firehose

greyweed

A vulnerability mostly affecting older versions of Google's Android operating system may make it possible for attackers to execute malicious code on end-user smartphones that use a wide variety of apps, researchers said.

The weakness resides in a widely used programming interface known as WebView, which allows developers to embed Web-based content into apps used for banking, entertainment, and other purposes. Many apps available on the official Google Play market don't properly secure the connection between the WebView component on a phone and the Web content being downloaded, researchers from UK-based MWR Labs recently warned. That makes it possible for attackers who are on the same open Wi-Fi network as a vulnerable user to hijack the connection and inject malicious code that can be executed by the phone.

"The lowest impact attack would be downloading contents of the SD card and the exploited application's data directory," the researchers wrote in an advisory published earlier this week. "However, depending on the device that was exploited this could extend to obtaining root privileges, retrieving other sensitive user data from the device or causing the user monetary loss."

Netflix

Netflix announced yesterday that it no longer holds back so-called "Super HD" and 3D video from any customers.

"All Netflix members, regardless of their Internet service provider (ISP), now have access to the highest quality HD streams available on Netflix," the company said.

Super HD is a 1080p stream, but it has a higher bit rate and less compression than Netflix's regular 1080p content. Netflix introduced the higher-quality stream in January, but it made it available only on ISPs that use its "Open Connect" content delivery network.

Stephen Colbert isn't happy with YouTube's upcoming comment section makeover, as proved in this snippet from his show. The satirist argues that by tying a comment to its writer's Google+ account and highlighting only worthy discussions inside a video's comments, YouTube is committing an "unprecedented attack on free speech."

In jokey retaliation, he suggested his chanting army of viewers flood YouTube's comments with a block of typically spammish text.

We, the commenters of YouTube, believe in free speech as strongly as we believe in free videos of animals dressed like other animals. Therefore, we hereby declare: you can make up to 88 dollars an hour working from your house. Click here for one weird tip on how to lose your bellyfat. U R homo. Ron Paul 2012! bit.do\bNB9

Google+'s chief architect took to his own service to laugh off the attack. "I'm sorry, Mr. Colbert, but I can't quite hear you over the sound of our spam filters," said Yonatan Zunger. "You're just going to have to try a little harder if you want to get millions of people to say identical, contentless things on the Internet."

Zunger's true to his word: the vast majority of Colbert-inspired tweets are already flagged as spam, a day and a half after the show aired.

IPCC

It’s that time again. The fifth report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is being rolled out today with the release of a Summary for Policymakers for the climate science portion of the report. (Sections on impacts of climate change and mitigation strategies will be released in the coming months.) Suspense about what the report would include has been somewhat deflated by leaks of early drafts, but the final wording is now available.

The group that prepared the report on the physical science behind climate change consisted of 259 climate scientists from 39 countries. (During a press conference, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri noted that in total, 831 scientists contributed to the various sections of the report, nearly 60 percent of whom were not involved with past reports.) The purpose of the report is to summarize what scientists have learned about climate change and to convey the level of scientific confidence in each conclusion. It cites 9,200 peer-reviewed papers, two-thirds of which were published after the release of the last IPCC report in 2007.

After being drafted by a number of scientists, the Summary for Policymakers was reviewed line-by-line by representatives of nations from around the world this week. Proposals for clarifying language then had to be approved by the scientists before the final draft was released.