Tested on three Android devices (version 9, 13, 16) with different Firefox versions under 150 (had to modify for older).
Two boot looped, I had to enter recovery and the other just powered off [0].
The demo modifies the wallpaper on supported Pixel devices.
Tip: Install a Chromium flavor browser (Chromite) separate from the main browser.
Disable Javascript and hardware accelerated video decoder (commonly exploited) from the flags page and enable reader mode to fix broken JS-dependent websites when browsing blogs and random sites on your personal devices, else dedicate a tablet.
It's not so widely used and it's not explained in the first couple screenfuls of TFA (which by itself is weirdly structured, taking entire paragraphs to explain when it was introduced, when it was discovered, etc. before even explaining what it actually is).
Of course the title was chosen when the article was first published on a site dedicated to security, where probably everyone knows it. This suggests that insisting on unmodified titles when republishing in HN is a poor rule.
Tested on three Android devices (version 9, 13, 16) with different Firefox versions under 150 (had to modify for older).
Two boot looped, I had to enter recovery and the other just powered off [0].
The demo modifies the wallpaper on supported Pixel devices.
Tip: Install a Chromium flavor browser (Chromite) separate from the main browser.
Disable Javascript and hardware accelerated video decoder (commonly exploited) from the flags page and enable reader mode to fix broken JS-dependent websites when browsing blogs and random sites on your personal devices, else dedicate a tablet.
[0] IonStack https://rootme.nebusec.ai
fwiw, the firefox vulnerability seems to be CVE-2026-10702 (type confusion in the ionmonkey jit compiler): https://www.sentinelone.com/vulnerability-database/cve-2026-...
Forgot to include "LPE" (local...) in the title so most of us can get back to weekending.
they also found a type confusion in firefox/ionmonkey, so you can go from random website to pwned very quickly.
Since this enables container escape, sounds like this might still impact quite a lot of us?
>Google has rewarded us $92,337 in kernelCTF
I'm all ears now
Seems low considering the wide impact, but maybe the only thing corporations throw big money at is remote exploits?
That's a huge amount of money for a vulnerability.
Daaaaamn: "GhostLock was introduced in Linux 2.6.39 and fixed in Linux 7.1."
dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48834309
upvoted your submission!
isn't that the worst, when you post a breaking story first and someone else's dupe hits front page? upvoted your original :)
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48826404
A what?
I'm glad someone else asked. :)
It's not so widely used and it's not explained in the first couple screenfuls of TFA (which by itself is weirdly structured, taking entire paragraphs to explain when it was introduced, when it was discovered, etc. before even explaining what it actually is).
Of course the title was chosen when the article was first published on a site dedicated to security, where probably everyone knows it. This suggests that insisting on unmodified titles when republishing in HN is a poor rule.
Use after free?