[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Author here. DVRTC is our attempt to fill a gap that's been there for a while: web app security has DVWA and friends, but there's been nothing equivalent for VoIP and WebRTC attack techniques.

The first scenario (pbx1) deploys a full stack — Kamailio as the SIP proxy, Asterisk as the back-end PBX, rtpengine for media, coturn for TURN/STUN — with each component configured to exhibit specific vulnerable behaviors:

• Kamailio returns distinguishable responses for valid vs. invalid extensions (enumeration), logs User-Agent headers to MySQL without sanitisation (SQLi), and has a special handler that triggers digest auth leaks for extension 2000
• rtpengine is using default configuration, that enables RTP bleed (leaking media from other sessions) and RTP injection
• coturn uses hardcoded credentials and a permissive relay policy for the TURN abuse exercise
• Asterisk has extension 1000 with a weak password (1500) for online cracking

7 exercises with step-by-step instructions. There's also a live instance at pbx1.dvrtc.net if you want to try it without standing up your own.

Happy to answer questions.

Backdoor operates at the kernel level using BPF to passively inspect traffic and trigger on crafted packets, avoiding exposed ports or typical C2 indicators.

Tradecraft enables long-term persistence and covert access inside core network infrastructure, with very limited visibility from standard monitoring.

Interesting case of network-layer backdoor design rather than traditional userland implants.

In enterprise environments, identity effectively became the control plane once network perimeters broke down (e.g. zero trust, et cetera).

I’m seeing a similar pattern emerging on the public internet via age verification and safety regulation, but with identity moving closer to the access layer itself.

Not just: “Are you over 18?”

But: identity assertions are becoming part of how access is granted at the OS/device/app store level.

From a security perspective, this seems to introduce some new attack surfaces:

• high-value identity tokens at the OS/device level
• new trust boundaries between apps, OS, and third-party verifiers
• incentives to target device compromise or token reuse rather than account-level bypass
• potential centralisation of identity providers as enforcement points

Questions I’m trying to think through:

• Does this effectively make identity providers the new perimeter/control plane?
• How would you model this system (closer to DRM, identity federation, or something else?)
• What are the likely failure modes if this layer becomes centralised?
• Are decentralised / on-device credentials actually viable from a security standpoint, or do they just shift the attack surface?

Curious how people here would threat model this or where the obvious breakpoints are.

NTLM-Relaying has been proclaimed dead a number of times, signing requirements for SMB and LDAP make it nearly impossible to use captured NTLM authentications anymore. However, it is still possible to relay to many webservers that do not enforce Extended Protection for Authentication (not just ADCS / ESC8).

A missing authentication check in TP-Link’s Archer NX series allows unprivileged attackers to upload firmware. The update lands as the company defends a Texas lawsuit alleging deceptive security claims.

Analysis of the LiteLLM incident: stolen CI tokens → malicious PyPI releases → credential exfiltration from runtime environments.

With focus on trust boundaries in CI/CD and secret exposure.

We pentested a web app built 100% with AI — no human-written code. Functional, clean, well-structured. But security-wise, we found critical issues on day one: LFI, IDOR, vulnerable dependencies, and more.

AI-generated code is not secure by default. And vibe coding moves fast enough that security gets skipped entirely.

Full writeup with technical details and recommendations: https://www.hackmosphere.fr/en/?p=3803

Anyone else seeing this pattern in AI-generated apps?