T-Mobile hacker explains how he breached carrier’s security

John Binns, a 21-year-old American who now lives in Turkey, told the Wall Street Journal that he was behind the T-Mobile security breach that affected more than 50 million people earlier this month.

The intrigue: Binns said he broke through the T-Mobile defenses after discovering an unprotected router exposed on the internet, after scanning the carrier’s internet addresses for weak spots using a publicly available tool.

  • “I was panicking because I had access to something big,” he wrote in Telegram messages to the Journal. “Their security is awful.”
  • “Generating noise was one goal,” Binns said. He declined to say whether he sold any of the information he stole, or whether he was paid for the hack.

The big picture: It was the third major data leak the network has disclosed in the last two years, per WSJ. T-Mobile is the second-largest U.S. mobile carrier, housing the data of around 90 million cellphones.

Background: Some of the information exposed in the breach included names, dates of birth, social security numbers and personal ID information. The breach is being investigated Seattle’s FBI office, according to the Journal.

Source: T-Mobile hacker explains how he breached carrier’s security – Axios

Your sense of smell may be the key to a balanced diet

[…]

according to a new study, the food you ate just before your walk past the bakery may impact your likelihood of stopping in for a sweet treat—and not just because you’re full.

Scientists at Northwestern University found that people became less sensitive to food odors based on the meal they had eaten just before. So, if you were snacking on baked goods from a coworker before your walk, for example, you may be less likely to stop into that sweet-smelling bakery.

The study, “Olfactory perceptual decision-making is biased by motivational state,” will be published August 26 in the journal PLOS Biology.

Smell regulates what we eat, and vice versa

The study found that participants who had just eaten a meal of either cinnamon buns or pizza were less likely to perceive “meal-matched” odors, but not non-matched odors. The findings were then corroborated with that showed in parts of the brain that process odors was altered in a similar way.

These findings show that just as smell regulates what we eat, what we eat—in turn—regulates our sense of smell.

[…]

To conduct the study, the team developed a novel task in which participants were presented with a smell that was a mixture between a food and a non-food odor (either “pizza and pine” or “cinnamon bun and cedar”—odors that “pair well” and are distinct from each other). The ratio of food and non-food odor varied in each mixture, from pure food to pure non-food. After a mixture was presented, participants were asked whether the food or the non-food odor was dominant.

Participants completed the task twice inside an MRI scanner: First, when they were hungry, then, after they’d eaten a meal that matched one of the two odors.

“In parallel with the first part of the experiment running in the MRI scanner, I was preparing the meal in another room,” Shanahan said. “We wanted everything fresh and ready and warm because we wanted the participant to eat as much as they could until they were very full.”

The team then computed how much food odor was required in the mixture in each session for the participant to perceive the food odor as dominant. The team found when participants were hungry, they needed a lower percentage of food odor in a mixture to perceive it as dominant—for example, a hungry participant may require a 50 percent cinnamon bun-to-cedar mixture when hungry, but 80 percent when full of cinnamon buns.

Through brain imaging, the team provided further evidence for the hypothesis. Brain scans from the MRI demonstrated a parallel change occurring in the part of the brain that processes odors after a meal. The brain’s response to a meal-matched odor was less “food-like” than responses to a non-matched meal .

[…]

Source: Your sense of smell may be the key to a balanced diet

Samsung Is the Latest SSD Manufacturer (Crucial, Western Digital) Caught Cheating Its Customers

In the past 11 days, both Crucial and Western Digital have been caught swapping the TLC NAND used for certain products with inferior QLC NAND without updating product SKUs or informing reviewers that this change was happening. Shipping one product to reviewers and a different product to consumers is unacceptable and we recently recommended that readers buy SSDs from Samsung or Intel in lieu of WD or Crucial.

As of today, we have to take Samsung off that list. One difference in this situation is that Samsung isn’t swapping TLC for QLC — it’s swapping the drive controller + TLC for a different, inferior drive controller and different TLC. The net effect is still a steep performance decline in certain tests. We’ve asked Intel to specifically confirm it does not engage in this kind of consumer-hostile behavior and will report back if it does.

The other beats of this story are familiar. Computerbase.de reports on a YouTube Channel, 潮玩客, which compared two different versions of the Samsung 970 Plus. Both drives are labeled with the same sticker declaring them to be a 970EVO Plus, but the part numbers are different. One drive is labeled the MZVLB1T0HBLR (older, good) and one is the MZVL21T0HBLU (newer, inferior).

Right-click and open in a new window for a full-size image. (Photo: 潮玩客)

Peel the sticker back, and the chips underneath are rather different. The Phoenix drive (top) is older than the Elpis drive on the bottom. Production dates for drives point to April for the older product and June for the newer. A previous version of this post misstated the dating, ET regrets the error. Thanks to Eldakka for catching it.

Right-click and open in a new window for a full-size image. (Photo: 潮玩客)

And — just as we’ve seen from Crucial and Western Digital — performance in some benchmarks after the swap is just fine, while other benchmarks crater. Here’s what write performance looks like when measured over much of the drive(s):

Right-click and open in a new window for a full-size image. (Photo: 潮玩客)

The original 970 Plus starts with solid performance and holds it for the entire 200GB test. The right-hand SSD is even faster than the OG 970 Plus until we hit the 120GB mark, at which point performance drops to 50 percent of what it was. Real-world file copies also bear this out, with one drive holding 1.58GB/s and one at 830MB/s. TLC hasn’t been swapped for QLC, but the 50 percent performance hit in some tests is as bad as what we see when it has been.

The only thing worse than discovering a vendor is cheating people is discovering that lots of vendors have apparently decided to cheat people. I don’t know what kind of substances got passed around the last time NAND manufacturers threw themselves a summit, but next time there needs to be more ethics and less marijuana. Or maybe there needs to be more ethics and marijuana, but less toluene. I’m open to suggestions, really.

Source: Samsung Is the Latest SSD Manufacturer Caught Cheating Its Customers – ExtremeTech

After 18 Years, SCO’s IBM Litigation May Be Settled for $14.5 Million (is this the last SCO court case though? it won’t DIE!!!!)

Slashdot has confirmed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that after 18 years of legal maneuvering, SCO’s bankruptcy case (first filed in 2007) is now “awaiting discharge.”

Long-time Slashdot reader rkhalloran says they know the reason: Papers filed 26 Aug by IBM & SCOXQ in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware for a proposed settlement, Case 07-11337-BLS Doc 1501:

By the Settlement Agreement, the Trustee has reached a settlement with IBM that resolves all of the remaining claims at issue in the Utah Litigation (defined below). The Settlement Agreement is the culmination of extensive arm’s length negotiation between the Trustee and IBM.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Parties have agreed to resolve all disputes between them for a payment to the Trustee, on behalf of the Estates, of $14,250,000. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Trustee submits the Settlement Agreement and the settlement with IBM are in the best interests of the Estates and creditors, are well within the range of reasonableness, and should be approved.
The proposed order would include “the release of the Estates’ claims against IBM and vice versa” (according to this PDF attributed to SCO Group and IBM uploaded to scribd.com). And one of the reasons given for the proposed settlement? “The probability of the ultimate success of the Trustee’s claims against IBM is uncertain,” according to an IBM/SCO document on Scribd.com titled Trustee’s motion: For example, succeeding on the unfair competition claims will require proving to a jury that events occurring many years ago constituted unfair competition and caused SCO harm. Even if SCO were to succeed in that effort, the amount of damages it would recover is uncertain and could be significantly less than provided by the Settlement Agreement. Such could be the case should a jury find that (1) the amount of damage SCO sustained as a result of IBM’s conduct is less than SCO has alleged, (2) SCO’s damages are limited by a $5 million damage limitation provision in the Project Monterey agreement, or (3) some or all of IBM’s Counterclaims, alleging millions of dollars in damages related to IBM’s Linux activities and alleged interference by SCO, are meritorious.

Although the Trustee believes the Estates would ultimately prevail on claims against IBM, a not insignificant risk remains that IBM could succeed with its defenses and/or Counterclaims
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware told Slashdot that the first meeting of the creditors will be held on September 22nd, 2021.

Source: After 18 Years, SCO’s IBM Litigation May Be Settled for $14.5 Million – Slashdot