OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman earlier this month endorsed the characterization of its latest model as a rottweiler βwho will grab the problem by the throat and not let go until it is done
The San Francisco AI lab discovered this week that its GPT-Sol 5.6 model escaped company controls and carried out a major hack.
Staff involved in testing and security at OpenAI were unsurprised but completely βfreaked outβ by the incident, which came as the AI lab used increasingly aggressive training methods in its race against Anthropic to develop the most sophisticated cybersecurity capabilities, according to more than half a dozen people with knowledge of the matter.
Part of our work involves supporting red team engagements. We review completed tests, size up the risk tied to each vulnerability and build out recommendations for shoring up the infrastructure. This time around, we wanted to pull back the curtain on something special. Itβs ATM security.Β
This article is written to help with security assessments on ATMs, showing possible vulnerabilities you may find. It covers many things, from running malware bought off a forum, to an insider on the bankβs payroll, to a service technician who understands the machineβs internals and has been handed broad access to the equipment. We also look at whether a hacker could get into the bankβs broader network simply because the perimeter wasnβt locked down well enough.
Nothing here is meant as a tutorial. Weβre documenting weaknesses hackers could exploit so that defenders know what to fix, not handing anyone a blueprint. We take no responsibility for how this information is used.
With that out of the way, letβs start with where ATMs came from.
The History of ATMs
London got the worldβs first working ATM on June 27, 1967. It was primitive by todayβs standards, incapable of checking a balance, which is exactly why withdrawals topped out at 10 pounds, and it dispensed cash only against special vouchers rather than reading a card.Β
Source: Barclays Bank
Nearly six decades later, ATMs look nothing like those early cash dispensers. Now they are multifunctional devices, but the hackers never stopped circling. Part of the appeal is obvious. An ATM sits on a pile of cash and offers quick access to it, and there are simply too many machines scattered across too many places to guard them all closely. A lot of them sit in isolated, low traffic spots that run unattended around the clock, think gas stations. That has shaped decades of security investment, most of it aimed at physical hardening. Todayβs units can weigh over half a ton and come loaded with sensors tracking position, internal temperature, and whether a compartment has been pried open.
Hereβs the catch, though. The safe holding the cash is genuinely hard to crack, but the compartment housing the control electronics is a different story, and in our assessment, it remains poorly defended. That gap opens the door to logical attacks, ones that skip the crowbar entirely and go after the software instead, and that category has been gaining ground fast.
Cisco Talos has tracked a steady climb in new ATM malware variants since 2009. The raw sample count still looks small next to other malware families, but donβt let that fool you. Europe alone saw logical attacks on ATMs jump 269% in 2020 versus the year prior, and the average payout per incident ballooned nearly a thousandfold across that same window, climbing from roughly a thousand euros to well over a million.
What changed the game was availability. ATM malware used to be a rare, closely guarded tool. Once it started circulating more freely on underground markets, prices fell and so did the skill required to use it. Cutlet Maker, which surfaced in 2017, is a good illustration. It came bundled with a Russian language manual complete with troubleshooting notes for running it against different ATM models.
Screenshot of the troubleshooting guide for Cutlet Maker. The author describes the ATMβs USB port location, along with advice on how to devise a stick for attaching the USB cable and accessing the internal USB port. Source: TrendMicro
Fast forward to 2024, and vendors on those same markets were offering ATM malware through subscription pricing, monthly plans included.
Logical attacks have always had one real weakness. They take skill and patience to pull off. Thatβs why cheap, well documented malware kits have had such an outsized impact on the trend. Their upside for hackers is just as real. Theyβre far quieter than smashing a machine open, and they often let the same person come back to a compromised ATM again and again. Manufacturers have started fighting back on the hardware side too, with tamper protected cassettes that flood the cash inside with indelible ink the moment someone tries to force them open, ruining the bills instantly.
Brief Attack Statistics
The numbers tell their own story. ATM related crime climbed 600% between 2019 and 2022, with 165% of that increase packed into 2021 and 2022 alone. Physical break ins, which have always driven the bulk of ATM crime, contributed alongside the rise in logical attacks. Germany had 496 ATM explosions recorded in 2022, a record for the country. Zoom out globally, and incidents of that kind blew past 18,000 in 2023.
Losses have kept pace. Banks worldwide absorbed $2.4 billion in direct losses from ATM fraud by the close of 2023. Europeβs share came to 173 million euros, with 67 million of that tied specifically to skimming. The United States handles just 25.29% of global transaction volume yet accounts for 42.32% of global losses. Skimming remains a big part of why, showing up in 45% of all ATM fraud cases in 2023 and costing North America over $900 million, with more than 315,000 cards compromised across at least 3,000 financial institutions.
None of this is happening in a vacuum. The market for ATM protection has grown right alongside the threat. Still, priorities inside most banks remain lopsided. Physical security tends to get the lionβs share of attention, while the operating system, drivers, and control software logic running underneath often get treated as an afterthought. That imbalance carries real consequences. A 2022 RTM Group study found that hackers could breach an ATMβs housing without setting off an alarm in one out of every two attempts, giving them free rein to tamper with the equipment inside.
How an ATM Is Built
Making sense of how these attacks work starts with understanding what happens inside the machine during an ordinary transaction. Weβll walk through that process using one representative configuration, illustrated in the diagram below.
The diagram reflects one specific setup weβre using for illustration, not a universal default, since real world configurations vary by device.
1. User Layer
From where the customer stands, using an ATM is simple. They need to present a card and pick a transaction. That wasnβt always the whole story. Inserting a physical card into a reader used to be the only entry point, and that reliance on the magnetic stripe made skimming and shimming, techniques aimed at stealing card data to produce counterfeit copies, a persistent problem for years.
Contactless cards changed the entry point itself. NFC readers now sit alongside traditional card slots on most machines.Β
A PIN code layers on additional protection against someone using a stolen card. Entry happens through an encrypting PIN pad, a combination of physical keypad and cryptographic module that ensures the PIN never travels or gets stored anywhere in plain text. Verification of the resulting encrypted PIN block happens back at the processing center.Β
Once identity checks clear, you can withdraw cash, check your balance, transfer funds, and so forth. Thereβs a full computer running inside the housing, but customers never get anywhere near it directly. Every interaction they have flows through a single banking application running in kiosk mode, locked to full screen.
2. OS Layer
That computer we just mentioned lives inside whatβs called the service zone, and this section covers what happens there, setting the cash handling hardware aside for the moment. Physically, the service zone is protected by a thin door and a basic lock. Machines from the same product line frequently share an identical key too, one thatβs often available for purchase online with minimal effort.
Beyond the system unit itself, the service zone also houses the ATMβs networking equipment and its wired connections to the card reader, contactless reader, PIN pad, and dispenser, typically running over USB, Ethernet, PCI, or COM interfaces depending on the device.
Windows powers most of these systems, historically through Windows Embedded and increasingly through Windows IoT, a Windows 10 variant built for embedded use.
The kiosk application isnβt the only thing running on that OS. Alongside it sits the ATMβs control software plus a handful of security tools. That can be antivirus protection, Windows AppLocker that keeps unauthorized programs from executing, and a VPN client that maintains a secure tunnel back to the bankβs internal network.
Control software is arguably the most important piece at this layer. Core responsibilities for the control software boil down to managing peripherals and communicating with the processing center, though specific implementations often add more on top of that. Some bundle in software for a monitoring server, letting technicians manage an entire network of self service machines remotely. Others are built in a supervisor mode meant purely for technical staff, offering quick access to diagnostic tools through a hidden menu to simplify physical maintenance visits.
3. Network Layer
Selecting a transaction sets off a verification process handled entirely by the processing center, a server living on the bankβs internal network. That server confirms the card data is legitimate, checks the PIN again before letting the transaction through, rules out any restrictions on the account, and verifies thereβs enough balance to cover the request.
Everything exchanged between the ATM and the processing center travels encrypted, usually through a VPN tunnel, protecting against interception or tampering along the way. NDC and DDC are the most common messaging protocols in this exchange, functioning as something of an informal industry standard even before multi-vendor control software became widespread. ISO 8583 and its various offshoots see heavy use as well.Β
The processing center isnβt the only thing an ATM talks to. Many machines also maintain a connection to a monitoring server used for remote management, health checks, and pushing updates, and unlike the processing center link, this channel frequently runs without any encryption at all.
4. Firmware Layer
Once the processing center signs off, the control software hands things over to the dispenser for a withdrawal, or the deposit module if cash is going in. These components typically sit inside the most fortified section of the ATM, the safe zone, built from tougher materials and secured with its own dedicated key separate from the service zone.Β
The dispenser counts out the required banknotes from the ATMβs cassettes, moves them into position at the dispensing tray, then opens the shutter, the physical flap that blocks access to the cash until itβs ready. Data moving between the control software and the dispenser can be encrypted, and both sides authenticate one another before any exchange begins, a safeguard against device spoofing. All of that encryption and authentication logic lives directly in the dispenserβs own firmware.Β
Deposits work differently. Incoming banknotes pass through a validator that checks their authenticity.
ATM Attacks
With the mechanics of an ATM covered, we can turn to the threats themselves. Every attack against these machines falls into one of two broad camps, physical or logical, depending on what the hacker is going after and how they approach it.
Physical attacks go straight after the machine or its components, aiming to extract cash or knock the device out of normal operation without touching a line of code. These predate targeted malware by decades and donβt require much specialized skill. Some donβt even target the machine itself, focusing instead on the people standing in front of it.
Logical attacks operate on a different level entirely. They demand genuine technical skill and preparation, built around exploiting weaknesses in the ATMβs software and network layers. They draw less public attention than physical attacks despite posing a bigger threat to banks, largely because theyβre quieter and let a hacker return to the same compromised machine to cash in more than once.
System attacks go after functionality or logic running at the ATMβs OS layer, typically aiming to extract cash or sidestep security controls outright. Black box attacks deserve special attention, where a hacker skips gaining OS access altogether and instead wires their own device directly into the dispenser to control it externally. The same technique can target other peripherals, like the banknote validator.
Network attacks aim at the ATMβs networking components instead, with hackers looking to intercept, forge, or otherwise abuse data in transit, or to seize remote control of the machine. With weak enough safeguards in place, a hacker can forge the responses coming back to the ATM and push through a cash withdrawal even after the processing center rejected it.
Not every attack in this framework ends with cash in hand. A hacker might, say, work to gain remote network access first, then pivot into an OS layer attack from there.Β
We have seen cases where compromising a single ATM meant compromising the entire bank because there was no network segmentation in place. Conversely, gaining access to the bankβs internal network could provide a path to ATMs and other critical systems connected to it. Credential reuse and a lack of understanding of Active Directory security can lead to devastating consequences in environments like these.
Summary
ATMs have evolved from simple cash dispensers into complex and networked systems. Their security has evolved unevenly alongside them. Physical hardening has made the cash safe itself genuinely difficult to crack, but the service zone housing the control electronics remains comparatively exposed, and that gap has fueled a steady rise in logical attacks. These attacks demand more skill than a physical break-in, but theyβre increasingly accessible because of well-documented malware kits.
Cybersecurity is a vast field, and we offer courses covering a wide range of topics, including Active Directory Hacking, Wi-Fi Hacking, Web Application Hacking, SCADA Security, and much more. Our course library is constantly growing as we continue to add new training, all of which is available through our Member Gold plan. If you want unlimited access to our entire training library, including our most advanced courses, consider upgrading to Subscriber Pro.
Lately, weβve covered several tools you can use with your laptop to track nearby devices and people. While theyβre useful, their effectiveness depends on the strength of your Bluetooth adapter, and, of course, you need to have your laptop with you.
This time, weβre doing things differently. We want to show you a device that can automatically monitor nearby devices for extended periods, anywhere you choose to place it, and as often as you want. It doesnβt rely solely on Bluetooth, as it also uses Wi-Fi, which is far more likely to be enabled, increasing the chances of detecting someone in your area.
What is Paxcounter
Paxcounter is an open-source firmware project that takes a cheap little ESP32 development board and turns it into a sensor that can count people. Almost every smartphone in the world is constantly sending out small Wi-Fi signals, called probe requests, and Bluetooth signals too, even when the phone is not connected to anything. Paxcounter listens for these signals in the air. It counts how many different devices it hears during each scan, and from that, it can tell you a real time estimate of how many people are nearby.
The project started out as a simple way to measure how many passengers or pedestrians pass through a certain spot. But over time, it grew into something much bigger. Now it works as a general purpose IoT platform, built on hardware that usually costs somewhere between $10 and $30. Besides its main job of counting Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices, a Paxcounter can also read environmental sensors, track its GPS position, keep accurate time, and send all of that data out through LoRaWAN, MQTT, a local serial connection, or straight onto an SD card.Β
How the Counting Works
The way Paxcounter counts people is simple, but it was clearly built with privacy in mind from the very start. Every scan cycle, which lasts 60 seconds by default, the device switches its Wi-Fi and Bluetooth radios into scanning mode and listens for probe requests and advertisement packets coming from nearby devices. Each of these packets carries a MAC address. Paxcounter takes just the last two bytes of that address and turns them into a short, temporary ID. This ID is only used to check for duplicates during that one scan cycle. Once the cycle ends, the count of unique IDs gets sent out, and the whole list is wiped from memory. The firmware also does not try to fingerprint any device. It never tries to figure out a phoneβs brand, its operating system, or who owns it. All it wants to know is whether that device has already been counted in the current window.
This scan and clear cycle just keeps repeating, either nonstop or on a schedule if deep sleep power saving is turned on. The results, which include the Wi-Fi count, the Bluetooth count, and sometimes live sensor readings too, get packed into a small payload and sent out through whatever channel the device is set up to use. One thing worth knowing is that Wi-Fi and Bluetooth scanning actually share the same 2.4 GHz radio hardware on the ESP32. So running both scans at the same time slightly lowers the accuracy of each one. Because of that, the projectβs own advice is to split Wi-Fi only counting and Bluetooth only counting across two separate devices whenever the best possible accuracy is needed for both.
One Firmware, Many Boards
Paxcounter comes with a hardware abstraction layer and its own pin mapping files for dozens of ESP32 and ESP32-S3 boards. These come from well known manufacturers like LILYGO and TTGO, Heltec, Pycom, WeMos, M5Stack, and Adafruit, and there is also a generic template ready for boards that are not officially supported yet. LILYGO even sells a ready-made board called Paxcounter LoRa, built specifically to run this firmware.Β
Depending on which board you pick, your device can end up supporting a LoRaWAN radio for sending data over long distances while using very little power, an OLED status screen, or a single color, RGB, or larger LED matrix light to show status. It can also support a physical button for flipping through display pages or sending an alarm message, battery voltage monitoring, GPS positioning, a real time clock chip along with IF482 or DCF77 time telegram output, and even an SD card slot for logging data locally when there is no network around.
Because the whole system was designed to be truly portable, the documentation goes into real detail about power draw, which usually sits somewhere between 450 and 1000 milliwatts depending on how the device is set up. It also makes good use of the ESP32βs deep sleep mode, so a device can keep running for a long stretch of time on just one 18650 lithium ion battery cell. Members of the community have already shared several 3D printable enclosure designs on Thingiverse for the more popular boards.
Getting the Device Up and Running
Paxcounter is built using PlatformIO instead of the plain Arduino IDE. This choice lets it work smoothly with editors like Visual Studio Code, Atom, or Eclipse, and it gives the project reproducible, script driven builds. In fact, the repository runs an automated PlatformIO build check every single time the code changes, using GitHub Actions, and there is even a CodeFactor badge that keeps an eye on ongoing code quality.
The configuration is intentionally spread across a handful of different files instead of being crammed into just one. This keeps board specific settings, behavioral settings, and personal settings nicely separated from each other. The platformio.ini file is where you select which boardβs hardware profile you want to compile against. The paxcounter.conf file handles behavioral settings, things like how long a scan cycle lasts, sleep timing, and payload options. The shared lmic_config.h file sets the LoRaWAN region and frequency plan, so it matches the rules where you live. The shared loraconf.h file holds the deviceβs LoRaWAN join credentials, and the project recommends using OTAA rather than ABP for this. And the shared ota.conf file stores the Wi-Fi credentials the device uses for over the air firmware updates.
You can upload firmware the traditional way, over USB, or once a device has joined a LoRaWAN network, you can push updates over the air instead. A remote command tells the board to connect to Wi-Fi, check a hosted repository called PAX.express for a newer build, and then download and flash it automatically. If anything goes wrong during that process, it will roll back to the previous version on its own. Devices can also be set up to open a small local web based bootstrap menu right when they power on, which lets you upload a firmware file manually, even from a phone in tethering mode, without needing PlatformIO installed on site.
Configuration and Extensibility
Beyond just picking a board, Paxcounter gives you a long list of settings you can tune to fit your needs. It can log environmental data from sensors like the Bosch BMP180, BME280, BMP280, or BME680, read a Nova SDS011 particulate matter sensor to track dust in the air, and keep accurate time using either a DS3231 real time clock or a connected GPS module.Β
Display and LED
On boards that come with an OLED display, Paxcounter shows live status information you can cycle through with a short press of the button. This includes the current pax count, meaning the people count, a histogram of recent activity, GPS status, environmental sensor readings, and the time of day.Β
A long press of that same button sends an alarm message out over the network instead, which is a simple way to flag a problem from out in the field without needing any other kind of interface. Even on boards that do not have a display at all, a status LED still tells you what the device is doing through its blink pattern. You get a brief flash whenever a new Wi-Fi or Bluetooth device is spotted, a quick blink while the device is joining the LoRaWAN network, a short blink during data transmission, and a slow, long blink if there is a LoRaWAN stack error. Boards that have an RGB LED get a color coded version of these same signals.
How You Receive the Data
Once a Paxcounter has counted the people nearby and packed everything into a message, that data has to go somewhere so you can actually see it. How that happens depends on which output the device is using, and the good news is you can turn on more than one at the same time. If you are using LoRaWAN, which is the most common setup, the device does not send the data straight to you. Instead, a nearby LoRaWAN gateway picks up the signal first and forwards it on to a network server, usually The Things Stack. There is a small decoder script included with the project, and its job is to take that raw message and turn it into numbers you can actually read, something like a pax count of 14. From there, The Things Stack can pass the data along to your own app or dashboard using MQTT or a webhook, or you can simply watch it come in live through the built in console.
If a board does not have LoRa hardware built in, it can just skip the gateway completely and send that same kind of data straight to an MQTT service over Wi-Fi instead. You can also connect the device to a computer using a USB cable and read the numbers directly from a serial connection. This is a simple way to test things out without needing to set up a network at all. If SD card logging is turned on, everything also gets saved locally as a CSV file, so you can pull the card out later and open it up in a spreadsheet. This comes in handy in places where there is no network coverage to rely on.Β
Where Itβs Used
Because a single Paxcounter device is cheap to build and can be left running unattended for a long time, you will find it popping up in a pretty wide range of places. Retailers and shopping centers use it to measure foot traffic without needing to install cameras. Event organizers use it to watch how crowds move around a venue in real time. Pentesters can get a passive read on how many Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices are active in a building, or to notice unexpected devices showing up where they shouldnβt, all without needing camera access or network credentials.
Legal and Privacy Considerations
Since Paxcounterβs whole job involves listening to wireless traffic, its documentation is unusually upfront about the legal side of things. It points out that sniffing Wi-Fi and Bluetooth MAC addresses may be regulated or restricted depending on where you live, and it links to specific starting references for the US, the UK, the Netherlands and the EU, and Germany. It also makes clear that the legal responsibility for how a device is built and deployed falls on the person doing it, especially for public deployments where the results might get published somewhere. On the technical side of privacy, the projectβs own design actually holds up pretty well against that legal backdrop. Identifiers are only ever built from the last two bytes of a scanned MAC address, they are kept in memory just for the length of one scan cycle, and then they are discarded completely. No MAC addresses or identifiers are ever sent out over the network, and the firmware does not do any extra tracking or fingerprinting of the devices it scans.
Summary
What really makes Paxcounter stand out is not any single feature on its own. It is the whole combination working together. One piece of open source firmware supports dozens of cheap boards, runs for a long time on a small battery, counts people without saving anything identifying about them, doubles as a general environmental sensor node, speaks LoRaWAN, MQTT, serial, and SD card all at once, and can be fully reconfigured from a distance once it is out in the field. The full source code, the complete board list, and all the documentation are available on GitHub.
If you enjoy experimenting with frequencies and trying new things, we recommend signing up for our SDR for Hackers training. With Master OTW, youβll learn how to use your computer and inexpensive SDR hardware to explore and hack a wide range of radio signals.
Two critical security flaws in WordPressβ software have given hackers the chance to remotely take over tens of millions of websites, according to an estimate by a cybersecurity researcher.
In this episode of the podcast, host Paul Roberts interviews Nishawn Smagh of the firm GreyNoise Intelligence about the findings of their State of the Edge report, an analysis of GreyNoise data on risks stemming from compromised edge devices such as broadband routers, VPN gateways, smart home devices and more. Shawn and Paul talk about how attackers are turning edge devices into their favorite entry point, and strategies for organizations to counter the growing risk of compromised edge devices.
Think back to the first time you installed Kali Linux. It was probably one of those moments where you realized just how many cybersecurity tools existed. Your applications menu was packed with hundreds of tools covering everything from recon and vulnerability scanning to exploitation, password attacks, wireless security and much more.
At first, it was exciting. But most beginners spend hours clicking through the menus wondering what every tool does and when they should actually use it. Unfortunately, the sheer number of applications quickly becomes overwhelming. Even if you dedicate time to learning them, chances are youβll forget many of their names simply because there are so many available. On top of that, documentation isnβt always beginner-friendly. Some projects have excellent documentation, while others assume you already know exactly what the tool is supposed to do before you even start reading.
The good news is that you donβt have to memorize hundreds of commands or remember every tool available. Instead, you can build your own arsenal of references that helps you quickly find the right tool.
In this article, weβre going to build exactly that. Weβll explore two resources called Arsenal-NG and Arsenal, both of which are designed to make finding offensive security tools, payloads, commands much faster.
Arsenal-NG
The first tool weβll look at is Arsenal-NG. The name pretty much explains what it does. Arsenal-NG is essentially a searchable collection of offensive security tools, commands, and predefined workflows. Whether youβre doing reconnaissance, exploiting a service, generating payloads, Arsenal-NG can help you find the right tool for the job.
Letβs install it.
kali > git clone https://github.com/halilkirazkaya/arsenal-ng.git
kali > cd arsenal-ng
kali > make build
Once compilation finishes, you can launch the program directly. For convenience, you may also want to move the binary into one of the directories listed in your PATH environment variable. Doing so allows you to start Arsenal-NG from any directory.Β
kali > arsenal-ng
When it starts, youβll immediately notice a large collection of tools organized inside the interface. Each tool includes predefined presets for different kinds of operations.Β
To display the complete list of available tools, simply run tools
If you already know what kind of task youβre trying to accomplish but donβt remember what tool can do it, you can use the built-in search feature. Searching by keywords makes it easy to discover them.
Once youβve found the tool you need, selecting one of its presets walks you through the required parameters. There you simply provide the requested information and let it generate the command for you.
If you need additional information about the application itself, run help.
Arsenal
Unlike Arsenal-NG, Arsenal focuses primarily on web exploitation and can be used directly from your browser. There is no installation process, making it convenient when you simply need a quick reference.
One thing worth mentioning is that the website supports multiple languages. If the interface isnβt already in English, simply switch the language using the selector in the upper-right corner. Once inside, youβll notice that the content is organized into several different sections, each designed to help with a different phase of a web penetration test.
One of them is Payloads.
This area contains a huge collection of payloads covering many different types of web vulnerabilities and exploitation techniques. Whether youβre working with command injection, SQL injection, XSS, SSTI, XXE, deserialization, or other common web vulnerabilities, chances are youβll find useful examples here.
Another valuable section is Attack Chains.
Rather than simply providing payloads, Attack Chains guide you through the overall exploitation process. They outline the sequence of steps typically required to compromise a target.
The Commands section is another good reference.
You can build the command you need by selecting the appropriate options.
Then we have Wordlists.
There are numerous wordlists organized into logical categories, making it much easier to find exactly what youβre looking for. Each category often contains several different wordlists optimized for different situations.Β
Youβll also find a large collection of Scripts.
These scripts cover a wide variety of purposes, including reconnaissance, AI-related security checks, subdomain takeovers, automation and more.
Of course, weβve only scratched the surface. Arsenal contains more additional sections that are worth exploring on your own. Spend some time clicking through the different categories and seeing what they have.
Summary
Building your own cybersecurity arsenal isnβt about memorizing every command ever written. In fact, no experienced pentester or hacker remembers every tool, every option or every payload. There are simply too many of them, and new ones are being developed all the time. Arsenal-NG and Arsenal can help you organize knowledge. They are valuable when youβre getting started and they remain just as useful years later when youβre experienced.
Since many of these tools fall into different categories, such as network pentesting, web pentesting, bug bounty hunting, and more, the best way to develop your skills is through our Member Gold subscription. It gives you access to a wide variety of training courses covering different areas.
CISA added CVE-2026-48939 and CVE-2026-56291 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog after automated attackers exploited file upload flaws in iCagenda and Balbooa Forms weeks before either bug had a CVE number.
Last month, we passed along Modern Vintage Gamer's (MVG) confident assertion that Doom is functionally impossible to run on the Neo Geo, owing to the console's sprite-based display hardware and lack of a frame buffer. We all should have known better than to tell a dedicated group of hackers that something is "impossible," though, as two recent projects have made great progress toward functional Doom ports on stock Neo Geo hardware.
Both of these projects have significant graphical compromises that limit how viable they would have been for a marketable, '90s-era console port, as MVG lays out in a new video. Still, they stand as a testament to the surprising results that clever, determined coders can coax out of legacy hardware.
It looks like Doom if you squint
To create the Doom64KB project for the Neo Geo, coder FrenkelS adapted an earlier Doom port they designed to run on 16-bit PC processors like the 8088 and 286. Using that engine, the Neo Geo code then makes a kind of proto frame buffer out of the console's fix layer, an area of display memory that's usually used to display menus and HUD information on top of gameplay.
Letβs talk about something most people never think about. When the news reports on a cyberattack against a big retail chain, the story usually sounds the same. A database got leaked or ransomware locked up the companyβs files. These are real threats, and they deserve attention. But what happens if a hacker skips all of that and simply walks into a physical store with a laptop tucked in a backpack? No malware sent through email and no phishing link, just being there physically.
In this article, we are going to build a picture, drawn from several real walkthroughs of ordinary retail stores, all pointed toward one goal. We want to see the store the way a pentester sees it.
A Hacker in the Supermarket
Imagine someone stepping through the front doors with that mindset. Within a few minutes of walking the floor, a handful of things stand out.
There are the transformer checkout terminals and the self service kiosks, the modern face of retail, and also a possible weak point. There are staff call buttons mounted near the aisles, small radio transmitters that broadcast a fixed code each time someone presses them, a code that could potentially be captured and played back later. There are wireless DECT handsets still in use on some sales floors, the same cordless phone technology many offices have relied on for years. There are data collection terminals, plain Android devices that sometimes carry no password protection at all, with access to the storeβs Wi-Fi settings. And running along the floor and behind the counters, there are network cables, which in the wrong circumstances could let anyone plug in and reach the storeβs internal network.
Day 1 β Becoming an Insider
Many corporations believe their internal network is sealed off from the outside world, safe behind firewalls and passwords. That sense of safety can end at the first unlabeled cable lying loose on the floor.
Someone can walk up to a transformer checkout terminal,Β unplug its network cable, plug in a laptop instead (or better yet, one of those devices we showed in previous articles), and type a simple command.
kali > sudo dhclient
That laptop could be handed an IP address from the storeβs own internal network. If the network uses a /27 mask, that means an entire segment of the corporate infrastructure could open up right there.
Scanning the network might take only a couple more minutes, and inside, a hacker could find exactly what you would expect from a typical store. There could be the store managerβs workstation, with an open RDP port for remote access. There could be a Wi-Fi router still running its factory default settings. There could be a DECT base station handling internal telephony. There could be surveillance cameras, other registers and terminals, and tucked away in shared folders and configuration files, credentials and passwords saved in plaintext.
From there, someone could try connecting to the managerβs computer. If the RDP client offers a choice of accounts, and one of those accounts, say one named operator, needs no password at all, that should raise a flag. Normally Windows blocks RDP logins for accounts with blank passwords, so a setup like that means someone deliberately switched that protection off, likely to keep an easy access route open for themselves. Sysadmins often do it. But thatβs a backdoor. We often see the same issue with VNC. That route could lead to the remote desktop of an employee with access to corporate email, internal messenger conversations, financial documents, work schedules, and delivery data.
And since Chrome is installed on nearly every computer in sight, opening Passwords could show saved logins for internal services, everything from the CRM system to the warehouse management software, sitting there in plain view.
How to Fix It
Passwordless accounts feel almost like a relic from an earlier era, yet they still turn up in retail environments from time to time. Alongside them, flat, unsegmented networks are common, where cameras, workstations, and Wi-Fi routers all sit together on the same segment. Add to that the simple physical accessibility of the equipment. Network cables, ports, and switches are often placed exactly where any employee, or any visitor, could reach them without much trouble.
Segment the network properly, giving separate VLANs to registers, service equipment, and employee workstations, so a breach in one area does not open a door to everything else. Restrict which devices are even allowed to connect through RDP in the first place. Turn on MAC address whitelisting along with Port Security, so an unknown device cannot simply be plugged into an open port and join the network. Require real passwords on every local account, without exception. Disable browser based password storage for anything tied to internal systems.
And finally, ask security staff to keep a closer eye on the registers themselves.
Day 2 β Telephone Game
Consider a small, easy to overlook detail, a staff call button tucked into a corner near an aisle. Pressed once, it sends a chime ringing across the store, and a salesperson comes over a moment later. Simple enough, on the surface.
Except with a HackRF One someone could intercept and record the exact signal the button sends the moment it is pressed. If that button broadcasts the same static signal every time, with no protection against replay, then anyone who plays that recorded signal back over the air could trigger the same chime, without ever touching the actual button. This is what we call a replay attack, and it remains a real possibility even now.
Once that chime lives on someoneβs laptop, a single click could ring it out across the entire store. Employees might rush toward the sound, leaving a register briefly unattended, while someone else nearby has a short window to act.
The same HackRF One, paired with an open source tool called gr dect2, could also be used to listen to the surrounding airwaves. If a store still relies on wireless DECT handsets for internal communication, a call placed from one handset to another could, in principle, be intercepted and decrypted in real time as it travels through the air. From that point, anyone listening could pick up delivery schedules, work rosters, and conversations about register problems, all carried over employeesβ DECT handsets.
Older pentest reports sometimes describe this kind of attack as only medium risk, mostly because of the cost of the equipment and the technical skill it supposedly requires. Itβs different now. An original HackRF One costs somewhere around three hundred dollars, and less expensive clones can be found on online marketplaces for a fraction of that price. And gr dect2 makes the whole process more accessible, since it is an openly documented, freely available project.
How to Fix It
The fixes here lean more organizational than technical. It makes sense to retire primitive call buttons in favor of systems that use dynamic, constantly changing codes instead of a single static signal. Alongside that, replacing outdated DECT telephony with modern VoIP or straightforward wired communication removes much of this risk entirely.
Day 3 β Corporate Wi-Fi
What about the Wi-Fi? On paper, it can look genuinely solid, not a simple router with a shared password, but full WPA-Enterprise authentication requiring a proper login and password from each user. That sounds like a real obstacle, and in many ways it is. But it does not fully close the door. Someone could set up a rogue access point using the exact same network name as the legitimate one. If an employeeβs device, whether a work tablet or a personal smartphone, tries to reconnect automatically, it might see two access points broadcasting the identical name and simply pick whichever one offers the stronger signal and the faster response. A rogue access point built for this purpose could easily be tuned to answer faster than the real one. Once a device connects to that convincing twin, it attempts to authenticate as usual, and in doing so, it sends its credentials straight into someone elseβs logs.
How to Fix It
Setting up EAP TLS with proper certificate validation on every client device helps ensure a fake network cannot simply mimic its way into a successful login. Monitoring the surrounding radio spectrum regularly is also worthwhile. Even simple, freely available tools can detect unauthorized access points broadcasting names that match or closely resemble the real corporate network. And training staff matters. If a Wi-Fi password is unexpectedly requested a second time, or a connection seems to take suspiciously long, employees should feel comfortable reporting it to security or the IT security team right away.
Day 4 β Transformer Register and Cash Drawer
A transformer register is really a combined hardware and software unit, built around a metal cash drawer, both stationary and handheld barcode scanners, and a receipt printer. Along its bottom panel often sits a row of unprotected USB ports. Plugging in an ordinary keyboard there opens the door to some experimentation.
Pressing Ctrl Alt and one of the function keys from F1 through F5 can switch the screen to a text console, prompting for a login and password. Full system access could sit right there within reach. Even if the Alt F2 shortcut for quickly launching commands has been disabled, the multi user Linux console underneath may remain fully accessible regardless.
Power cycling the device and pressing Delete could open the BIOS. Without a boot password protecting it, the machine could be booted from an outside USB drive, handing over full control of the system, along with the ability to change settings or install unwanted software.
The most interesting risk, though, waits underneath the register itself. The metal cash drawer typically has a mechanical emergency release button on its underside. If the drawer has not been locked with a physical key, which happens more often than store staff would like to admit, then any customer could simply lean down, press that button, and slide the cash right out.
No discussion of registers is complete without mentioning their close relatives, the self checkout kiosks. These are essentially the same transformer registers, just packaged in a form factor that happens to be even more exposed. USB ports, network ports, and power ports often sit within easy reach. The real difference is that a transformer register might occasionally be watched by a nearby salesperson, while a self checkout kiosk usually sits alone in a corner, without much oversight at all.
Standing casually near a kiosk for just a few minutes could be enough to observe an employee entering their access code. From there, that access could open up the kioskβs full functionality, including the ability to ring up items, process returns, and open that same metal cash drawer hiding underneath.
How to Fix It
The solution here is fairly clear once the problem is understood. Restricting physical access to the register hardware itself, through USB port blockers, closed enclosures, and sealed covers, prevents outside devices from being connected in the first place. A BIOS password combined with disabling boot from removable media protects against attempts to seize control of the system through a flash drive.
Employee authorization deserves attention too. Since the register already comes equipped with a barcode scanner, a smart approach is issuing personal ID badges with the employeeβs password encoded directly into the barcode. The employee scans their badge, the system authenticates them instantly, and the actual password stays hidden from anyone watching nearby. Leaving the alphanumeric combination off the badge entirely prevents it from being typed in manually as a way to bypass the scanner.
And of course, the lock on the cash drawer matters. If it is even possible to leave that drawer unlocked, sooner or later it probably will be. Drawers that lock automatically, without relying on a person remembering to do it, offer a much more reliable solution.
Day 5 β Refund
Consider someone playing the role of an ordinary, everyday customer. They buy a small item in the store, pay with a card, and walk away with a receipt like anyone else. Once a self checkout kiosk sits idle for a moment, tapping the top left corner of the screen could open a hidden staff menu.
An example of what such menus might look like
The system would ask for authorization. If someone types in a password they had observed a cashier enter earlier, often a simple employee ID number, that alone could be enough to land inside the cashier menu.Β
From there, selecting a refund by sales receipt option could display a list of recent transactions, including the very purchase just made. A further step worth testing is whether the refund could be redirected, not back to the same card used to pay, but to a completely different one, belonging to someone else entirely. You might expect the terminal to block an operation like that, or at least demand confirmation from a senior employee before proceeding. In some systems, neither of those things happens, and an ordinary cashierβs password turns out to be enough to redirect the funds elsewhere.
To its credit, a system like this may honestly display a warning that the money will be sent to a different card than the one used for payment. But it can carry out the operation anyway, without further checks.
The item would stay with the customer, the original purchase would turn into a refund on paper, and the storeβs money would end up in someone elseβs account. One more detail worth checking is whether the refund function has any built in time limits. Many places only allow refunds within a set window, say fourteen days, in line with consumer protection law. But in some systems, attempting to process a refund for a purchase made several months earlier goes through without any resistance at all.
This points to a deeper gap in business logic and access control. The authorization threshold can sit far too low, since a rank and file salespersonβs password may be enough to trigger a real financial operation, and that password is often easy to observe over someoneβs shoulder. There may be no check to confirm the refund card actually matches the original payment card. A refund landing on a different card is not automatically suspicious on its own, since many banks and retail chains support this for customer convenience. But operations like that should require sign off from the store manager, a financially liable employee, or someone else holding proper authority. And finally, there may be no meaningful time or amount limits at all, meaning refunds could remain possible over an unlimited stretch of time, and theoretically for an unlimited amount, up to whatever balance the register happens to hold.
How to Fix It
Two tier authorization is genuinely useful here, paired with a strict time window governing refunds. Automatic refunds could be limited to the last fourteen days, with anything older switching over to manual processing, complete with multi level review and documented sign off.
Tying the refund card to the original payment card by default, as a standing rule, closes much of this gap. Cash refunds, or refunds sent to a different card, should remain the exception rather than the norm, strictly regulated and logged separately from everything else.
A dedicated audit log for every refund operation, tied clearly to the cashierβs ID, the receipt number, and the recipient card, makes it possible to review the whole trail later if something looks off.
Summary
Nothing here requires exotic tools or rare expertise. The overall picture is worth taking seriously, because a store is never just a building full of shelves and registers. It functions as a branch of the corporate infrastructure itself, a set of trusted interfaces placed out into public space, right in front of every customer who walks through the door.
But these small, easy to overlook pieces can chain together. Network access can lead to credentials, credentials can lead to internal systems, internal systems can lead to operational data, and operational data can eventually lead to real financial consequences. A useful security assessment in an environment like this does not simply end with a recommendation to close a port and set a stronger password. It ends with a more useful question worth asking. Who decided, at some point along the way, that all of these things should sit within the customerβs reach in the first place?
If you enjoy hacking and would like to get started in cybersecurity, we have created the Cybersecurity Starter Bundle II to equip you with the knowledge and skills needed to begin your journey. If you want to advance your skills even further, our Cyberwarrior Path is made to help you delve deeply into the technology and show you how to break it
GodDamn ransomware's PoisonX driver is a textbook EDR bypass driver: a Microsoft-signed kernel driver that kills security tools instead of exploiting them.
During pentests, itβs not uncommon to find a Grafana somewhere inside an organizationβs infrastructure. Sometimes it can even be exposed directly to the Internet. Itβs always worth checking Grafana for vulnerabilities, as it has been affected by multiple security issues over the years.
What is Grafana
Grafana is an open-source monitoring and visualization platform used by organizations to display dashboards containing information collected from servers, applications, databases, cloud services and networking equipment. Administrators rely on it to monitor the health of their infrastructure in real time, making it one of the most widely deployed monitoring apps in enterprise environments. Since Grafana often connects to numerous backend services and contains valuable configuration information, compromising it can sometimes give hackers an excellent foothold into the rest of the network.
Of course, you could manually inspect every Grafana installation looking for known vulnerabilities, but that quickly becomes time-consuming, especially during larger engagements where multiple servers have to be assessed.
Fortunately, there is a Grafana-Final-Scanner. Itβs a tool designed specifically to automate this process. Instead of manually checking every instance the scanner performs the work for you by checking whether the target is vulnerable to a collection of publicly known vulnerabilities.
Grafana-Final-Scanner
Weβll begin by downloading the repository and installing its dependencies.
kali > git clone https://github.com/Zierax/Grafana-Final-Scanner.git
kali > cd Grafana-Final-Scanner
kali > python3 -m venv venv
kali > source venv/bin/activate
kali > pip3 install -r requirements.txt
Once everything has been installed successfully, itβs worth taking a quick look at the list of vulnerabilities supported by the scanner.
At the time of writing, the tool is capable of checking for more than fifteen different Grafana vulnerabilities.
Now letβs point it at our target.
kali > python3 scanner.py -u https://target/grafana/login
After a short scan, the tool analyzes the target and reports any vulnerabilities it successfully identifies.
In our case, the results were promising. The scanner identified CVE-2024-8118 and an OAuth Authentication Bypass vulnerability. It also gave us the URL. We opened the page and the application asked us for an administrator key that we obviously didnβt have.
Fortunately, web applications donβt always behave exactly as their developers intended. Developers occasionally leave sensitive information inside the applicationβs front-end code. JavaScript, HTML comments, hardcoded credentials, authorization logic have all been discovered by hackers countless times over the years.
With that in mind, we opened the pageβs HTML source code to see exactly how the authorization process was implemented. The comments were written in Russian, but the logic itself was fairly easy to understand.
Instead of verifying a specific administrator key, the application simply checked whether any key existed. So the validation routine wasnβt actually validating the value at all. It simply checked if some key was provided.
The next step was straightforward. We opened the browserβs Developer Console and manually created the expected key.
The application accepted it.Β
We bypassed the authentication and accessed the admin panel.Β
Finding a vulnerability is only part of the pentest. Understanding how the application behaves after exploitation is equally important. Sometimes the scanners get you only halfway there, while manual analysis can help you find the remaining pieces needed to fully demonstrate the impact.
Itβs also a good reminder that developers occasionally leave sensitive information hidden inside client-side code. You never know what useful information may have been left behind.
Web Interface
While running the scanner from the command line works perfectly for testing targets, the project also includes a convenient web interface.
This can be useful during larger pentests where dozens of Grafana instances need to be assessed.
You can start it with this command:
kali > python scanner.py --serve --db vulndb.json
Summary
Grafana is one of the most common monitoring platforms youβll encounter during internal and external penetration tests. Because it frequently contains sensitive operational data and often communicates with numerous backend systems, compromising it can sometimes provide hackers with an excellent entry point into an organizationβs network.
Grafana-Final-Scanner can make it much easier to determine whether your Grafana is exposed to known vulnerabilities.
If you enjoy web application pentesting and would like to improve your skills for bug bounty hunting, we have our Web Application Hacking training. Youβll gain the practical knowledge and skills you need to start finding web application vulnerabilities.
The density of WiFi access points in modern cities has now reached a point where a large-scale surveillance system may be able to identify almost anyone who walks near a router, even if that person is not carrying a mobile phone. Researchers from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) have published a scientific paper describing this kind of system and the technology that makes it possible.
At the center of this surveillance method is a feature called beamforming, which first appeared with the WiFi 5 (802.11ac) standard in 2013β2014. The basic idea was introduced with WiFi 5, but it became much more refined and effective with WiFi 6 (802.11ax), where the technology matured into something more practical.
Beamforming
Beamforming, also called spatial filtering, is a signal processing technique used to send and receive wireless signals in specific directions rather than spreading them evenly in every direction. In simple marketing language, this is often described as a router that βdoes not broadcast equally everywhere anymore, but instead follows the user with a focused beam.β That description is not wrong, but it leaves out the technical depth behind the idea.
Beamforming
From an engineering point of view, beamforming works by combining several antennas into a group called an array. When the signals from these antennas are timed and lined up correctly, they boost each other in certain directions. In other directions, they cancel each other out. The result is a signal that is far more focused and efficient than older systems, which simply broadcast outward in every direction at once.
Beamforming gives both senders and receivers the ability to focus on signals coming from one direction while blocking out noise from others. Because of that, the technique is used not only in WiFi, but also in radar, sonar, seismology, wireless communications, radio astronomy, acoustics, and biomedical engineering.
Identifying People Through WiFi Signals
As radio waves move through space, they do not simply travel in a straight, clean line. They interact with the world around them in many different ways. They can pass through objects, reflect off surfaces, become absorbed, become polarized, bend around obstacles, scatter in different directions, or refract as they cross boundaries between materials. This means that when a WiFi system sends a signal and later receives it back, the final result contains information about everything the signal encountered along the way. By comparing the expected signal with the received one, it becomes possible to measure interference and use that information to correct transmission errors. But that same interference also reveals details about the environment itself.
For example, when a person enters the path of a WiFi signal, the signal changes. Human bodies affect radio waves in measurable ways. The signal may weaken, shift, scatter, or behave differently depending on movement, posture, and position. If researchers analyze these changes carefully, they can infer a surprising amount of information about the surrounding environment. They may detect whether people are present, what they are doing, and in some cases even who they are.
This whole research area has grown into a separate field known as WiFi Sensing.
Most WiFi Sensing research is presented as useful and harmless, and in many cases it really is. It can support smart-home features, occupancy detection and other practical applications. But the privacy concerns are obvious. When these methods are combined with activity recognition and the massive spread of WiFi hotspots, they can reveal highly sensitive information. One of the most troubling possibilities is that someone could be identified in the range of a hotspot and then tracked over time without ever knowing it.
Using Channel Information for Identification
There are several ways a person can be identified through WiFi. One important method relies on analysis of Channel State Information (CSI), which is sent at the physical layer of WiFi communication. CSI is detailed and useful for WiFi sensing. It gives a rich picture of how the wireless channel behaves. The problem is that CSI is not always easy to access. In many cases, it requires modified firmware and specialized hardware support, which limits how widely it can be used in practice.
Comparison of CSI-based identity recognition methods
The table above compares roughly 25 different systems, evaluating them across several key dimensions. The Paper column lists the name of each system, while the Identities column shows how many different people each system is capable of distinguishing between. The Accuracy column then reflects how reliably each system correctly identifies a person. On the technical side, the Pre-Processing column describes the signal processing techniques each system applies to clean and transform raw WiFi data before passing it to a machine learning model, and the Model Architecture column identifies what type of model is used. The Perspective column shows how subjects were positioned or moving during data collection, such as standing orthogonally, performing gestures, or typing keystrokes.
Beamforming entered the picture for a different reason. As mentioned earlier, it was introduced in WiFi 5 to improve throughput and make wireless communication more efficient. But beamforming also depends on environmental information that is similar to CSI. The difference is that this information is gathered on the transmitter side rather than the receiver side.
Comparison of BFI-based WiFi sensing methods
The key new dimensions here are the Inference column, showing the wide variety of tasks these systems tackle, from respiratory rate monitoring and crowd counting to sign language recognition.
In a typical beamforming setup, client devices send something called Beamforming Feedback Information (BFI) back to the access point. BFI is a condensed snapshot of current signal conditions. It tells the access point how the wireless channel looks so that it can adjust its transmission for better performance.
The key difference between CSI and BFI is that BFI is transmitted back to the access point without encryption. This makes it much easier to collect using standard, off-the-shelf hardware, without needing any special software modifications. That significantly lowers the bar for potential misuse. The privacy concern gets even more serious when you consider that the IEEE is already working on making WiFi sensing an official standard through the upcoming 802.11bf update and based on the current draft, without putting strong privacy protections in place.
Researchers at KIT showed that people can be identified using only BFI data, even when they are not carrying a smartphone or any other wireless device. The method does not depend on a person bringing along a tracked gadget. It works using ordinary WiFi devices already present in the environment and already communicating with one another.
Placement of TP-Link Archer BE800 access points, measurement locations, and participant walking routes in the WiFi-based identity recognition experiment
As radio waves move through space and interact with the human body, they create patterns that can be captured, analyzed, and compared. In that sense, the process starts to resemble imaging, almost as if the wireless system were building a rough picture of a scene without using a camera. The result is not a photograph in the normal sense, but the data can carry enough structure to support identity inference.
That is a serious warning, and it captures the core concern very well. Intelligence services and cybercriminals already have many easier ways to monitor people, including compromising CCTV systems or intercepting video communications. But wireless networks are different. They create a nearly invisible surveillance layer that already exists in a huge number of places.
Unlike earlier approaches that depended on LiDAR sensors or on reflection-based systems using walls, furniture, and human bodies, this method works with standard WiFi equipment. By collecting BFI data, researchers can build representations of people from several different viewing angles. These representations are then used to distinguish one person from another, even when the number of people is large. Once the machine learning model has been trained, the identification process can happen in just a few seconds.
BFI vs CSI accuracy as the number of WiFi packets increases. BFI reaches near-perfect accuracy almost instantly, while CSI requires hundreds of packets to approach similar performance
Experimental Results
The study involved 197 participants. The researchers reported that they were able to identify individuals with nearly 100% accuracy, regardless of viewing angle or walking style. That is an impressive result, but it did not come easily. To reach that level of accuracy, the model needed a substantial amount of machine learning training. Each person in the training set performed around 20 walking passes before the model was trained.
BFI vs CSI accuracy across different walking styles. BFI maintains near-perfect accuracy regardless of how a person walks or what they carry, while CSI struggles significantly when walking styles change
During the research two TP-Link Archer BE800 routers were used. The experiment relied on channels 37 and 85. It also used two non-overlapping 160 MHz channels in the 6 GHz band available under WiFi 6E. The hardware included Intel AX210 WiFi network adapters.
Accuracy of five WiFi identification systems as the number of people grows. BFId (BFI) and LW-WiID maintain near-perfect accuracy even at 170 individuals, while competing systems degrade sharply with FreeSense dropping to near 15% at scale
The researchers stress that the technology is powerful, but also potentially dangerous. The risks are especially serious in authoritarian states, where systems like this could be used for large-scale population surveillance. In such settings, the ability to identify people without their phones, without cameras and without obvious visible monitoring would be a major privacy threat.
For that reason, the authors strongly recommend that privacy protections and security safeguards be built into the upcoming IEEE 802.11bf standard from the start, rather than added later as an afterthought.
WiFi 6 Routers as Motion Sensors
In fact, WiFi-based sensing has become so effective that some modern routers already include motion-detection features right out of the box, and manufacturers openly advertise them.
Xfinity
Features such as WiFi Motion Detection allow homeowners to monitor activity inside their homes through mobile apps, using nothing more than changes in WiFi signal patterns.
A feature designed for convenience in a home can also become part of a much broader surveillance system when deployed at scale.
Related WiFi and Bluetooth Scanning Tools
As an additional note, several tools already exist that monitor wireless activity in nearby environments. They donβt work exactly the same way as the techniques we covered earlier, but theyβre still useful.
Pi.Alert scans devices connected to a WiFi network, detects unknown devices, and sends notifications when devices unexpectedly disconnect from the network. It is often used as a practical awareness tool for keeping track of what is present on a home or local network.
WireTapper discovers nearby wireless signals, including WiFi networks, Bluetooth devices, hidden cameras, vehicles, headphones, televisions, and cellular towers. It gives the user a broader view of the wireless environment around them, which can be useful for awareness and inspection.
Video
We also have an video on this topic with Master OTW and Yaniv Hoffman. In the video, OTW explains how hackers can use SDR, AI, and Wi-Fi signals to detect human movement through walls, how the technology works, and talk about practical ways to defend against it. Feel free to check it out.
Summary
As modern routers gain advanced sensing, they can also become tools for observing and identifying people through the way their bodies interact with wireless signals. The KIT research shows that this is a practical technology that can identify individuals with remarkable accuracy using ordinary WiFi hardware. Although WiFi sensing can be valuable for smart homes and automation, it also raises serious privacy concerns. Privacy protections will need to become just as important as performance improvements.
If youβre interested in Wi-Fi security, our Wi-Fi Hacking training can help you gain the necessary experience. This attack vector is often underestimated, and many organizations are vulnerable to it. It is definitely valuable in penetration testing.
Adobe frames the fast exploitation of its ColdFusion vulnerabilities as an attacker speed problem. The real issue is a connector that never should have trusted an unauthenticated request.
A critical flaw in Gitea's official Docker image let anyone impersonate an admin with one forged header. Sysdig spotted the first exploitation attempts 13 days after the fix shipped.
Google has replaced Android's 1,800-guess lockscreen limit with a 20-attempt hard cap. Here is how the new rate limiter works and what it means for anyone testing or managing Android devices.