Apple Watch Series 5

Apple Watch series 5 has LTPO screen and 18 hour battery life.

International emergency calling.

A new Apple Watch titanium model.

Apple Watch gps model starting at 399$ starting September 20. And a cellular models starting 499$ .

iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, iPhone 11 Pro Max Launch Event

iPhone 11 launch is just a few hours away as the Apple event is expected to begin at 10.30pm IST (10am PDT) on September 10. As is the case every year, the Apple event is the biggest tech event on the calendar, and the whole world will be watching to see what the Cupertino-based company has up its figurative sleeve. Apple is expected to launch three new iPhone models at the event, expected to be called the iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, and iPhone 11 Pro Max. It may even unveil a new Apple Watch. At the moment, we know for sure that new iPhone models are coming but not much else is known in terms of hardware launches. We can also expect Apple to unveil the pricing for its Apple TV+ streaming service and Apple Arcade game service.

iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, iPhone 11 Pro Max price (expected)

iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, iPhone 11 Pro Max price in India is expected to be announced during the Apple event. An alleged slide from Taiwan suggests that the iPhone 11 is expected to start at $749 (roughly Rs. 53,600) for the 64GB base variant, whereas iPhone 11 Pro is expected to have a starting price of $999 (roughly Rs. 71,600), and the iPhone 11 Pro Max is expected to start at $1099 (roughly Rs. 78,700). The iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max are expected to ship with 128GB storage in their base variants. All of this information is based on leaks and none of it is confirmed yet.

iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, iPhone 11 Pro Max specifications

iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, and iPhone 11 Pro Maxspecifications are not confirmed yet. Based on rumours and leaks, we can expect to see triple rear cameras on the iPhone 11 Pro, and iPhone 11 Pro Max. These cameras are expected to be housed in a square module and the additional lenses are expected to focus on low-light photography, wide-angle photography, and we can expect to see enhancements to video recording as well. 

The three smartphones will be expected to ship with Apple’s A13 chip, and a report suggests it may help with computer vision and AR. The OLED displays will only be seen on the iPhone 11 Pro, and iPhone 11 Pro Max according to leaks. The 2019 iPhone models are expected to feature the following display sizes: 6.1-inch for iPhone 11, 5.8-inch for iPhone 11 Pro, and 6.5-inch for iPhone Pro Max. 3D Touch is expected to be removed from some iPhones too. The iPhone 11 is still expected to ship with an LCD screen. The front camera is expected to ship with enhancements that allow Face ID to work even when the phone is lying flat on any surface. 


A FEW SHORT decades ago, the archetypal hacker was a bored teenager breaking into his school’s network to change grades, à la Ferris Bueller. So today, when cybersecurity has become the domain of state-sponsored spy agencies and multibillion-dollar companies, it may be refreshing to know that the high school hacker lives on—as do the glaring vulnerabilities in school software.

At the Defcon hacker conference in Las Vegas today, 18-year-old Bill Demirkapi presented his findings from three years of after-school hacking that began when he was a high school freshman. Demirkapi poked around the web interfaces of two common pieces of software, sold by tech firms Blackboard and Follett and used by his own school. In both cases, he found serious bugs that would allow a hacker to gain deep access to student data. In Blackboard’s case in particular, Demirkapi found 5 million vulnerable records for students and teachers, including student grades, immunization records, cafeteria balance, schedules, cryptographically hashed passwords, and photos.

Demirkapi points out that if he, then a bored 16-year-old motivated only by his own curiosity, could so easily access these corporate databases, his story doesn’t reflect well on the broader security of the companies holding millions of students’ personal information.”The access I had was pretty much anything the school had,” Demirkapi says. “The state of cybersecurity in education software is really bad, and not enough people are paying attention to it.”

5,000 Schools, 5 Million Records

Demirkapi found a series of common web bugs in Blackboard’s Community Engagement software and Follett’s Student Information System, including so-called SQL-injection and cross-site-scripting vulnerabilities. For Blackboard, those bugs ultimately allowed access to a database that contained 24 categories of data, everything from phone numbers to discipline records, bus routes, and attendance records—though not every school seemed to store data in every field. Only 34,000 of the records included immunization history, for instance. More than 5,000 schools appeared to be included in the data, with roughly 5 million individual records in total, including students, teachers, and other staff.

In Follett’s software, Demirkapi says he found bugs that would have given a hacker access to student data like grade point average, special education status, number of suspensions, and passwords. Unlike in Blackboard’s software, those passwords were stored unencrypted, in fully readable form. By the time Demirkapi had gained that level of access to Follett’s software, however, he was two years into his hacking escapades and slightly better informed about legal dangers like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which forbids gaining unauthorized access to a company’s network. So while he says he checked the data about himself and a friend who gave him permission, to verify that the bugs led to access, he didn’t explore further or enumerate the total number of vulnerable records, as he had with Blackboard. “I was a little stupider in the 10th grade,” he says of his earlier explorations.

When WIRED reached out to Blackboard and Follett, Follett’s senior vice president of technology George Gatsis expressed his thanks to Demirkapi for helping the company identify its bugs, which he says were fixed by July of 2018. “We were happy to work with Bill and grateful he was wiling to work through those things with us,” Gatsis says. But Gatsis also claimed that even with the security flaws he exploited, Demirkapi could never have accessed Follett data other than his own. Demirkapi counters that he “100 percent had access to other people’s data,” and says he even showed Follett’s engineers the password of the friend who had let him access his information.

Blackboard also thanked Demirkapi, but argued that based on its analysis no one else had accessed those records through the vulnerability he exposed. “We commend Bill Demirkapi for bringing these vulnerabilities to our attention and for striving to be part of a solution to improve our products’ security and protect our client’s personal information,” reads a statement from a Blackboard spokesperson. “We have addressed several issues that were brought to our attention by Mr. Demirkapi and have no indication that these vulnerabilities were exploited or that any clients’ personal information was accessed by Mr. Demirkapi or any other unauthorized party.

Advanced Persistent Teen

Demirkapi says he started digging up the two companies’ security flaws out of a combination of teenage boredom and an ambition to learn more about cybersecurity and web-based hacking. “I have a passion to, I guess, break things,” Demirkapi says. “I really wanted to learn about web application testing, so I thought, well, how cool would it be to test on my own school’s grading system?”

Demirkapi notes that, unlike Ferris Bueller, he never actually tried to change students’ grades. which would have required a deeper level of access to Blackboard’s network. He did, in a separate incident, exploit flaws in a college admission software to change his admission status to “accepted” in the database of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, a college he had applied to. A spokesperson for the college said that change alone wouldn’t have been enough to admit him.

After Demirkapi began to find bugs in Blackboard and Follett’s software, he says he struggled to get the companies to take him seriously. In the winter of 2016, he initially tried to contact Follett by asking his school’s director of technology to contact the company on his behalf. But as Demirkapi remembers it, she told him the company had dismissed his concerns. He says he later sent messages himself to Blackboard and Follett via email and Follette’s contact page. Blackboard initially thanked him for his note and said it would investigate, but didn’t follow up. Follett ignored him altogether.

So a few months later, Demirkapi took a more typical approach for a juvenile hacker. Among Follett’s bugs, he found that could add a “group resource” to his school’s account, a file that would be available to all users and, more importantly for Demirkapi, that would trigger a push notification with the resource’s name to everyone in his school district who had Follett’s Aspen app installed. Demirkapi sent a message reading “Hello from Bill Demirkapi :)” out to thousands of parents, teachers, and students.

That stunt got him suspended from school for two days. “It was really immature of me to do that, but I didn’t know any other way to get in touch with a company that wasn’t open to contact,” Demirkapi says.

If It Weren’t for That Meddling Kid

Over the course 2018, after Demirkapi enlisted the help of his school district’s director of technology and Carnegie Mellon’s CERT Coordination Center, he says the companies finally began to listen. With Blackboard, whose sensitive data he had accessed in the process of testing the software’s security, he worked out a contract that stated the company wouldn’t sue him, and in return he’d keep the company’s vulnerabilities secret until they were fixed—after refusing an initial draft in which Blackboard tried to prevent him from telling anyone even after the patches went through.

Even now that both companies have fixed the software flaws Demirkapi found, he says that his work should worry anyone who cares about the security of student data. “It doesn’t seem like there’s any interest in this from the security field, because the incentives just aren’t very high,” he says, pointing out that neither Blackboard nor Follett has a bug bounty program for rewarding security researchers who find and their vulnerabilities. “These companies say they’re secure, that they do audits, but don’t take the necessary steps to protect themselves from threats.”

Some months after his Blackboard vulnerability disclosures, Demirkapi noticed that Blackboard had posted a job opening for a new chief information security officer. Demirkapi jokes that he briefly considered applying. Instead, he’s going to try college.

Google Chrome Incognito Mode Can Still Be Detected

Google Chrome Incognito Mode Can Still Be Detected by These Methods

With the release of Chrome 76, Google fixed a loophole that allowed web sites to detect if a visitor was using Incognito mode.  Unfortunately, their fix led to two other methods that can still be used to detect when a visitor is browsing privately.

Some web sites were using Incognito mode detection in order to prevent users from bypassing paywalls or to give private browsing users a different browsing experience.

This was being done by checking for the availability of Chrome’s FileSystem API, which was disabled in Incognito mode. If a site could access the FileSystem API then the visitor was in a normal browsing session and if it could not access the API the user was in Incognito mode.

As Google wanted users to be able to browse the web privately and for their browsing mode choices to be private as well, they have closed a loophole by making the API available in both browsing modes. As part of this fix, instead of using disk storage for the FileSystem API, when in Incognito mode they are using a transient memory filesystem that gets cleared when a session is closed.

The use of a memory filesystem, though, create two new loopholes that could be used to detect Incognito mode, which are described below. 

Detecting Incognito mode through filesystem quotas

When Google made it so that Incognito mode uses a temporary filesystem using the computer’s RAM, it opened up a new method of detecting it based on the amount of storage set aside for the internal filesystem used by the browser.

In research presented by security research Vikas Mishra, he found that when Chrome allocates storage for the temporary memory filesystem used by Incognito mode, it will have a maximum quota of 120MB. 

Based on the above observations, key differences in TEMPORARY storage quota between incognito and non-incognito mode are that in case of incognito mode, there’s a hard limit of 120MBwhile this is not the case for non-incognito window. And from the above table it’s clear that for the temporary storage quota to be less than 120MB in case of non-incognito mode the device storage has to be less than 2.4GB. However for all practical purposes it is safe to assume that the majority of the devices currently in use have more than 2.4GB of storage.

Using this knowledge, Mishra came up with a script that would query the quota allocated to the browser’s filesystem and if its 120MB or less, then the browser is in incognito mode.

Using Mishra’s script, BleepingComputer came up with a simple PoC that demonstrates this technique.

Detecting Incognito mode through access timings

When it comes to reading and writing data, memory filesystems are always faster than disk filesystems. As Chrome switched to a memory filesystem in Incognito mode, it is now possible to detect private browsing by measuring the speed of writing to the filesystem.

Unlike Mishra’s research, Li did not come up with a full working PoC of this method, but instead came up with a script that will measure the speed of writes and display them. It is up to someone else to come up with the proper measurements to determine incognito mode with this method.

Furthermore, Li’s approach requires many writes to determine the speed of the filesystem, which would cause the detection process to take quite a bit of time.

Samsung Launches World’s First 108-Megapixel Smartphone Camera Sensor

After launching a new 64-megapixel camera sensor earlier in May this year, Samsung today announced a new 108-megapixel camera sensor. The world’s first 108-megapixel camera sensor for smartphones has been built by Samsung, in collaboration with Chinese smartphone company Xiaomi. Both the companies had earlier teamed up for a new 64-megapixel smartphone that will use Samsung’s 64-megapixel ISOCELL GW1 sensor. Samsung believes the new, powerful sensor will allow smartphone users to take much better photographs.

Samsung will be using its Tetracell technology that combines four pixels as one to help smartphone users take better photos in low-light conditions. The technology can also help minis noise while improving colour accuracy.

As for bright lighting conditions, Samsung’s new 108-megapixel camera sensor will use the company’s Smart-ISO mechanism that helps create more vivid pictures by adjusting the level of amplifier gains based on the ambient light. The ISOCELL Bright HMX sensor can capture videos at resolutions up to 6K (6016×3384) at 30 fps.

Samsung has further confirmed that mass production for its new ISOCELL Bright HMX sensor will begin later this month.

Meanwhile, Xiaomi will be the first company to use this new sensor. The Chinese smartphone company has already started teasing the upcoming launch of a new smartphone with Samsung’s new 108-megapixel camera sensor.

What is Social Engineering?

Social engineering is the art of gaining access to buildings, systems or data by exploiting human psychology, rather than by breaking in or using technical hacking techniques. For example, instead of trying to find a software vulnerability, a social engineer might call an employee and pose as an IT support person, trying to trick the employee into divulging his password. The goal is always to gain the trust of one or more of your employees. Famous hacker Kevin Mitnick helped popularize the term “social engineering” in the ‘90s, but the simple idea itself (tricking someone into doing something or divulging sensitive information) has been around for ages. What Social Engineers Want The goal for many social engineers is to obtain personal information that can either directly lead them to financial or identity theft or prepare them for a more targeted attack. They also look for ways to install malware that gives them better access to personal data, computer systems or accounts, themselves. In other cases, social engineers are looking for information that leads to competitive advantage. Items that scammers find valuable include the following:\r\n

  • Passwords
  • Account numbers
  • Keys
  • Any personal information
  • Access cards and identity badges
  • Phone lists
  • Details of your computer system
  • The name of someone with access privileges
  • Information about servers, networks, non-public URLs


What Social Engineer Wants?

\r\n \r\n

How Social Engineer Works?

\r\nThere are an infinite number of social engineering exploits. A scammer may trick you into leaving a door open for him, visiting a fake Web page or downloading a document with malicious code, or he might insert a USB in your computer that gives him access to your corporate network. Typical ploys include the following: Stealing passwords: In this common maneuver, the hacker uses information from a social networking profile to guess a victim’s password reminder question. This technique was used to hack Twitter and break into Sarah Palin’s e-mail. Friending: In this scenario, a hacker gains the trust of an individual or group and then gets them to click on links or attachments that contain malware that introduces a threat, such as the ability to exploit a weakness in a corporate system. For example, says Netragard CTO Adriel Desautels, he might strike up an online conversation about fishing and then send a photo of a boat he’s thinking of buying. Impersonation/social network squatting: In this case, the hacker tweets you, friends you or otherwise contacts you online using the name of someone you know. Then he asks you to do him a favor, like sending him a spreadsheet or giving him data from “the office.” “Anything you see on a computer system can be spoofed or manipulated or augmented by a hacker,” says Desautels. Posing as an insider: In many cases, the scammer poses as an IT help desk worker or contractor to extract information such as a passwords from an unknowing employee. “Roughly 90% of the people we’ve successfully exploited during [vulnerability assessments for clients] trusted us because they thought we worked for the same company as them,” Desautels says.In one case, a Netragard worker posed as a contractor, befriended a group of the client’s workers and set up a successful phishing scheme through which he gleaned employee credentials, eventually gaining entry to the entire corporate infrastructure.

Just a sec