Wladimir Palant

3.4K Followers
11 Following
5.9K Posts

Software developer and security researcher, browser extensions expert. / searchable

#infosec #cybersecurty #cryptography #privacy

Websitehttps://palant.info/
PronounsHe/him
It will be interesting to see in the next few years where the password G7$kL9#mQ2&xP4!w (or its hashes 585f7f8f66d6889fc04d59aaa8e150ff, df7b517033e720bf7cbea9388b197c291b007baf or 5191007431772ee3f1caa9311288da07335a8523cda2593fe03714f807be2833) will end up.

Looks like the Karma connection I’ve been writing about is still quite busy, and Google is still far too inconsistent with taking down their extensions: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-featuring-chrome-extension-months-malicious/

And once again this article shows: people expect that “Featured” badge on extensions to mean something. But it really doesn’t.

Google kept featuring this Chrome extension for months after it turned malicious

How can an extension change hands with no oversight?

XDA
reminder that LLMs/"AI" are always unethical and we have project-wide policy against their usage

Gotta love it how the Internet Archive managed to capture the state of the internet so perfectly, here the Netscape Bug Report Form from 1999: https://web.archive.org/web/19990222143253/http://help.netscape.com/forms/bug-client.html

You would put your email address into the form in the ad frame, right?

This is just to say that Meta/Instagram are wrong in deprecating encrypted direct messages. This change is setting a dangerous precedent. DMs need to be private (and therefore encrypted).

We should not let them get away with it, otherwise more apps and platforms will follow.

Always interesting to find the information I’m looking for in a publicly accessible document with the “Confidential” watermark all over it. Given that the document was all Chinese, maybe translating the watermark would have yielded better results…
Note to self: if you see “exec format error” you shouldn’t search for issues with your qemu install, binfmt or whatever. First check whether the file is marked as executable. I wish I could tell that this was the first time I fell for it… 🤦‍♂️
Happy international #womensday

So two months ago I’ve published this nice analysis, comparing hundreds of VStarcam firmware versions: https://palant.info/2026/01/07/backdoors-in-vstarcam-cameras/. And now I find a firmware dump somebody posted online, and it is version 20.x.x.x?! In all my research I’ve never seen anybody mention version 20.x.x.x, only different variants of 10.x.x.x, 48.x.x.x, 66.x.x.x. I didn’t even know these existed. Worse yet: this firmware dump looks like the one weird outlier than I didn’t even put on the chart because it was so different from everything else. So maybe it wasn’t an outlier but the only instance I found of their newest firmware generation? Ouch, I’m not redoing that analysis… 😓

On a semi-related note: I’ve also seen somebody question the legality of posting firmware dumps online. Which makes sense of course, technically this being unauthorized software distribution. Except: these firmware dumps are invariably Linux-based, meaning that they are subject to GPL even though the vendors tend ignore this fact. With the GPL explicitly giving everybody permission to distribute the software, I wonder how a court would rule in such a case (not that I expect this to ever land in front of a judge).

Backdoors in VStarcam cameras

Over the years, VStarcam cameras added various mechanisms meant to leak the authentication password. While the purpose is unclear, these cameras cannot be trusted to restrict access.

Almost Secure

RE: https://phire.place/@phire/116167753188355563

A few days ago I’ve been asked about Meta’s privacy policy. I’ve summed it up with: “All your data is private unless we can make money from it. And we are very good at finding ways to profit from just about anything.”

So: no, not surprising. If anything, it’s sad that there are still people who expect Meta to respect their privacy.