Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

  • Hacker News
  • The Google Issue Tracker link [0] on the site shows access denied for me. Not sure if this is due to it being reappraised or because I specifically don't have access

    [0] https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/509520497

  • We need this for opera houses. Send a few messages to each phone and we can enjoy the show without any ringing.
  • The page mentions that an adb command is required to recover the device, but I can't find details on what exact adb this is.

    Overall a bit frustrating to have such a fancy webpage with a dedicated address, but then no description on how to actually #1 identify and #2 recover an affected device...

    > "Once the database is corrupt, com.android.phone no longer needs a fresh message to fail: it crashes immediately on every boot as it reads the damaged store [..] a factory reset only helps temporarily"

    Can't I delete the storage of com.android.phone instead of a full factory-reset?

  • It is more likely a severe communication issue happened. A related fix was committed by Google on June 15th [0] and was apparently assigned CVE-2026-58882. GrapheneOS [1] was able to ship the fix through the security preview channel as early as July, but it will otherwise be in the upcoming November security bulletin.

    [0] https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/opt/tel...

    [1] https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2115848460578762757

  • Google has clearly flagged this as "not a security issue", repeatedly. It's a weird bug for sure, but what's the scenario here?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the carrier configuration messages can normally only come from carriers. The demo APK sends a message to the phone itself, but sending SMS messages requires special confirmation.

    Practically speaking, what's the risk?

  • As an ex-Google ISE, part of my work was to review security vulnerability reports to us. If this report came on my lap I would definitely have flagged this as a severe security issue. Just a DoS yes, but a severe DoS. I did tier two engineering reviews though. From the website's timeline it seems like a tier one triager dismissed it. And I would see this happen occasionally: tier one triagers either dismissing things that shouldn't, or the reverse, flagging things that don't deserve it. My personal opinion is that the quality of Google's work has declined somewhat in the last decade. Disappointing...
    by mrb
  • The issue seems serious but the part about Australia and 000 that would ban an attacked device seems the typical LLM-being-too-anal paragraph, and completely lacking common sense.

    Maybe I'm wrong and naive but given that the AU law was done to force people move forward from 3G only phones because the network was being shutdown and 000 moved to 5G (I believe), it's a law for operator to contact their customers still using an old phone and migrate them to a newer one. I doubt they will block automatically the number if you are under that DOS for a few days in a row.

Explore Birbla archives