←back to thread

Busy Status Bar

(busy.bar)
1366 points aleksi | 10 comments | 14 Oct 24 15:19 UTC | HN request time: 1.357s | source | bottom
Show context
VoxPelli ◴[14 Oct 24 17:06 UTC] No.41839491[source]▶
Is there any message from the Flipper Zero people that this is actually their device?

It’s not mentioned on https://www.flipperdevices.com/, neither on https://flipperzero.one/ or their Instagram?

They have been plagued with peopling scamming people in their name before

replies(7): >>41839574 #>>41839579 #>>41839594 #>>41839748 #>>41839808 #>>41842685 #>>41845540 #
kretaceous ◴[14 Oct 24 17:13 UTC] No.41839574[source]▶
Check the footer.
replies(1): >>41839583 #
1. jstanley ◴[14 Oct 24 17:14 UTC] No.41839583[source]▶
That doesn't prove anything.
replies(2): >>41839731 #>>41840269 #
2. blensor ◴[14 Oct 24 17:29 UTC] No.41839731[source]▶
And interestingly none of the socials I could find are mentioning it.

I am not saying it is a scam it's just very strange that all connections between busy.bar and flipper devices are one way. One would expect some two way mentions

3. marliechiller ◴[14 Oct 24 18:16 UTC] No.41840269[source]▶
It literally says: "Flipper Devices Designed by Flipper Devices Inc. © 2024. All rights reserved."
replies(3): >>41840303 #>>41840365 #>>41840526 #
4. ThrowawayTestr ◴[14 Oct 24 18:19 UTC] No.41840303[source]▶
Anyone can put that there
5. swores ◴[14 Oct 24 18:26 UTC] No.41840365[source]▶
Every scam website ever made that pretends to be part of a known business copies that business's footer text, it's not remotely relevant in trying to judge whether a website is telling the truth or not about who owns it.

(And in case anyone reads my comment without seeing that the founder of Flipper already commented confirming this is theirs, not a scam: that's the case.)

6. mikestew ◴[14 Oct 24 18:42 UTC] No.41840526[source]▶
Yeah, and those “PayPal” emails telling me to enter my creds must be legit because they say “PayPal © 2024” at the bottom, with a link to paypal.com.
replies(1): >>41842845 #
7. floam ◴[14 Oct 24 22:32 UTC] No.41842845{3}[source]▶
Actually fake ones will inevitably show "(c)" because they couldn't get authorization for the copyright key. If you zoom in you can see the gaps in the circle betraying the deception.

To be extra cautious, select it to make sure it's real text and not a screenshot of a real copyright notice - this is a common workaround. There is also one known proof of concept exploit using false glyphs in web fonts - this is why many security researchers disable the loading of fonts.

Subscribe to my Practical Cybersecurity newsletter

replies(1): >>41845506 #
8. 71bw ◴[15 Oct 24 06:22 UTC] No.41845506{4}[source]▶
©©©©©©©©

I just got 8 of those with no authorization

replies(2): >>41850033 #>>41884098 #
9. Ancapistani ◴[15 Oct 24 16:08 UTC] No.41850033{5}[source]▶
Have you not heard of responsible disclosure!?
10. floam ◴[18 Oct 24 22:34 UTC] No.41884098{5}[source]▶
Did you steal them cut and paste?