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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#52780

On 2013.11.24, 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.

That also uses a very low power transducer.  The speaker in a computer 
is usually much larger in surface area.  So, while inefficient for the 
speaker would still drive off more energy at a small fraction above the 
audible range.  (laptops with their small speakers could probably do 
better at higher f).

If your dog or cat is going nuts, there may be a reason!

I'd still guesstimate something more on the order of 3000 b/s with tones 
around 25 kHz, which, given a dirt simple protocol, is sufficient for 
one trojan to talk to another and deliver a payload.  It might have to 
run all night or over several nights, but the job would eventually be 
done.  (Replacing the EFI/UEFI is another issue, of course...)

-- 
"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]

#53212

On 11-27-2013, 20:17, Alan Browne wrote:
> I'd still guesstimate something more on the order of 3000 b/s with tones
> around 25 kHz, which, given a dirt simple protocol, is sufficient for
> one trojan to talk to another and deliver a payload.  It might have to
> run all night or over several nights, but the job would eventually be
> done.  (Replacing the EFI/UEFI is another issue, of course...)

"run all night" is no way to stay ahead of a human deleting things.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    In any formula, constants (especially those obtained
    from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

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

#52655

On 2013.11.24, 20:15 , Lewis wrote:
> 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.


I guess you didn't notice the conservative numbers used.  So easy to 
dismiss things out of hand.

>> 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.

Exactly.  That's the point.  They do not have sharp transducer rolloff 
at the ends of the human audible spectrum.  They're optimized for human 
use - but they let everything we can't hear leak through as well.

That's what would allow such transmissions to be sent and picked up. 
It's not required that it be efficient - only that it be detectable.

>
>> 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.

There's no need for a perfect wave form at the mic, just a long enough 
sample time (per bit period) to determine the tone f - and with a pretty 
wide frequency tolerance to boot.

-- 
"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]

#52673

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> writes:

> There's no need for a perfect wave form at the mic, just a long enough 
> sample time (per bit period) to determine the tone f - and with a pretty 
> wide frequency tolerance to boot.

All you need are good zero crossings.  I work with this every day,
in the form of SMPTE time code.  There has been a massive amount of
software written for this.  Out of 80 bits per frame, 16 are used
for a sync word, and the other 64 are data.  At 30 frames/second
(play speed for me), that's 240 bytes/second.  Going much faster
(as in shuttling tape), that's many more bytes/sec.

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]

#52777

On 2013.11.25, 22:01 , billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> writes:
>
>> There's no need for a perfect wave form at the mic, just a long enough
>> sample time (per bit period) to determine the tone f - and with a pretty
>> wide frequency tolerance to boot.
>
> All you need are good zero crossings.  I work with this every day,
> in the form of SMPTE time code.  There has been a massive amount of
> software written for this.  Out of 80 bits per frame, 16 are used
> for a sync word, and the other 64 are data.  At 30 frames/second
> (play speed for me), that's 240 bytes/second.  Going much faster
> (as in shuttling tape), that's many more bytes/sec.

You don't even need 0 crossings - as long as you can count peaks and 
valleys you're good to go.  Indeed you could compute the DC bias after a 
few seconds and then apply it to do the 0 crossing with the DC bias 
taken out.  (rambling here ... there will likely be 0 crossings with a 
mic...).


-- 
"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]

#52677

On 13-11-25 16:48, Alan Browne wrote:

> Exactly.  That's the point.  They do not have sharp transducer rolloff 
> at the ends of the human audible spectrum.  They're optimized for human 
> use - but they let everything we can't hear leak through as well.

The speaker and microphone might, but what about the digital signal
processor used to generate the sound and the one used to process
microphone input ? This hardware may have hard limits on frequency range
it will process.

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

#52598

On 11-24-2013, 11:56, Alan Browne wrote:
> However you would also need some basic s/w running on the other computer
> to read the microphone and of course participate in some protocol back
> to the first computer.
>
> Still plausible, but requires getting the basic s/w onto both computers.

Ruiu said he detected traffic and that it stopped when he cut off the 
mike.  His hypothesis is that one infected machine was helping the other 
undo his attempts to clean it.

Again, I am suspecting a hoax or a mental breakdown.
And yet, it's all _possible_.

-- 
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]

#52631

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> 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.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/q3e4zgj
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/l6oh2bj
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/jwndfuw

Opps, you posted in two threads. Well, as I said - I think it's either a
mental breakdown or extreme example of confirmation bias.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web