Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #52561 > unrolled thread

Security Scare ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-23 16:59 -0500
    Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-23 17:16 -0500
      Re: Security Scare ? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-24 09:34 +0100
        Re: Security Scare ? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-24 07:23 -0700
          Re: Security Scare ? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-24 15:40 +0100
            Re: Security Scare ? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-24 08:39 -0700
              Re: Security Scare ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-24 16:56 +0000
    Re: Security Scare ? billy@MIX.COM - 2013-11-23 22:19 +0000
    Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-23 20:21 -0500
    Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-24 04:38 +0000
      Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 00:52 -0500
        Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-24 02:09 -0500
          Re: Security Scare ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-24 16:47 +0000
          Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 12:32 -0500
        Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-24 17:32 +0000
          Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 12:53 -0500
            Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-25 19:19 +1300
    Re: Security Scare ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-24 11:56 -0500
      Re: Security Scare ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-24 17:09 +0000
        Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 12:45 -0500
          Re: Security Scare ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-24 18:26 +0000
            Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 13:40 -0500
              Re: Security Scare ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-24 21:15 +0000
                Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 21:41 -0500
          Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-25 19:19 +1300
            Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-25 09:02 +0000
              Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-25 23:10 +1300
                Re: Security Scare ? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-11-25 10:24 +0000
                  Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-26 07:39 +1300
                    Re: Security Scare ? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-11-25 20:48 +0000
                  Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-25 21:01 -0500
                Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-25 20:26 -0500
                Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-26 07:13 +0000
                  Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-27 13:59 +1300
            Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-25 20:23 -0500
              Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-26 16:28 +1300
            Re: Security Scare ? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-12-01 12:23 +0100
        Re: Security Scare ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-24 13:00 -0500
      Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-24 17:39 +0000
        Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 12:51 -0500
          Re: Security Scare ? billy@MIX.COM - 2013-11-24 18:38 +0000
          Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-24 17:10 -0500
            Re: Security Scare ? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-11-24 16:24 -0600
            Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 21:46 -0500
          Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-25 20:26 +1300
            Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-25 21:04 -0500
              Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-26 16:28 +1300
        Re: Security Scare ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-24 13:18 -0500
          Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-25 01:15 +0000
            Re: Security Scare ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-24 20:23 -0500
              Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 21:55 -0500
                Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 22:22 -0500
                  Re: Security Scare ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-24 23:34 -0500
                Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-25 08:54 +0000
                  Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-25 12:19 -0500
                    Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-25 21:07 -0500
                      Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-25 23:27 -0500
                    Re: Security Scare ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-26 07:10 +0000
                      Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-26 02:22 -0500
                  Re: Security Scare ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-11-26 12:45 +1300
                Re: Security Scare ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-27 20:17 -0500
                  Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-12-10 01:25 -0500
            Re: Security Scare ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-25 16:48 -0500
              Re: Security Scare ? billy@MIX.COM - 2013-11-26 03:01 +0000
                Re: Security Scare ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-27 19:36 -0500
              Re: Security Scare ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-25 23:22 -0500
      Re: Security Scare ? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-24 12:41 -0500
    Re: Security Scare ? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-25 19:11 +1300

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#52604

On 2013-11-24, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 11-24-2013, 12:09, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2013-11-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> I doubt it's a hoax given the credrep of the fellow (as claimed by Ars,
>>> anyway), but the "denier" experts should be supporting Ruiu's search
>>> rather than dismissing it as seems to be the case in some commentaries.
>>
>> IMO, the proper position at the start of any scientific endevour is
>> skepticism. It is up to Ruiu to prove his claims. Otherwise, the world
>> will no doubt rightfully call bullshit.
>
> He apparently is "cooperating fully" but no one has succeeded in 
> reproducing his observations.
>
> On the other hand, I read at least one skeptic with not very convincing 
> arguments that the scenario is completely impossible.

What makes his claims interesting is that it does seem possible.

> There are skeptics who help advance knowledge, and there are skeptics 
> who just attack.

Nevertheless, skepticism is healthy.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52606

On 11-24-2013, 13:26, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> >There are skeptics who help advance knowledge, and there are skeptics
>> >who just attack.
> Nevertheless, skepticism is healthy.

True skepticism is useful.

Flaming people who have ideas and calling it skepticism is not useful.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Why does everyone call it a “fanny pack" ?
   When was the last time you saw one on a fanny?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52611

On 2013-11-24, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 11-24-2013, 13:26, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> >There are skeptics who help advance knowledge, and there are skeptics
>>> >who just attack.
>> Nevertheless, skepticism is healthy.
>
> True skepticism is useful.
>
> Flaming people who have ideas and calling it skepticism is not useful.

Who is doing that?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52623

On 11-24-2013, 16:15, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2013-11-24, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 11-24-2013, 13:26, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> There are skeptics who help advance knowledge, and there are skeptics
>>>>> who just attack.
>>> Nevertheless, skepticism is healthy.
>>
>> True skepticism is useful.
>>
>> Flaming people who have ideas and calling it skepticism is not useful.
>
> Who is doing that?

Nobody in this thread so far.  But one of the articles I read, well, 
"flaming" is too strong a word, but it used some dubious arguments about 
the whole thing being impossible and Ruiu knowing better.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    “If it wasn't for that blasted back-hoe,
     a hundred of us could be working with shovels”
    “Yeah, and if it weren't for our shovels,
     a thousand of us could be working with spoons."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52633

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 11-24-2013, 12:09, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > On 2013-11-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> I doubt it's a hoax given the credrep of the fellow (as claimed by Ars,
> >> anyway), but the "denier" experts should be supporting Ruiu's search
> >> rather than dismissing it as seems to be the case in some commentaries.
> >
> > IMO, the proper position at the start of any scientific endevour is
> > skepticism. It is up to Ruiu to prove his claims. Otherwise, the world
> > will no doubt rightfully call bullshit.
> 
> He apparently is "cooperating fully" but no one has succeeded in 
> reproducing his observations.
> 
> On the other hand, I read at least one skeptic with not very convincing
> arguments that the scenario is completely impossible.
> 
> There are skeptics who help advance knowledge, and there are skeptics
> who just attack.

Yeah, but come on - super advanced malware that installs routines to
actively prevent detection and analysis, and maintains network contact
after network isolation, via ultrasonic waves from speakers to
microphone? And to top if off no one by Ruiu has seen any evidence, nor
any infection elsewhere. If this malware exists (and to exist it would
need some remarkably expensive and lengthy development, beyond that of
most large companies) and is so incredibly advanced, shouldn't it be
just bout every damn where by now, after all the time it's been around?
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52640

In message <1lcwo5l.n6k9hh6idrrpN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> 
  Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>> On 11-24-2013, 12:09, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> > On 2013-11-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I doubt it's a hoax given the credrep of the fellow (as claimed by Ars,
>> >> anyway), but the "denier" experts should be supporting Ruiu's search
>> >> rather than dismissing it as seems to be the case in some commentaries.
>> >
>> > IMO, the proper position at the start of any scientific endevour is
>> > skepticism. It is up to Ruiu to prove his claims. Otherwise, the world
>> > will no doubt rightfully call bullshit.
>> 
>> He apparently is "cooperating fully" but no one has succeeded in 
>> reproducing his observations.
>> 
>> On the other hand, I read at least one skeptic with not very convincing
>> arguments that the scenario is completely impossible.
>> 
>> There are skeptics who help advance knowledge, and there are skeptics
>> who just attack.

> Yeah, but come on - super advanced malware that installs routines to
> actively prevent detection and analysis, and maintains network contact
> after network isolation, via ultrasonic waves from speakers to
> microphone? And to top if off no one by Ruiu has seen any evidence, nor
> any infection elsewhere. If this malware exists (and to exist it would
> need some remarkably expensive and lengthy development, beyond that of
> most large companies) and is so incredibly advanced, shouldn't it be
> just bout every damn where by now, after all the time it's been around?

People said the same thing about STUXNET, which did all those things AND
it was specifically designed to jump the air gap.

It was, by all accounts, a brilliant bit of malware, so stealthy that we
still have no idea how many machines it infected since it was designed
to release its payload only under very specific conditions. It also was,
until it was enabled, completely undetected.

OTOH, it was in all probability written at Fort Meade and then vectored
out via Israel, so probably beyond the capabilities of (most) large
companies.

-- 
Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isn't like TV news, is it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52642

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> People said the same thing about STUXNET, which did all those things AND
> it was specifically designed to jump the air gap.

It was? I'm unaware of that capability.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52643

jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) writes:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> People said the same thing about STUXNET, which did all those things
>> AND it was specifically designed to jump the air gap.
>
> It was? I'm unaware of that capability.

The later version spread via USB sticks (as well as through the
network).  See p11 of
http://www.langner.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/To-kill-a-centrifuge.pdf

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52653

Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) writes:
> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> >> People said the same thing about STUXNET, which did all those things
> >> AND it was specifically designed to jump the air gap.
> >
> > It was? I'm unaware of that capability.
> 
> The later version spread via USB sticks (as well as through the
> network).  See p11 of
> http://www.langner.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/To-kill-a-centrifuge.pdf

Oh, that's what you mean, right :-)
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52654

jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) writes:
>>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>>>> People said the same thing about STUXNET, which did all those things
>>>> AND it was specifically designed to jump the air gap.
>>>
>>> It was? I'm unaware of that capability.
>> 
>> The later version spread via USB sticks (as well as through the
>> network).  See p11 of
>> http://www.langner.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/To-kill-a-centrifuge.pdf
>
> Oh, that's what you mean, right :-)

I don’t know what Lewis meant, but it is what the virus did.  The rest
of the article’s got some interesting stuff about the Iranian nuclear
program, I recommend taking the time to read the lot if you’re even
slightly interested in the topic.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52668

On 11-25-2013, 05:24, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The later version spread via USB sticks (as well as through the
> network).  See p11 of
> http://www.langner.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/To-kill-a-centrifuge.pdf

Second paragraph of the executive summary:

"Another section of this paper is dedicated to the discussion of several 
popular misconceptions about Stuxnet, most importantly how difficult it 
would be to use Stuxnet as a blueprint for cyber-physical attacks 
against critical infrastructure of the United States and their allies. 
It is pointed out that offensive cyber forces around the world will 
certainly learn from history’s first true cyber weapon, and it is 
further explained why nation state resources are not required to launch 
cyber-physical attacks.  It is also explained why conventional infosec 
wisdom and deterrence does not sufficiently protect against 
Stuxnet-inspired copycat attacks."


-- 
Wes Groleau

  Guidelines for judging others:
  1. Don't attribute to malice that which
     can be adequately explained by stupidity.
  2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
     can be adequately explained by ignorance.
  3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
     can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
  4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
     can be adequately explained by alcohol.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52666

On 11-25-2013, 05:10, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> People said the same thing about STUXNET, which did all those things AND
>> it was specifically designed to jump the air gap.
>
> It was? I'm unaware of that capability.

But in order for that to happen, at a minimum, some "air-gap interface" 
module must first infect the target through other means.

-- 
Wes Groleau

A pessimist says the glass is half empty.
An optimist says the glass is half full.
An engineer says somebody made the glass
        twice as big as it needed to be.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52681

In message <1lcwyyd.6gcykaj71km4N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> 
  Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> People said the same thing about STUXNET, which did all those things AND
>> it was specifically designed to jump the air gap.

> It was? I'm unaware of that capability.

Yes, it was designed to infect machines that were not connected to the
Internet, so it squirreled away on every USB device it could manage.

-- 
Mister Teatime had a truly brilliant mind, but it was brilliant like a
fractured mirror, all marvelous facets and rainbows but, ultimately,
also something that was broken. --Hogfather

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52731

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1lcwyyd.6gcykaj71km4N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> 
>   Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> >> People said the same thing about STUXNET, which did all those things AND
> >> it was specifically designed to jump the air gap.
> 
> > It was? I'm unaware of that capability.
> 
> Yes, it was designed to infect machines that were not connected to the
> Internet, so it squirreled away on every USB device it could manage.

Yeah I knew that, I didn't connect it as 'crossing the air gap' :-)
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52665

On 11-25-2013, 01:19, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> any infection elsewhere. If this malware exists (and to exist it would
> need some remarkably expensive and lengthy development, beyond that of
> most large companies) and is so incredibly advanced, shouldn't it be
> just bout every damn where by now, after all the time it's been around?

Exactly.  Unless the developers decided to use him as the guinea pig.

Or, hypothesis four: HE is the developer, and it got away from him.  He 
wants help to get it under control but doesn't want to admit he did it.

[ No, I don't believe that.  :-) ]

-- 
Wes Groleau

   “To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying
    Amen to what the world tells you you should prefer,
    is to have kept your soul alive.”
                          — Robert Louis Stevenson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52675

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 11-25-2013, 01:19, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > any infection elsewhere. If this malware exists (and to exist it would
> > need some remarkably expensive and lengthy development, beyond that of
> > most large companies) and is so incredibly advanced, shouldn't it be
> > just bout every damn where by now, after all the time it's been around?
> 
> Exactly.  Unless the developers decided to use him as the guinea pig.
> 
> Or, hypothesis four: HE is the developer, and it got away from him.  He
> wants help to get it under control but doesn't want to admit he did it.
> 
> [ No, I don't believe that.  :-) ]

I say it's Skynet pulling itself up by it's bootstraps ;-) The end is
nigh!
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52893

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

> Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>> There are skeptics who help advance knowledge, and there are skeptics
>> who just attack.
>
> Yeah, but come on - super advanced malware that installs routines to
> actively prevent detection and analysis, and maintains network contact
> after network isolation, via ultrasonic waves from speakers to
> microphone? And to top if off no one by Ruiu has seen any evidence, nor
> any infection elsewhere. If this malware exists (and to exist it would
> need some remarkably expensive and lengthy development, beyond that of
> most large companies) and is so incredibly advanced, shouldn't it be
> just bout every damn where by now, after all the time it's been around?

If the development budget is so large there's probably a large budget
for testing.  They'll probably have  a lot of patience with that
testing too.

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52602

On 2013.11.24, 12:09 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2013-11-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I doubt it's a hoax given the credrep of the fellow (as claimed by Ars,
>> anyway), but the "denier" experts should be supporting Ruiu's search
>> rather than dismissing it as seems to be the case in some commentaries.
>
> IMO, the proper position at the start of any scientific endevour is
> skepticism. It is up to Ruiu to prove his claims. Otherwise, the world
> will no doubt rightfully call bullshit.

Given his (per Ars) credrep, he's earned the brownie points to get 
support.  Indeed, per the 2nd article, one expert has weighed in based 
on hard data provided by Ruiu.  (With negative results).  So they are 
supporting his search.  Others haven't replied yet (per Ruiu).

Is he biased?  Sure.  Obsessed too?  Oh yeah.

Is he bonkers?  Partially likely.  Three years of trying to hunt 
something down and not finding it would challenge anyone's sanity.

There's something there (unless it's a hoax - which is very unlikely).

-- 
"The radio was once expected to promote international understanding and 
co-operation;
it has turned out to be a means of insulating one nation from another."
                                                  -George Orwell, 1945

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52597

In message <Y92dnSzcbJBYsg_PnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2013.11.23, 16:59 , Wes Groleau wrote:
>> Three explanations:
>>
>> 1. The dude has SERIOUSLY lost his marbles.
>> or
>> 2. He has some perverted motivation for an incredibly involved hoax
>> or
>> 3. Big trouble is coming.
>>
>> A mere "April Fool's Joke" does not seem to be a viable explanation.

> The notion of computer speakers being used to transmit data to another 
> computer (microphone) is entirely plausible (remember early acoustic 
> modems?).

It's not plausibale, it is trivial and anyone can do it.

HOWEVER, it is extremely slow (like 110 baud slow), and it is audible.
The idea that ultrasonics could be used for this is... implausible at
best.

> It's further plausible that this take place above human hearing 
> thresholds, esp. if the speakers are driven as directly as possible to 
> avoid filtering (even if in the h/w filtering band, some will leak 
> through depending on how sharp edged the filter is - for cost reasons 
> these are usually not very sharp).

You need speakers that can reliably produce ultrasonics and mics that
will reliably pick them up. Neither is standard in computer hardware.

> I doubt it's a hoax given the credrep of the fellow (as claimed by Ars, 
> anyway), but the "denier" experts should be supporting Ruiu's search 
> rather than dismissing it as seems to be the case in some commentaries.

Until he submits proof that is verified by third parties his claim is
just a claim and no more reliable (at least not in fact) than my claim
that monkeys stole my wallet. He has said he will outline the process,
so all we can do at this point is wait and see.

-- 
'You have the right to remain silent,' he [Carrot] said. 'You have the
right not to injure yourself falling down the steps on the way to the
cells. You have the right not to jump out of high windows. You do not
have to say anything, you see, but anything you do say, well, I have to
take it down and it might be used as evidence.' --Guards! Guards!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52600

On 11-24-2013, 12:39, Lewis wrote:
>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> The notion of computer speakers being used to transmit data to another
>> computer (microphone) is entirely plausible (remember early acoustic
>> modems?).
>
> It's not plausibale, it is trivial and anyone can do it.
>
> HOWEVER, it is extremely slow (like 110 baud slow), and it is audible.
> The idea that ultrasonics could be used for this is... implausible at
> best.
>
>> It's further plausible that this take place above human hearing
>> thresholds, esp. if the speakers are driven as directly as possible to
>> avoid filtering (even if in the h/w filtering band, some will leak
>> through depending on how sharp edged the filter is - for cost reasons
>> these are usually not very sharp).
>
> You need speakers that can reliably produce ultrasonics and mics that
> will reliably pick them up. Neither is standard in computer hardware.

I don't know whether he had sophisticated audio components.  I would 
doubt it--they would be of little use in his primary work.  He 
hypothesized ultrasonics, but I read another article suggesting that
it may be possible to get a reasonable bandwidth from a dual-tone scheme 
and be able to hide it in normal fan noise.

I forget the exact numbers, but my thought was that the number they 
offered is "reasonable bandwidth" for text/e-mail but NOT for replacing 
malware as fast as it can be removed.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Why does everyone call it a “fanny pack" ?
   When was the last time you saw one on a fanny?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web