Top
Best
New

Posted by jcomp 11 hours ago

AdFection: Targeted ads turned into a pipeline for zero-click mercenary spyware(citizenlab.ca)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/15/israeli-f...

https://www.theverge.com/tech/1011956/discover-tech-zero-cli...

328 points | 481 commentspage 2
schleck8 8 hours ago|
This is even crazier than the last time Citizen Lab found an Israeli zero-click spyware (Pegasus). You could call it a sequel
icantevenhold 7 hours ago|
Don't call it a comeback, I been here for years Rocking my peers and putting suckas in fear
shevy-java 7 hours ago||
Is that the song from LL Cool J?
tclancy 7 hours ago||
You were expecting Leviticus?
joshAg 3 hours ago||
As much as it sucks for the ecosystem that's built itself up around the world wide web, good ad blockers and fingerprinting protection are as important as firewalls and antiviruses now. There's no more babies in this fetid bathwater.
roscas 3 hours ago||
"Researchers also recommend that users at high risk of targeting use ad blockers, disable ad tracking, and regularly reset mobile ad IDs.". Not "recommend". Everyone must use uBlock Origin or at least some type of ad blocker in every device.

Then also mandatory pi-hole on every house.

Even if you are used by Windows OS, you must use an adblocker. Even if you use Chrome. On every browser.

pavel_lishin 2 hours ago|
Yes. Browsing without an adblocker is analogous to driving without a seatbelt. Sure, you can do it - but it's a terribly unsafe idea.
kakacik 2 hours ago||
Internet without ublock origin looks and feels horrible, something about insulting basic human decency with o slaught of ads desperately taking so much space.
ediamondscience 7 hours ago||
It's kinda funny that a website with an article titled "Online ads weaponised to deliver ‘zero-click’ spyware" immediately loads a splash that asks users with adblock installed to disable it.
jkestner 7 hours ago||
The separation between advertising and editorial has never been greater. Brought to you by the marketing wizards who saw you bought a vacuum cleaner on Amazon and concluded you love buying vacuum cleaners so here’s some more.
masfuerte 6 hours ago||
The site works much better with JS disabled.
sbdaman 7 hours ago||
>During our analysis of the Controlium platform, we observed that the source code mentioned an endpoint called “/csv-download”, which accepted start and end date parameters. When we sent normal HTTP GET requests to this endpoint without any password, special headers, or authentication token, we received logs showing which users had logged in to Controlium, and from which IP addresses.

Absolute morons.

bigbuppo 7 hours ago||
If you work for an ad tech firm you are one of the baddies.
bawolff 1 hour ago||
So reading the article, it feels a bit confusing what zero click exploit they are talking about. It sounds like they are talking about CVE-2021-21166, but if they really are talking about an exploit from 5 years ago, i feel like their intro paragraph is rather misleading.
Frieren 6 hours ago||
Ads providers should be held responsible for delivering malware. All the tracking (that includes fingerprinting for clients that do not want to be tracked) should also be illegal.

How is this acceptable for society goes beyond me. And then corporations blame individuals when they get scammed. It is your fault that we have all your information and leak it everywhere, when it is not just directly sold.

And add jail time to fines. Fines means nothing for the rich.

the_giraffe 5 hours ago||
I think it would be nice for them to be held accountable but I get the feeling this is part of a wider nation state intelligence apparatus and I doubt that they will hold themselves accountable.
ticulatedspline 5 hours ago|||
nah, you'll never get there that way. Even if there was willpower to do it legislating these things is too hard.

What we need is some greedy lawyers and civil liability. Find a campaign that infected enough individuals, fire up a class-action lawsuit against the website on which the ads where actually shown (not the ad provider).

If they win the landscape will change. It would set a precedent for civil liability for infecting your users even when it's not your content directly. That would likely spook the shit out of the market, security becomes a feature.

dylan604 4 hours ago|||
Why the website instead of the ad provider? The website didn't server the ad. The ad provider did and should be the responsible part to ensure what it provides is not malicious.

Attacking a single website does nothing. If you bankrupt the site, there are millions more sites. If you attack the ad provider, bankrupting it, and shutting it down, millions of sites are now protected.

Your logic just doesn't compute

autoexec 2 hours ago|||
Ideally, you'd sue the website because the website is responsible for everything that shows up on the website they control, and the website would turn around and sue their ad provider because they paid that ad provider for a service that wasn't malware delivery and as a result of that ad provider's crimes (or negligence) the website now has legal costs and harm to their reputation.

It shouldn't fall on the person just going to a website to track down the vendors and third parties the website contracts with.

axus 1 hour ago||
The lawyers should name everyone involved with unauthorized access to your computer as defendants , the obviously innocent parties can be dropped before it gets to trial.
thfuran 2 hours ago||||
I don't understand how you could arrive at this perspective. If you're doing business with ExampleCorp and one of their subcontractors malfeasantly mishandles things, would you say that ExampleCorp had nothing to do with it? If not, why does that change when the interaction happens via example.com?
ndriscoll 4 hours ago||||
Seems to me the website is negligent and the ad provider is an accessory (e.g. helping to select targets for fraud), at the very least.
dylan604 4 hours ago|||
The website is signing up for a service. You could say that a website continuing to use the service of a known malicious ad provider is problematic, but are there any ad providers known to have not served malicious something?

I think you're also confusing multiple malicious activities occurring on the web. Data harvesting is another thing that needs to be banned into oblivion. Rarely are sites doing that natively. It is being done as a second part of service the site wants. A site/app wants naturally wants to seen analytics about how visitors are using the site/app, so they include some third party tool that provides that data to an extent at the cost of collecting/keeping that data for their own use. Want to make it easy for users to interact with social platforms regarding your site/app, they now get to collect/keep that data. That's a different thing than being served malicious ads.

ndriscoll 3 hours ago|||
The website is partnering with another business, often as their primary or only means of revenue. That is their entire business. This is not you signing up for a service like Netflix. It is a B2B partnership, and in fact, if you look at the direction money is flowing, they're the ones selling the service (surreptitious access to users' computers). It is their responsibility to choose their business partners and what ads they'd be running. If they're not doing any examination of what they're inflicting on their users, and just letting whomever's buying send whatever payloads they'd like, then yeah that's negligent at best.

"I'll pay you if you run this software on your visitors' computers without asking questions" is not a "service" you sign up for. People don't pay you as a service. That's about as shady a deal as it sounds.

alistairSH 2 hours ago|||
Is a general contractor who subs out the electrical also blame free when the house burns down?
ashf023 3 hours ago|||
IMO the ad provider is fully at fault for allowing script tags and other potentially vulnerable features in ads. Why can't the ads just be static? I mean I get why they want it, but it should not be allowed, and IMO that's where the ad provider is almost fully at fault
ndriscoll 3 hours ago||
Websites can set CSP to not allow ad providers to serve scripts. They're the ones adding those scripts to their page, and are equally at fault. Though static ads can still point people into a fraud pipeline, and websites running those ads should be held accountable for that too.

It's fully possible to individually negotiate with someone that wants to publish an ad on your site. If you choose to take money from literally anyone who wants to do so, then why would you not be accountable when they inevitably use you to target users for fraud? You chose to take their money and not even look at what you were publishing.

mrguyorama 1 hour ago||||
I don't think we should try to split accountability at all here.

The ad platform that allows malware to be served to anyone is at fault.

As is the individual website that has selected to allow a 3rd party's code to be delivered to your machine without controlling that risk, often for very silly reasons.

DANmode 3 hours ago|||
> The website didn't server the ad.

Sure it did. The content coming from elsewhere doesn’t change their decision to include it when the user loads their page.

It just makes the decision wildly important.

This is no different than the “I’m too big, can’t tell what my subsidiaries are doing!” wink

Pay attention, do due diligence to do things correctly, or don’t do them.

autoexec 2 hours ago||||
> What we need is some greedy lawyers and civil liability. Find a campaign that infected enough individuals, fire up a class-action lawsuit against the website on which the ads where actually shown (not the ad provider).

Laughable. As countless class action lawsuits have demonstrated the victims are never made whole (https://instituteforlegalreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/...), the criminals get a slap on the wrist fine that is a tiny fraction of the profit they made doing crime, and the lawyers walk away with pockets filled with cash while nothing changes. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10611-024-10170-w)

Fine's and class action lawsuits don't work. Throw some CEOs in jail and things will actually change.

popalchemist 3 hours ago|||
[dead]
rationalist 4 hours ago|||
It seems like ads already violate the law via whatever that "unauthorized usage" law is that the government likes to throw around.

Too bad no one has the guts to enforce the law that way.

iamflimflam1 6 hours ago|||
That would mean some google people going to jail...
yummypaint 6 hours ago|||
If such a thing were passed, it can't apply retroactively. But yes, google people would go to jail when they inevitably flout it as they are accustomed to doing. We should make this happen.

People in the US have a unique window of opportunity starting TODAY (Oct 2026) in many places with early voting. I implore everyone who is able to vote in the midterms to do so.

warkdarrior 5 hours ago||
Which candidates support the "put ads providers in jail" platform?
yummypaint 4 hours ago|||
You will have to look at the candidates in your area and do your due diligence. Its unlikely a given candidate will be perfect, but there is generally tremendous differences between them as far as overall posture on privacy and surveillance.
autoexec 2 hours ago||
Not tremendous differences, mass surveillance of the people is one of the few issues that are truly bipartisan, but there's candidates better than others.
autoexec 2 hours ago|||
None of them, but if one did I bet they'd get support from voters and less bribes from the tech industry. As long as politicians value the bribes more than the support the people will never get representation. We should probably pass laws that stop companies from stuffing the pockets of politicians with money, but what politician is going to support a law that takes their bribe money away?
tikimcfee 6 hours ago|||
Stop, stop, I can only dream so hard.
__MatrixMan__ 3 hours ago|||
All ads are malware.
autoexec 3 hours ago||
And all spyware is "mercenary" spyware, at least in the sense that the creators only care about money and are willing to hurt others to get it.
dormento 2 hours ago|||
> And add jail time to fines. Fines means nothing for the rich.

This, pretty much. Money removes consequence form your actions. If every time you screwed up, instead of being fined you had to wear a silly hat, go on TV and apologize, or get some time behind bars, even if it were 1 or 2 days it would be very effective.

RetpolineDrama 4 hours ago|||
The default setups are also _crazy_.

So you search for company A wanting to buy their product. You check out. Basically every setup I've audited has every tracking product ever for everything.

So you buy X, and the company sends that purchase event with your information to Meta, Google, TikTok, Applovin, Klaviyo, and 10 others.

This idea is hopelessly entrenched in every marketing department, who has leadership's ear: We HAVE to send EVERYTHING to EVERYONE otherwise our ROAS will go DOWN!

Every platform works this way, they're all set up to put giant red banners on your marketer's dashboards

"You could be getting 50% better results if you sent <customer_2nd_grade_report_card>!"

cm2012 2 hours ago||
Its basically how all the ad platforms fundamentally work: they use conversion events to train their ad algorithms.
verdverm 5 hours ago|||
We should make targeted advertising illegal, full stop. This would remove so many perverse incentives in the system.
unrented7977 3 hours ago|||
> How is this acceptable for society goes beyond me.

Easy, when your society glorifies and deifies greed, you can excuse literally any act so long as it makes enough money.

That's it. That's the entire explanation. It's capitalism and greed.

vaylian 3 hours ago||
> That's the entire explanation.

Not quite. Most people in society are completely oblivious to this happening. And their lack of awareness is why the exploiters don't face more public opposition.

autoexec 2 hours ago|||
That's true, even what they know is happening is so abstract and hidden that they don't really understand it.
baal80spam 1 hour ago|||
Vast majority of people will gladly sell their privacy.
ActorNightly 4 hours ago|||
This is not the problem. You visiting any website can lead to your computer running the same code.

The main problem is that the exploits from js to code execution or data exfil are possible in the first place. The issue is that you have JS, which is generally pretty isolated, able to talk to bundled libraries (like libwebrtc), which often contain the exploits and share the same memory space. There needs to be a intermediate layer between JS talking to any such library, like process isolation with IPC for communication.

ashf023 3 hours ago||
Sure, but there's a big difference between going to a sketchy, malicious site vs a reputable site that does serve ads and now being at the mercy of any arbitrary crap in the ad you didn't choose to see
monster_truck 5 hours ago||
I'm not sure you understand what you're asking for, or if you do you have not followed the results of this to its conclusion
JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago||
This comment is meaningless without stating the unintended consequence you believe you’ve identified.
zahlman 3 hours ago||
Awful lot of words here, but not much explanation of the actual capabilities of the "zero-click spyware". Tacking on the phrase "zero-click" suggests some kind of browser exploit, but it seems like this is just the same sort of thing as tracking cookies, third-party telemetry etc.
DANmode 3 hours ago||
No, they’re using those same techniques,

and they’re just as troublesome as they were before,

to the degree they’re provably being used to decide who to send malicious payloads to…

Zero-click simply highlights if the user needs to actively interact with an element to get a malicious payload - or not.

This did get me interested in the specifics of the payload, though:

“It maintains persistence via COM hijacking by overwriting a legitimate COM class registry key’s DLL path with a first-stage DLL dropped in C:\Windows\system32\IME\, and it stores encrypted second-stage payloads in the configuration directory. A signed third-party driver (physmem.sys) enables kernel-level memory access and API call proxying to avoid detection. To preserve system stability, DevilsTongue reinjects the original COM DLL during hijacking, disguising this action through shellcode manipulation of the LoadLibraryExW return value. All additional payloads are decrypted and executed only in memory, allowing the malware to steal credentials from LSASS and browsers, access Signal messages, and use browser cookies to impersonate victims on platforms like Facebook, Gmail, and VK. The malware’s use of scrubbed metadata, encryption, and unique hashes for each file further complicates detection and analysis.”

from https://www.recordedfuture.com/research/tracking-candirus-de...

boston_clone 2 hours ago||
thank you for providing that citation; the recorded future article does provide a better explanation of the exploit details that the original post
boston_clone 3 hours ago||
Keep reading:

https://citizenlab.ca/research/how-discover-tech-turned-targ...

zahlman 3 hours ago||
Yes, in fact I skipped to that section. It describes targeting, and then a vague mention of ad impressions leading to "connections" to a C2 server (but the simple fact of contacting a domain doesn't establish C2; anyone can send an AJAX request anywhere). Then they describe a "fingerprint" of servers which appears to consist of... HTTP responses with several blank fields and a claim of running on Apache. Then they say that they found a compromised DLL, which they attribute to the ads based on the DLL hard-coding some domains related to the ad campaign.

But there is nothing explaining how the DLL becomes zero-click compromised by the ad.

boston_clone 3 hours ago||
> they attribute to the ads based on the DLL hard-coding some domains related to the ad campaign

No, their attribution is much more robust than this. Neglecting those details to oversimplify your explanation is intellectually dishonest.

> there is nothing explaining how the DLL becomes zero-click compromised [...]

They do, just a little later in that same section: "Both samples use a COM hijack for persistence [...]" through a malicious DLL.

https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1546/015/

fergie 9 hours ago|
How does this actually work? Are they talking about browser fingerprinting or something else?
andunie 9 hours ago||
Looks like it's much worse, they get more information due to exploits, and they can take full control of your machine.

Article on the CitizenLab website: https://citizenlab.ca/research/how-discover-tech-turned-targ...

willmadden 7 hours ago||
This should have been the OP.
pelagicAustral 9 hours ago|||
There is a tinfoil narrative that suggest that entire formats are in bed with intelligence services. It sounds pretty wild, but other zero-click attack vectors have been possible through sabotaging the parsing of file formats. ie. send a message -> hacked. How? the message wasnt even opened. How is, an app like Messenger receives a photo attachment binary, tries to unpack it and in doing so receives an instruction that stops the parser and executes arbitrary instructions.
Betelbuddy 8 hours ago|||
Go to LinkedIn, and check how many ex Unit 8200 (a group you never really quit until you are 50)...work for the Apple iOS dev team...
usumgallu 7 hours ago||
Tons of SV companies really... it's quite disturbing how obvious the compromise vectors are but big companies and startups alike seem to just allow it with no consideration for the security implications.

I think lots of it has to do with how well the hasbara covers up the scandals from the wider publics perception, combined with the cultural bandwagon of considering them an ally even when their repeated actions say otherwise.

edit: also the idea that they have such good tech and its a pragmatic decision ignores the history of how and who they got it from and the intentions for it. I say this as someone who worked directly with Mellanox for example, before aquisition by Nvidia... I always thought kernel level shims for networking stacks from an Israeli company was dangerous... but the speeds!!!

donutdonot 8 hours ago||||
With all the AI decompilation going on would it not be possible to find these things in the binary by now?
pelagicAustral 8 hours ago||
Yeah, but you need to know where to look for it, the average person is never going to be able to afford the amount of tokens that will take to find a bug like this, especially if it was implanted on purpose.
saturn8601 5 hours ago||
Shrink the surface to scan. Not foolproof but can be an improvement. After watching many conference videos on mobile OS hacking, the strategy should really be to focus on components that were touched recently in new updates (and the most popular components like messaging). Once software is mature, they don't go and change everything with every release. It's been a few years, but an interesting insight I learned at CCC was that the most touched components in new OS releases are the ones most likely to have contributions by junior developers trying to push some commit to satisfy their boss and thus have security flaws. Testing can only catch so much.
oulipo 8 hours ago|||
It's routine for apps like Messenger to pre-download attachments (eg to compute a resized preview of the image etc)
pelagicAustral 7 hours ago||
well yes, that is the surface. it's the surface being created with no recourse from the user side, that is intentional... the tinfoil hat theory is that it is, anyway.
beel 9 hours ago|||
Here is a better article https://citizenlab.ca/research/how-discover-tech-turned-targ...
room606 9 hours ago|||
https://blog.confiant.com/p/adint-weaponized-ad-tech-for-zer...

https://citizenlab.ca/research/how-discover-tech-turned-targ...

oulipo 8 hours ago|||
They use ad network to try to target individual user visiting a page (eg you know your target is a male, 60 years old, living in that area, with a few other checks you can almost uniquely identify your target)

Then the ad network delivers a targeted ad that exploits a vulnerability (eg a broken JPEG decoder that, when sent a bad image, allows to run arbitrary code on your machine), and from there you have access to the computer

reactordev 9 hours ago|||
If I had to ponder a guess…

It’s to do with hiding malware/spyware in an image which ends up in your cache on device. I can’t go much further into details but all this takes is for you to visit a site that serves it via ad network.

Israel has been known to have some sneaky spyware in the past with Pegasus.

chunkyslink 9 hours ago|||
How the ad-based spyware actually worked (from the Citizen Lab and Confiant reports):

- It came in through the front door. Discover-Tech ran its own ad-buying platform and was listed as a "certified" vendor by Google and IAB Europe for six years. Nothing was hacked to get in. It bid in ad auctions like any other buyer.

- The ads looked harmless. Plain banners for games, AliExpress deals and an IP-lookup site. Hidden inside each one was a small script that quietly phoned home when the ad loaded.

- Everyone who saw an ad was profiled. The script collected device details, IP addresses and, on many sites, the publisher's own cookies, sometimes including logged-in session tokens. Cookie-syncing with other ad networks built a huge identity graph.

- Only chosen targets got the payload. A gatekeeper server checked each device's ad ID and IP. Most people got nothing back. A selected target got code that handed them off to spyware maker Candiru, and the code was served only once, which made it very hard for researchers to capture.

- The handoff was built to defeat inspection. Encrypted channels, rotating hosting, anti-bot checks and even a fake "Copyright Google" comment to fool human reviewers.

- It worked. At least 45 devices at Al Jazeera were targeted, and spyware was recovered from an infected machine. Its ads also appeared on networks belonging to NATO, the UN, the European Parliament, the ICC and various defence ministries.

- The scale was huge. Billions of bids and ads in nearly 200,000 apps and websites, including Duolingo, Viber, Yahoo Mail, dating apps and period trackers, yet almost no sign of real advertisers or revenue.

Citizen Lab: https://citizenlab.ca/research/how-discover-tech-turned-targ...

Confiant: https://blog.confiant.com/p/adint-weaponized-ad-tech-for-zer...

Citizen Lab also has a shorter executive summary: https://citizenlab.ca/research/exposing-adfection-executive-...

aenis 8 hours ago|||
Wait what, so there is no content disarm between companies making ads, and the publishers? They can literally push whatever they want? Wild.

Edit:

the TFA answers: "Advertisers or DSPs may run HTML and JavaScript code when an ad is shown to the user." Its wild! I thought the ads are sanitized, go through a CDR of sorts, and whatever javascript is permitted is authored by ad networks, not the buyers. Sheesh. Thats just RCE.

aptitude_moo 7 hours ago|||
I was looking for this comment. I'm wondering the same. Are ads just iframes that could have js? Therefore this is basically a zero click js (is this the first?) that just happens to be distributed via ads?
iamacyborg 7 hours ago|||
> Wait what, so there is no content disarm between companies making ads, and the publishers? They can literally push whatever they want? Wild.

RTB (real-time bidding) does not incentivise publishers to care about what ads are actually being shown to individual users, so long as CPM is maximised.

gruez 8 hours ago|||
Did you AI generate this? The wording looks suspicious and sure enough, it's flagged by pangram as AI.
GordonS 7 hours ago||
I found it to be an excellent, easy-to-read summary.
gruez 7 hours ago||
Which is what AI is RLHF'd to do, but using AI, much less undisclosed AI is against HN guidelines.

> Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4 hours ago||
Agreed it's against the guidelines as written but the interpersonal exchange is no different than someone quoting a blog post (and then not linking to it, to be fair). Something like this doesn't feel strictly bad, assuming disclosure and a link to the chat, sources included.
un-nf 44 minutes ago|||
[flagged]
More comments...