Don't Flash Your Keys on Social Media: Photos Can Be Used to 3D-Print Working Duplicates in Minutes
A seemingly innocent photograph of keys held in someone’s hand can pose a serious security risk, as demonstrated by cybersecurity expert Evan Ottinger. The red team specialist, who is regularly hired by companies to simulate real-world attacks and test both digital and physical defenses, revealed that keys visible in social media posts can be turned into working duplicates without any sophisticated criminal laboratory.
People routinely share photos of their keys online, ranging from everyday users to high-profile celebrities. When the key’s profile and bitting (the unique cuts) are clearly visible, these details can be analyzed to reconstruct the exact geometry needed for duplication. Ottinger used open-source key decoding tools combined with a standard graphic editor and a consumer-grade 3D printer to complete the process.
In his experiment, the resulting plastic key proved fully functional and successfully opened the original lock. The researcher admitted he was initially skeptical, thinking “this can’t actually work,” yet the method proved reliable. For someone with the right skills and tools, the entire workflow—from downloading a social media image to producing a usable key—can be completed in roughly 10-15 minutes.
Unlike conventional lockpicking, this technique leaves no visible marks or evidence of tampering on the lock. To any observer, including security cameras or passersby, the person simply appears to be using their own legitimate key. This stealthy nature makes the attack particularly concerning for physical security professionals.
Ottinger advises treating physical keys with the same caution as passwords. Users should avoid posting close-up images, sharing them in stories, or posing with keys for aesthetic posts. The researcher’s findings highlight an often-overlooked intersection between social media habits and real-world physical security risks.
Related articles
Exploiting CVE-2025-55182 React2Shell Vulnerability on Hack The Box Reactor Machine
A detailed walkthrough demonstrates remote code execution against a seasonal Hack The Box machine named Reactor by abusing the critical Next.js deserialization flaw CVE-2025-55182, also known as React2Shell. The attack begins with Nmap reconnaissance revealing an exposed Next.js service on port 3000, followed by Wappalyzer identification of an outdated framework version. Public exploit code is used to obtain an initial reverse shell as the node user without authentication. Credential access is achieved by extracting password hashes from the reactor.db SQLite database and cracking the engineer account with Hashcat against rockyou.txt. Privilege escalation leverages an exposed Node.js Inspector debug port on 9229, allowing WebSocket interaction via websocat to set the SUID bit on /bin/bash and obtain root access. The article highlights both the impact of the unauthenticated RCE vulnerability and common misconfigurations such as forgotten debug ports on production systems.
CISA Adds MikroTik RouterOS Flaws CVE-2026-67277 and CVE-2026-86060 to Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog
The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has added two actively exploited vulnerabilities in MikroTik RouterOS to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog. CVE-2026-86060 stems from improper sanitization of command argument delimiters and can lead to privilege escalation after an attacker gains access to the SSH login helper and alters trusted policy masks. CVE-2026-67277 involves missing authentication checks in critical RouterOS functions, allowing connections before authentication completes and potentially leaking kernel memory or causing denial-of-service conditions. CISA directed US federal agencies to apply mitigations by September 13 and specifically investigate any signs of compromise related to CVE-2026-86060. The agency noted that the flaws carry broader exploitation risk and urged all organizations using affected MikroTik products to take immediate action.
The Birth of CVE: How Two MITRE Engineers Built the Universal Vulnerability Identifier in 1999
In the late 1990s, security teams faced chaos with one vulnerability carrying dozens of incompatible names across scanners, IDS tools, and CERT advisories. Two MITRE engineers, David E. Mann and Steven M. Christey, proposed a minimal Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures list to solve correlation problems without imposing taxonomy or risk models. Their January 1999 paper led to a Purdue workshop, the formation of the CVE Editorial Board, and a public launch on September 29, 1999, with 321 initial entries. The design deliberately avoided ownership by any vendor and kept names as simple CVE-year-number strings. This neutral, open approach allowed competing vendors to map their proprietary databases to a shared reference without agreeing on classifications. The same minimalist philosophy later influenced NVD, OSV, and GitHub Advisory Database.
OnePlus 13R Preinstalled Account App Leaks Cloud Session Tokens to Any App Declaring Required Permission
Researchers at Doyensec identified a vulnerability in the preinstalled com.oneplus.account application on the OnePlus 13R that allows any third-party app to steal a valid OnePlus Cloud session token. The flaw stems from the OPAccountProvider component lacking the protectionLevel="signature" attribute on its declared permission com.oneplus.account.READ_ACCOUNT_INFO, enabling any app to request the permission and query the provider directly. Once obtained, the token grants access to OnePlus Cloud APIs without further user interaction or warnings. Doyensec responsibly disclosed the issue on 30 December 2025, leading OnePlus to acknowledge the high-severity problem and pay a $720 bounty in March 2026. Follow-up testing in September on firmware CPH2691_16.0.10.500(EX01) confirmed the token leakage persists, although full account takeover via the regional API was no longer reproducible for US and EMEA accounts due to backend changes. Users are advised to avoid untrusted apps and apply future updates, while OnePlus needs only to add the signature protection level to close the exposure.