its recent rakings over Congressional coal) desire to appear to be the good guy for once.

Filed Under: cfaa, encryption, hacking, key logger, malware
Companies: facebook, nso group, whatsapp

DOJ Boss Joins UK, Australian Gov't In Asking Facebook To Ditch Its End-To-End Encryption Plan

from the [stacks-exploited-bodies-higher]-MR-FACEBOOK-PLEASE dept

The DOJ seems to be handling its anti-encryption (a.k.a. "going dark") grief badly. I doubt it will ever reach "acceptance," but it is accelerating through the rest of the stages with alarming speed.

It went through shock first, personified by former FBI director Jim Comey, who insisted tech companies were offering encryption to:

A. Give the feds the middle finger
B. Enable all sorts of dangerous criminals
C. To act like children in a roomful of adults

"Denial" seems to have been bypassed completely. Instead, Comey (and others) repeated the "shock" stage, banging the table louder and louder in hopes of convincing everyone they were right.

They weren't right and encryption deployments continued.

The FBI and DOJ shifted quickly to anger. This was first displayed during the legal fight over the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone. The DOJ insisted a law nearly 230 years old gave it permission to force Apple to break encryption. Apple disagreed. The court disagreed. The FBI insisted this would be the death of us all and ignored outside offers to crack the phone while pursuing precedent it would never obtain.

The phone was eventually cracked by a third party and the FBI moved on, still clinging to its "going dark" narrative, even as vendor after vendor stepped up to provide phone-cracking tools. It also overstated the number of "uncrackable" devices in its possession by at least 6,000 devices. It has been nearly 17 months since the FBI promised to correct this count. It still has yet to provide an updated number.

The DOJ's new boss is carrying the (apparently unlit) torch for the FBI. He has demonized both end-to-end encryption and citizens who don't believe cops are blameless white knights standing between us and the collapse of civilization.

Now, he's moving the feds on to the next stage of grief: bargaining. A letter sent to Facebook -- sporting Barr's signature, along with other stalwart encryption foes like UK Home Dept. head Priti Patel and Australian MP Peter Dutton -- begs Facebook to please please please stop adding encryption to its services.

BuzzFeed obtained a draft report of the letter, which appears to be the charm offensive preceding the new US-UK data sharing agreement that targets encrypted communications. The letter contains some loaded language about child porn and its victims, suggesting Barr isn't done leaning on victimized children to advance his anti-encryption efforts. Hey, it didn't work for Comey, but maybe Bill Barr will get the horrific crime he needs to turn the public against their own best interests.

Here are some excerpts from the letter, as first published by BuzzFeed.

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,

OPEN LETTER: FACEBOOK’S “PRIVACY FIRST” PROPOSALS

We are writing to request that Facebook does not proceed with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services without ensuring that there is no reduction to user safety and without including a means for lawful access to the content of communications to protect our citizens.

So, this is a request for a backdoor. (But one no government agency will refer to as a "backdoor.") "Lawful access" is law enforcement slang for "backdoor," kind of like "officer-involved shooting" is slang for "homicide" and "detected the odor of marijuana" is slang for "Fourth Amendment violation."

Barr (and his anti-encryption warriors) then attempt to call Zuck's bluff... um... I guess??

In your post of 6 March 2019, “A Privacy-Focused Vision for Social Networking,” you acknowledged that “there are real safety concerns to address before we can implement end-to-end encryption across all our messaging services.” You stated that “we have a responsibility to work with law enforcement and to help prevent” the use of Facebook for things like child sexual exploitation, terrorism, and extortion. We welcome this commitment to consultation. As you know, our governments have engaged with Facebook on this issue, and some of us have written to you to express our views. Unfortunately, Facebook has not committed to address our serious concerns about the impact its proposals could have on protecting our most vulnerable citizens.

And there it is. "Our most vulnerable citizens." Apparently that demographic group doesn't contain Facebook users. Facebook users will be fine, I guess, even if any number of malicious hackers/governments want access to communications no one on Facebook actually wants to share with them. "For the children" is the game here, and Barr forges forward with contradictory statements and terrible logic.

We support strong encryption, which is used by billions of people every day for services such as banking, commerce, and communications.

(But, pointedly, not Facebook communications.)

We also respect promises made by technology companies to protect users’ data. Law abiding citizens have a legitimate expectation that their privacy will be protected.

(Except from us.)

However, as your March blog post recognized, we must ensure that technology companies protect their users and others affected by their users’ online activities. Security enhancements to the virtual world should not make us more vulnerable in the physical world. We must find a way to balance the need to secure data with public safety and the need for law enforcement to access the information they need to safeguard the public, investigate crimes, and prevent future criminal activity. Not doing so hinders our law enforcement agencies’ ability to stop criminals and abusers in their tracks.

Ah, the famous tradeoff government officials always pitch, but one that isn't actually the tradeoff being made. It's not privacy vs. the security of the nation as a whole. It's personal security vs. government access that also grants access to criminals and state-sponsored hackers.

What people want is security. They're aren't really interested in trading security for government access. That does nothing for them. The government may solve a few more crimes, but the government was solving crimes long before cellphones, social media platforms, and end-to-end encryption.

Now, multiple governments feel they can't solve crimes without on-demand access to people's communications -- something they have never had in the history of crime-solving and communications. But here we are, listening to Barr and his buddies make a pitch for encryption backdoors while standing on the backs of child porn victims.

Barr makes this pitch while acknowledging that Facebook probably does far more than all US and UK law enforcement agencies combined to combat child porn.

Facebook currently undertakes significant work to identify and tackle the most serious illegal content and activity by enforcing your community standards. In 2018, Facebook made 16.8 million reports to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) – more than 90% of the 18.4 million total reports that year. As well as child abuse imagery, these referrals include more than 8,000 reports related to attempts by offenders to meet children online and groom or entice them into sharing indecent imagery or meeting in real life. The UK National Crime Agency (NCA) estimates that, last year, NCMEC reporting from Facebook will have resulted in more than 2,500 arrests by UK law enforcement and almost 3,000 children safeguarded in the UK.

And yet, Barr wants to complain. Barr and his UK/Aussie counterparts want to claim this isn't enough. What's really needed is insecure communications on a platform used by billions. And to make this claim, Barr again points to something Facebook does as evidence that Facebook isn't doing enough.

While these statistics are remarkable, mere numbers cannot capture the significance of the harm to children. To take one example, Facebook sent a priority report to NCMEC, having identified a child who had sent self-produced child sexual abuse material to an adult male. Facebook located multiple chats between the two that indicated historical and ongoing sexual abuse. When investigators were able to locate and interview the child, she reported that the adult had sexually abused her hundreds of times over the course of four years, starting when she was 11. He also regularly demanded that she send him sexually explicit imagery of herself. The offender, who had held a position of trust with the child, was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Without the information from Facebook, abuse of this girl might be continuing to this day.

Here's what Barr thinks will happen if Facebook deploys end-to-end encryption. Facebook will no longer be able to "read" messages sent between users, which will result in an increase in abused children that authorities will be powerless to help.

Our understanding is that much of this activity, which is critical to protecting children and fighting terrorism, will no longer be possible if Facebook implements its proposals as planned. NCMEC estimates that 70% of Facebook’s reporting – 12 million reports globally – would be lost. This would significantly increase the risk of child sexual exploitation or other serious harms. You have said yourself that “we face an inherent tradeoff because we will never find all of the potential harm we do today when our security systems can see the messages themselves”. While this tradeoff has not been quantified, we are very concerned that the right balance is not being struck, which would make your platform an unsafe space, including for children.

"For children." That's the leverage. Barr wants Facebook to abandon its encryption plans to save children. Sure, that's admirable, if you're willing to overlook the considerable downside of creating a backdoor for governments or simply removing the encryption offer altogether. Facebook's encryption plans offer a whole new layer of security for lawful users -- some of which are targeted by authoritarian/corrupt governments. Many governments around the world pose as much of a threat to their citizens as criminals do. And a great many people believe their communications should be private, which means not being read/scanned by Facebook, much less any government that happens to stroll by waving some paperwork.

All Barr wants is for Facebook to abandon its encryption plans. He wants Facebook to be able to access the content of its users' messages. He wants every government in the world to be able to access the content of users' messages. He may only be aligned with three-fifths of the Five Eyes in this letter, but ensuring US/UK/Australian "lawful access" means giving every other two-bit dictatorship the same level of access to users' communications.

This isn't standard government bullshit. This is heinous, dangerous bullshit. This is a conglomerate of Western governments, on the eve of the deployment of a mysterious "data-sharing" agreement, portraying the implementation of encryption for communications as aiding and abetting the sexual abuse of children. This is a not-very-subtle smearing of every tech company that deploys encryption to protect its users from criminals and governments that behave like criminals. This is the abuse of the phrase "lawful access" to portray the possession of a warrant as a golden ticket to everything law enforcement wishes to obtain.

To be historically clear, a warrant has NEVER guaranteed access to communications. It has only allowed law enforcement to search for them. The implementation of encryption doesn't change this equation. But Barr and others keep pushing this in hopes of persuading the public -- and the tech companies they patronize -- that secret communications are something new and far more dangerous than anything law enforcement has ever encountered prior to the rise of social media and smartphones.

Filed Under: doj, encryption, mark zuckerberg, messenger, peter dutton, priti patel, privacy, security, snooping, william barr
Companies: facebook, instagram, whatsapp