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

#52605

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes:

> 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.

Again, this sort of thing is easily observable with a rather small
investment in test instrument rentals.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

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

#52612

re: Audio infestation.

Since OS-X does not come pre-loaded with software to use the microphone
to receive accoustical data transmission it is highly improbable that
sending such audio towards an un-infected computer would cause the
uninfected computer to received and process the audio data.

Two infected computers might use audio to communicate to each other in
order to evade detection via ethernet traces. This would be a targetted
virus launched against a specific site where the computers are known to
be within audio range of each other.

Consider computer B which contains valuable information. But not
connected to the internet nor to other computers. Computer A next to it
has internet connection. B can send the state secrets to A via audio in
the middle of the night when nobody is there, and A then sends them to
the spy agency over the internet.

The guy who appears to be deranged may in fact be doing a very smart and
subtle Snowden by revealing how spy agencies access certain computers so
governments, foreign nuclear agencies etc can protect themselves against
such intrusion by 3 letter agencies as well as GCHQ. Because of the way
he is conducting himself, nobody would even think of accusing him of
treason and sending the Men In Black after him as they did for Snowden
and Manning and others.

Audio transmisssions outside the range of human hearing would depend on
whether both the speaker and microphone on those computers have such a
range.

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

#52613

On 11/24/13, 4:10 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> Audio transmisssions outside the range of human hearing would depend on
> whether both the speaker and microphone on those computers have such a
> range.

While I think the whole notion in this thread is pretty preposterous, 
one thing no-one seems to have mentioned is that you don't need a clear 
channel to send information -- if the channel is noisy (perhaps because 
it is weak) error-encoding methods will be able to get a signal through, 
albeit at a very slow rate (i.e., at the Shannon channel capacity.)

Ted

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

#52624

On 11-24-2013, 17:10, JF Mezei wrote:
> Since OS-X does not come pre-loaded with software to use the microphone
> to receive accoustical data transmission it is highly improbable that
> sending such audio towards an un-infected computer would cause the
> uninfected computer to received and process the audio data.

Ruiu believed (or said) that both were infected

> Two infected computers might use audio to communicate to each other in
> order to evade detection via ethernet traces. This would be a targetted
> virus launched against a specific site where the computers are known to
> be within audio range of each other.

His hypothesis was that they were helping each other resist repair.
I find that a bit of a stretch, in terms of the size of the code packets 
that would be needed and the bandwidth of an audio transmission.

But your idea seems quite plausible.  As long as they are undetected, 
bandwidth would be irrelevant.

On the other hand, getting the infection into the non-networked machine 
would be a lot harder to do.


-- 
Wes Groleau

    “Missing a train is only painful if you run after it!”
                                  — Nassim Nicholas Taleb

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

#52636

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

> 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.

Well it was never about replacing the malware - infection via
ultrasonics. After all - there needs to be malware in place already
there to be listening to the mic for that to work.

What was suggested by this guy is the malware already on machines was
able to circumvent being isolated from the network by using ultrasonic
communication via speakers and mic with other machines still on the
network.

All still highly implausible and lacking any concrete evidence (the
malware is said to erase said evidence as it is found - ahhh huh... ok),
if not impossible. But damn close to being so.

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#52669

On 11-25-2013, 02:26, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Well it was never about replacing the malware - infection via
> ultrasonics. After all - there needs to be malware in place already
> there to be listening to the mic for that to work.

Exactly.  He never claimed that a machine was infected that way.  He 
suggested that once infected, the malware could use that means to defend 
itself.  My belief (as a nearly-ignorant newbie to such things) is that 
audio frequencies could not have sufficient bandwidth to do so.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Pat's Polemics
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

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

#52676

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

> On 11-25-2013, 02:26, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > Well it was never about replacing the malware - infection via
> > ultrasonics. After all - there needs to be malware in place already
> > there to be listening to the mic for that to work.
> 
> Exactly.  He never claimed that a machine was infected that way.  He 
> suggested that once infected, the malware could use that means to defend
> itself.  My belief (as a nearly-ignorant newbie to such things) is that
> audio frequencies could not have sufficient bandwidth to do so.

I'm sure my ignorance in this area far outpaces yours, but it makes
little sense to me. I've used too many built in speakers and mics over
the years to have any faith in their ability to reliably handle sonic
(ultrasonic, or otherwise) communication in a noisy office environment,
even just a quiet room with only the sounds of computer and HD fans, and
HDs spinning. Then there's often running audio filtering of background
sound received by internal mics to consider. I can understand it being
possible. But with stock internal speakers and mics? It has to be
incredibly inefficient with some serious error protection running.

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#52603

On 2013.11.24, 12:39 , Lewis wrote:
> 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.

Speakers can be driven beyond their spec bandwidth.  The response is not 
"acoustically" efficient due to response rolloff, but the sound carries 
nicely enough (although you can't hear it).  Even if there is some 
filtering, it's likely not sharp enough to cut completely - filters roll 
off over many kHz unless they are many polled (expensive).

Microphones are the same.  Even if filtered it won't be esp. sharp at 
the edge - too expensive.  So the cheap mic's in computers are ideal.

As to "baud", if you could drive the speaker at, say, 25,000 and 25,500 
Hz, then you could get a reliable baud of about 1000 b/s (probably 
higher but would be harder on the receiver - you could also have many 
'tones' to increase the bit rate, eg: 8 different tones to get 3 bits 
per period).

>> 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.

Don't have to be.  When you buy a nice set of speakers with their 20 - 
20,000 Hz spec with so much dB of responses, they don't mention the 
rolloff over 20,000 Hz.  It's there.  You just can't hear it.  Your 
entertainment amp may have a sharp enough filter to roll it off fast - 
but in a computer if you can drive that speaker it will respond - 
whether you can hear it or not.

Cheap computer speakers have even less filtering, and because they are 
mechanically small, they can probably go well beyond 20,000 Hz - if you 
can drive them.

>> 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.

Indeed.  I've come up with two other "plausible" data paths, BTW.  But 
they, as the acoutic one, they require that the 2nd computer be infected 
with something to decode the signal too.

-- 
"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]

#52617

In message <IM2dnbnHJJhh3w_PnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2013.11.24, 12:39 , Lewis wrote:
>> 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.

> Speakers can be driven beyond their spec bandwidth.  The response is not 
> "acoustically" efficient due to response rolloff, but the sound carries 
> nicely enough (although you can't hear it).  Even if there is some 
> filtering, it's likely not sharp enough to cut completely - filters roll 
> off over many kHz unless they are many polled (expensive).

> Microphones are the same.  Even if filtered it won't be esp. sharp at 
> the edge - too expensive.  So the cheap mic's in computers are ideal.

> As to "baud", if you could drive the speaker at, say, 25,000 and 25,500 
> Hz, then you could get a reliable baud of about 1000 b/s (probably 
> higher but would be harder on the receiver - you could also have many 
> 'tones' to increase the bit rate, eg: 8 different tones to get 3 bits 
> per period).

Not really, there's simply too much interference and the mics are not
good enough. This is not theoretical, it's been done.

Encoding data to be transmitted by sound is pretty trivial. RECEIVING it
and DECODING it reliably? That's where the trouble starts, and never
ends.

> Don't have to be.  When you buy a nice set of speakers with their 20 - 
> 20,000 Hz spec with so much dB of responses, they don't mention the 
> rolloff over 20,000 Hz.  It's there.  You just can't hear it.  Your 
> entertainment amp may have a sharp enough filter to roll it off fast - 
> but in a computer if you can drive that speaker it will respond - 
> whether you can hear it or not.

We're not talking nice speakers, we're talking built-in speakers and
built-in mics.

> Cheap computer speakers have even less filtering, and because they are 
> mechanically small, they can probably go well beyond 20,000 Hz - if you 
> can drive them.

You have to drive then reliably enough for the mic on the other computer
to pick it up.

-- 
When the chips are down, the buffalo's empty.

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

#52619

In article <slrnl9594u.ifj.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > As to "baud", if you could drive the speaker at, say, 25,000 and 25,500 
> > Hz, then you could get a reliable baud of about 1000 b/s (probably 
> > higher but would be harder on the receiver - you could also have many 
> > 'tones' to increase the bit rate, eg: 8 different tones to get 3 bits 
> > per period).
> 
> Not really, there's simply too much interference and the mics are not
> good enough. This is not theoretical, it's been done.

you're contradicting yourself. 

if there's too much interference and the microphones are crap, how
could it have been done?

> Encoding data to be transmitted by sound is pretty trivial. RECEIVING it
> and DECODING it reliably? That's where the trouble starts, and never
> ends.

it's not that hard to do it reliably. that's what dsp is for.

> > Don't have to be.  When you buy a nice set of speakers with their 20 - 
> > 20,000 Hz spec with so much dB of responses, they don't mention the 
> > rolloff over 20,000 Hz.  It's there.  You just can't hear it.  Your 
> > entertainment amp may have a sharp enough filter to roll it off fast - 
> > but in a computer if you can drive that speaker it will respond - 
> > whether you can hear it or not.
> 
> We're not talking nice speakers, we're talking built-in speakers and
> built-in mics.

doesn't matter, as long as it's encoded at within the frequency range
of the speakers and microphones, which is not a big restriction.

> > Cheap computer speakers have even less filtering, and because they are 
> > mechanically small, they can probably go well beyond 20,000 Hz - if you 
> > can drive them.
> 
> You have to drive then reliably enough for the mic on the other computer
> to pick it up.

as you said, it's been done. 

however, the 'air gap' virus is bogus.

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

#52625

On 11-24-2013, 20:23, nospam wrote:
> however, the 'air gap' virus is bogus.

This guy

http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~wiz/ultracom.html

concludes that hardware _designed_ to do it could achieve twenty bytes 
per second with single-frequency, more with multi-freq.  That doesn't 
sound fast enough to overcome a malware killer.

-- 
Wes Groleau

Answer not a fool according to his folly,
    lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
    lest he be wise according to his own conceit.
                         — Solomon
Are you saying there's no good way to answer a fool?
                         — Groleau

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

#52627

On 11-24-2013, 21:55, Wes Groleau wrote:
 > On 11-24-2013, 20:23, nospam wrote:
 >> however, the 'air gap' virus is bogus.
 >
 > This guy
 >
 > http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~wiz/ultracom.html
 >
 > concludes that hardware _designed_ to do it could achieve twenty bytes
 > per second with single-frequency, more with multi-freq.  That doesn't
 > sound fast enough to overcome a malware killer.

This guy supposes quite a bit faster--but still not fast enough, IMHO.

<https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/badbios.html#c2171556>


-- 
Wes Groleau

    I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming
    intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared
    from the common culture.  Near as I can tell, this coincides with
    the release of MS-DOS.
                                  — Larry DeLuca

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

#52629

In article <l6ufor$8ns$2@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>  >> however, the 'air gap' virus is bogus.
>  >
>  > This guy
>  >
>  > http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~wiz/ultracom.html
>  >
>  > concludes that hardware _designed_ to do it could achieve twenty bytes
>  > per second with single-frequency, more with multi-freq.  That doesn't
>  > sound fast enough to overcome a malware killer.
> 
> This guy supposes quite a bit faster--but still not fast enough, IMHO.
> 
> <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/badbios.html#c2171556>

contrary to what some people here have said, it is definitely possible,
but it's more of an academic exercise than anything useful.

it's definitely not practical and not what happened for this particular
virus or whatever it was.

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

#52639

In message <l6ue7p$2o1$1@dont-email.me> 
  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 11-24-2013, 20:23, nospam wrote:
>> however, the 'air gap' virus is bogus.

> This guy

> http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~wiz/ultracom.html

> concludes that hardware _designed_ to do it could achieve twenty bytes 
> per second with single-frequency, more with multi-freq.  That doesn't 
> sound fast enough to overcome a malware killer.

Hmm. I've SEEN faster than that transfers with a peaker and mic. In
fact, I think there was a recent-ish episode of ... damn, was it Know
How? No, I think it might have been Hack5 that showed messages being
sent at 110 baud. I've seen speeds myself exceed 110 baud., but not by
much and you had to 'shush' people for it to work. At 300 baud the
signal just fell apart and turned into garbage.

if you take 110 baud and you figure you need to spend at least 20% of
that on checksums and error correction, you're looking at a *very* thin
pipe. You're looking at 2 minutes or so to send a single K, which means
2000 minutes to send 1MB.

I'm not sure how large the EFI ROM in a Mac is, but I am sure it is
hundreds of MB at the very least.

You cannot modify the EFI in part, you can only replace it completely,
so you'd need a full EFI image. Even if we lowball and say it's 200MB,
we're looking at somewhere close to 400,000 minutes.

Well over 9 months.

-- 
What we have here is a failure to communicate.

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

#52647

On 13-11-25 03:54, Lewis wrote:

> Hmm. I've SEEN faster than that transfers with a peaker and mic. 

Have done 9600 with an accoustic coupler (actually once managed 14,4).
And consider that low quality telephone lines are capable of 33kbps.

I think the speed potential for audio data is greatly underestimated.

> I'm not sure how large the EFI ROM in a Mac is, but I am sure it is
> hundreds of MB at the very least.

Not needed. You store the EFI program in the EFI partition and simply
modify the boot parameters to have it fetch the EFI program in the EFI
partition instead of executing the in-ROM EFI boot program.

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

#52670

On 11-25-2013, 12:19, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-11-25 03:54, Lewis wrote:
>> Hmm. I've SEEN faster than that transfers with a peaker and mic.
>
> Have done 9600 with an accoustic coupler (actually once managed 14,4).
> And consider that low quality telephone lines are capable of 33kbps.

But you can't do that through the air without someone in the same room 
hearing it.

-- 
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]

#52678

On 13-11-25 21:07, Wes Groleau wrote:

> But you can't do that through the air without someone in the same room 
> hearing it.

Does the guy ever sleep ? If so, the computers might be chatting while
he is away, back home sleeping. The sounds would audible, but with
nobody there to hear them, it is like if they never happened.

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

#52680

In message <529386b8$0$16979$c3e8da3$40d4fd75@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 13-11-25 03:54, Lewis wrote:

>> Hmm. I've SEEN faster than that transfers with a peaker and mic. 

> Have done 9600 with an accoustic coupler (actually once managed 14,4).
> And consider that low quality telephone lines are capable of 33kbps.

Yes, that is ENTIRELY different than a computer speaker being picked up
by a different computer's microphone across the room.

I've only ever had 300 and 1200 baud connections over an caustic coupler
myself.

> Not needed. You store the EFI program in the EFI partition and simply
> modify the boot parameters to have it fetch the EFI program in the EFI
> partition instead of executing the in-ROM EFI boot program.

Perhaps. 

-- 
This above all, to thine own self be true And it must follow, as the
night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.

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

#52682

On 13-11-26 02:10, Lewis wrote:

> I've only ever had 300 and 1200 baud connections over an caustic coupler
> myself.

I still have an add-on accoustic coupler. It has an RJ-11 input, and
couplers for telephone handset (with a velcro strap to hold handset to
the coupler).

I used it in the 1999s to send emails from payphones in the middle of
nowahere in Australia dialing back to my server in montreal.

Normally, I would limit the modem to 2400 mnp negotiation.  But did did
manage a 14,400 connection once from Rottnest island (west of Perth
Australia) to Montréal canada. However, throughput was slower than 14.4
because of constant retraining. I would think that sound quality for
speakers and microphones on coputers would be fairly similar if not
better than on an old telephone.

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

#52660

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

> In message <l6ue7p$2o1$1@dont-email.me> 
>   Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > On 11-24-2013, 20:23, nospam wrote:
> >> however, the 'air gap' virus is bogus.
> 
> > This guy
> 
> > http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~wiz/ultracom.html
> 
> > concludes that hardware _designed_ to do it could achieve twenty bytes
> > per second with single-frequency, more with multi-freq.  That doesn't
> > sound fast enough to overcome a malware killer.
> 
> Hmm. I've SEEN faster than that transfers with a peaker and mic. In
> fact, I think there was a recent-ish episode of ... damn, was it Know
> How? No, I think it might have been Hack5 that showed messages being
> sent at 110 baud.
>
> I've seen speeds myself exceed 110 baud., but not by much and you had to
> 'shush' people for it to work. At 300 baud the signal just fell apart and
> turned into garbage.
> 
> if you take 110 baud and you figure you need to spend at least 20% of
> that on checksums and error correction, you're looking at a *very* thin
> pipe. You're looking at 2 minutes or so to send a single K, which means
> 2000 minutes to send 1MB.
> 
> I'm not sure how large the EFI ROM in a Mac is, but I am sure it is
> hundreds of MB at the very least.

Apple's firmware updaters are an easy way to find out. They contain a
complete image of the EFI.

The recent EFI update for the 2013 15" MacBook Pro with Retina Display
contains an 8.1 MiB firmware image file: probably an image plus support
code or data, so let's assume the image itself is 8 MiB.

Earlier ones contain an image which is an exact power of two, e.g.
exactly 2 MiB for a mid 2007 MacBook Pro (EFI update 1.3).

These numbers seem reasonable given the typical size of flash memory
chips used to store firmware.

> You cannot modify the EFI in part, you can only replace it completely,
> so you'd need a full EFI image. Even if we lowball and say it's 200MB,
> we're looking at somewhere close to 400,000 minutes.
> 
> Well over 9 months.

Divide that by 25 to get the actual size (for recent models) and
calculate using your assumed 2 minutes per kilobyte and we're talking
somewhat over 11 days, down to just under 3 days for circa 2007 models
with a smaller EFI.

That is fast enough to be feasible for a slowly spreading modified EFI
between nearby computers, given malware already on the computer to
receive the signal, and lack of observation of an unexpected firmware
update occurring when the computer next started up.

It certainly isn't fast enough to stop someone actively trying to fix
the problem.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

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

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

csiph-web