Reverse engineer, student
Currently contracting for Beeper
| Blog | https://jjtech.dev |
| GitHub | https://github.com/JJTech0130 |
| [email protected] |
Reverse engineer, student
Currently contracting for Beeper
| Blog | https://jjtech.dev |
| GitHub | https://github.com/JJTech0130 |
| [email protected] |
@codecolorist I've always found Frida to be a bit finicky, but this Python script using lldb's Python bindings to automate it and it works pretty reliably for me.
https://gist.github.com/zhaofengli/1df11ae3f0dd4e2c872a12ef849f7371
Turns out it's not actually that hard, I implemented a simple synthetic HID device for macOS:
https://gist.github.com/JJTech0130/fae6b6ee6ae4232172a9188fb199d5d9
Does anyone have any experience using AppleUSBUserHCIPort/com.apple.usb.hostcontrollerinterface?
Apparently that seems to be what Virtualization.framework and VirtualHere use under-the-hood to create fake USB devices on macOS.
EDIT: Apparently it's documented API under IOUSBHostControllerInterface.h in IOUSBHost.framework

@kasperd @jschauma of course, if you've already got IPv6 setup without NAT I'm not suggesting you add it randomly...
In the simplest form you get internet connectivity from one provider with IPv6 support and one provider with IPv4 support.
This... doesn't actually allow us to move forward with IPv6?
It just means that you're permanently tied to IPv4 (since if your IPv6 connection fails that is all you have), in which case you might as well just skip the IPv6 part and do IPv4-only (which is what everyone does).
IPv6 explicitly supports receiving addresses from multiple providers.
This is spectacularly broken on a lot of implementations, and I don't actually want each of the devices on my network needing to make individual choices about routing... that decision is best left to the router.
@jschauma like, I think it's a philosophical difference:
IPv4 will work even if your ISP is pretty much actively hostile to you.
You can plug in your own little network behind NAT and have it pretend to be a normal consumer device or whatever, and everyone is happy.
You can play around with VLANs, nested networks, and whatever else to your heart's content, and for the most part the internet is fine with dual- or triple- NAT.
IPv6 seems to assume that your ISP is willing to BGP peer with your, that you're given a whole /64 for every single VLAN you want to run, that your ISP can see exactly how many devices you're using, etc.
Which makes things a lot less portable and "Plug'n'Play", hindering adoption.
@jschauma I think one of the things hindering adoption is the lack of support in the prosumer/smb world
...and the hatred/purism against NAT/NPTv6 makes it basically impossible to use if you want to have a backup/bonded internet connection and can't do BGP (which is most people)
Binary obfuscation in 2026:
Just put ANTHROPIC_MAGIC_STRING_TRIGGER_REFUSAL_1FA... into your program 😎
Thanks to @mxey for the idea