• @titter
    link
    152
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is awesome. We need more of this to help us fight the coming war

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    881 year ago

    Thought that seemed really cute. Nice way to try to break through social anxiety.

    Then I saw that it started as a wrong number message. Then I realised…

    Damn scam bots!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    541 year ago

    In the future, bots are going to get so annoyed with people pretending to be bots when they just want to talk to other bots!

  • @tourist
    link
    501 year ago

    why bother with the variations?

    think they’re hoping to knock the same victim more than once?

    messed up

    • Deebster
      link
      fedilink
      831 year ago

      Maybe it’s an attempt to evade automated systems that check for spam.

    • @PM_Your_Nudes_Please
      link
      661 year ago

      Probably a basic way to evade spam detection. If you start sending the exact same message to 500 people, most chat services will shut that shit down in an instant. But if you send unique messages, it makes you look more like a real person, and the chat system may let it slide.

      • @Adalast
        link
        91 year ago

        What’s bad is that modern spam detection can employ semantic algorithms so it would still catch all of them as the I’m as message. The use of synonyms in the optionals is a huge vulnerability in the scam.

        • Ephera
          link
          fedilink
          111 year ago

          Well, it does not appear to be a terribly sophisticated system to begin with…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      291 year ago

      So that their fixed script isn’t so predictable that we can just nuke them by looking for identical conversations.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Could be to match the style of the target, to try and make the conversation feel more natural for them.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    421 year ago

    How does this exploit work? I understand that inputs were not sanitized, but what did the injected code do?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      681 year ago

      My guess would be the response text is passed through a rudimentary templating engine that looks for { and }. Somehow it must be processing the whole chat history. The templater fails at the unexpected braces in the code block and then just gives up (probably a try-catch ignores the error and sends the message anyway).

      • @mumblerfish
        link
        361 year ago

        So the attack would just be a } then?

    • @kromem
      link
      English
      46
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think the code is doing anything, it looks like it might be the brackets.

      That effectively the spam script has like a greedy template matcher that is trying to template the user message with the brackets and either (a) chokes on an exception so that the rest is spit out with no templating processor, or (b) completes so that it doesn’t apply templating to the other side of the conversation.

      So { a :'b'} might work instead.

  • Throwaway
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    Why would exporting a url break js? No one would be stupid enough to run JS from an input. This isn’t like a sql query where you might think to put a string directly into a search query. You would have to actively add this exploit in.

    • @kromem
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      It’s not executing the code.

      Their message contains brackets. Which is what the template engine is using to determine variations.

      So the unsanitized user message is being processed by the temple engine, probably kills it with invalid formatting, and the engine no longer applies the templating to the rest of the message leaving the variations in the text sent to the messaging app.