Slashdot Mirror


CRT Eavesdropping: Optical Tempest

PortalCell writes "LED status monitors may potentially leak data in a few applications, but worse: Markus Kuhn has now revealed (pdf) that it's possible to read your monitor indirectly just by observing how the blue flicker lights up the room! Forget taping up LEDs or living in a metal box - now you might have to do without sunlight to be secure!" Hopefully people will also stop submitting the LED story now.

219 comments

  1. Not again... by danro · · Score: 1, Funny

    I better get my tin foil hat out, or get a TFT...

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    1. Re:Not again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Dude, didn't you know? Now they can hear your data from 15 miles away by reading those clicking noises your drive makes...

      It's madness! Soon it really will be like Blade Runner - my digital camera will be able to go round corners just like the Vespa thingy does, "Left a bit, right a bit, go behind the pillar..."

      And that thing about how a butterfly flapping its wing in China affects stuff in the US? You'll be able to photo that from Chicago...

    2. Re:Not again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet in five years they'll technology to hear/see your thoughts. People see to think their thoughts are some sort of sanctuary that will be forever out of bounds of technology. That assumption is baseless.

      But dropping the tinfoil hat comment was right on topic here. Technology that scavanges signals from ambiant radiation per the topic, will be the exact type of thing that will be able to look into your head.

      Put an electrode in the right place, filter out a range of signals, and *woosh* your presumed sanctuary dissapears and your soul lays open like a gutted fish.

      I've not heard of anything that can do this yet. But it will just be a matter of time. There is no magic concealing our thoughts.

    3. Re:Not again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      time to stock up on more urban legends it seems.
      Taken with a grain of salt: the internet

  2. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like Michael doesn't think this is a major security issue ;>

  3. Well. by electricmonk · · Score: 0, Troll
    now you might have to do without sunlight to be secure!

    This certainly explains Linux's stellar security record of late.

    --
    Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
  4. Interesting concept but... by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 1, Interesting

    how practical/feasable/reliable is it? Wont data be missing if a shadow or a person walks in front of it and make it hard to put together?

    --
    ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
    1. Re:Interesting concept but... by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 1

      With wireless networks now gaining ground that doesn't require direct line of sight, I would think this is rather an academic evesdrop rather than a real world applicable one.

      --
      ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
    2. Re:Interesting concept but... by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2
      Wont data be missing if a shadow or a person walks in front of it and make it hard to put together?

      I don't see how the problem would be any worse for this technique than for simply looking at a CRT through binoculars. If someone blocks the light, you won't be able to read the screen for a few seconds. Oh well. Besides, since this technique can be used on diffusely reflected light from a wall, it would be MORE resistant to obstructions than direct observation, because the person's shadow would have to obstruct almost all of the light coming from the CRT to keep it from reflecting off of other objects, instead of the person just blocking direct line of sight from the CRT to you. In fact, the whole point of the technique is that it doesn't require a direct line of sight to the screen to read it.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    3. Re:Interesting concept but... by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 1

      Not direct line of sight for the CRT, but you need a direct line of sight to the reflected image/light and for the LEDs on a rack but i guess its very situational dependant.

      --
      ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
    4. Re:Interesting concept but... by Pike65 · · Score: 1

      Good thinking, Batman.

      I'd better start sitting in front of my monitor from now on . . .

      --
      "If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
    5. Re:Interesting concept but... by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 1

      or better still, what if you use a monitor filter either a mesh one or a poloroid filter? Wouldnt that prevent such activities?

      --
      ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
    6. Re:Interesting concept but... by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 1

      Another thing that is useful, screensavers or one with fake info on it:D

      --
      ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
  5. Hopefully the people who submit read too by beamz · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Hopefully people will also stop submitting the LED story now."

    This article was posted Wednesday. Maybe people will get the clue and read slashdot before they send in submissions and just maybe the editors will do the same as well.

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/06/1221 22 4

    1. Re:Hopefully the people who submit read too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope people will stop using "hopefully" since it isn't a real word.

    2. Re:Hopefully the people who submit read too by SirRichardPumpaloaf · · Score: 1

      It's a perfectly good word. Proper usage would be something like "I waited hopefully all night, but Ed McMahon never showed up with my $10 million check". Because so many people use it as a synonym for "it is to be hoped that", though, many would claim that as acceptable usage nowadays as well. Where's William Safire when you need him?

  6. Factoid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Interesting fact:

    The refresh rate on an LED is slower that the transmission rate of just about any current communications equipment.

    Secondary Fact:

    Most equipment uses LED's to show packet transfer.

  7. LCD monitors and laptops are safer from this by phr2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    than CRT's. Kuhn's attack works by rapidly sampling the light intensity as the electron gun whizzes around the CRT screen. With LCD's, the light comes from a constantly-on fluorescent tube and there's not the same type of scanning; the LCD itself reacts much more slowly than a CRT does. The optical emanations just don't have as much bandwidth and can't carry all that info. Of course you still might leak screen contents thru RF emissions from the video card, but that's the usual TEMPEST that we already know about. (Note: this info is from Kuhn's paper).

  8. LCD by Account+10 · · Score: 1


    This technique relies on the raster nature of CRTs ... therefore, for our own safety, I think the government ought to buy us all nice large LCD monitors.

    1. Re:LCD by FunnyBunny · · Score: 1

      This technique relies on the raster nature of CRTs ... therefore, for our own safety, I think the government ought to buy us all nice large LCD monitors.

      Nope, the govt will take away your nice LCD. It's so much easier to ensure your safety when you use an easy to monitor LCD.

    2. Re:LCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn democrat! Always wanting a government handout!

  9. Ridiculous by ergo98 · · Score: 0

    I'd love to see someone put this into practice as a proof of concept, because other than having a mirror that can be monitored, the composite merged colour of a room couldn't remotely be decoded into what was actually on the screen.

    1. Re:Ridiculous by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you read the article? If not, please do not post that it is ridiculous. What you didnt notice was that the color you get from such an attack is merged only with the ambient color from the room, which could be filtered out by a simple brightness, contrast calculation. The color from the monitor is not merged because different pixels light up at different times in a CRT.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    2. Re:Ridiculous by neonstz · · Score: 1

      You should really read the story before you post a comment. The pdf describes exactly how this stuff works, and even comes with sample screens which were captured using this method. It really works. There were no problems seeing the 5 fingers on the standard windows hand cursor (the resolution was 640x480 at 85Hz). The image was captured from the "reflections from a nearby wall".

    3. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did put it into practice. Read the fucking paper instead of posting the first damn uninformed thought that comes into your head. The information is there in the time domain due to CRT raster scanning and is extractable if you have a fast enough sensor.

    4. Re:Ridiculous by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously the content of the paper is beyond (without a serious time investment) about 99.999% of the Slashdot population (definitely including myself), however scanning through it it simply sounds like an absurd premise : A computer monitor is not a flashlight, but is rather an ambient source of light whose net effect on any section of an opposing wall would not, in my opinion, be a "image" but a composite of all of the pixels put together. The timing of the scanlines is a consideration, however given the phosphor decay with the unknown intensity of the drawn pixels (i.e. pixels in the middle of the screen may still be brighter than the pixels being drawn at the top) make the idea of reading from diffuse reflection seemingly absurd for anything other than extremely high contrast test cases.

      As far as the examples given: Let's just say that I'd like to see it in action before believing it...

    5. Re:Ridiculous by CTalkobt · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be. THe intent here was to read the text on the screen. Hence, through the combined output of the raster guns you can get a somewhat greyscale image.

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    6. Re:Ridiculous by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Wow, you wanna buy a bridge? I have a couple for sale. Those fingers weren't even in the 4Mhz butterworth filter one (or do you believe it when you see movies when 4 pixels are "processed" into a complex, intricate document), and personally my trusting guess was that it just happened to be on the screen when he did a screenshot for the last two. However, again, I'd believe it if in an uncontrolled situation with a standard wall (you know: one that isn't a mirror) it could be read.

    7. Re:Ridiculous by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Whoops, missed a "pre" there: I meant to say that they weren't in the pre-4Mhz filter one.

    8. Re:Ridiculous by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Were you signing up for your cold fission with a sock and a cup of water when that was announced? Sorry but the premise just seems questionable given that computer screens usually have P22 phosphor, which has a decay of, or so I've heard, about 100 usecs for the blue and green, and up to 1000 usec for the red, yet this paper shows their test case shows a 90% decline (to 10%) in about 0.55 usecs...I don't know if they have either a super-short persistence monitor, or they sanded it down, but it doesn't sound comparable to the average monitor that the average person has (and their monitor would give you one hell of a headache at less than about a 500Hz refresh rate... :-)).

      Again, my doubt is regarding non-trivial test cases with a normal computer monitor : Yeah if the raster gun was drawing a line on the opposing wall then it could be read, but it's a question about realistic implementation with real hardware.

    9. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argh...make that cold fusion. :-)

    10. Re:Ridiculous by neonstz · · Score: 1

      Remember that all screenshots in the documents are just an 8 bit 2D representation of the data. The signal probably has much higher resolution. You may not see the fingers in the first image because the signal level is very low compared to the rest.

    11. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > should really read the story before you post a comment. The pdf
      >describes exactly how this stuff works, and even comes with sample
      >screens which were captured using this method. It really works. There
      >were no problems seeing the 5 fingers on the standard windows hand
      >cursor (the resolution was 640x480 at 85Hz). The image was captured
      >from the "reflections from a nearby wall".
      >
      >
      Total BullCrap. USE YOUR BRAIN. The output from other lightsources in the room would interfere with any reflections from a nearby wall". In other words light pollution within the room would kill this dead.

    12. Re:Ridiculous by plastik55 · · Score: 1
      Obviously the content of the paper is beyond (without a serious time investment) about 99.999% of the Slashdot population (definitely including myself)

      If the content of the paper is beyond your comprehension, why are you making statements about it? There's nothing in this paper that any reasonably competent electrical engineering undergraduate wouldn't be able to do in 3 days given access to the equipment (a photomultiplier and a 250MHz digital oscilliscope were the only recording equipment used.)

      however scanning through it it simply sounds like an absurd premise : A computer monitor is not a flashlight, but is rather an ambient source of light whose net effect on any section of an opposing wall would not, in my opinion, be a "image" but a composite of all of the pixels put together.


      The claim is not that an "image" is projected on the wall. The entirely obvious claim is that the image is encoded in the time domain. RTFA.

      The timing of the scanlines is a consideration, however given the phosphor decay with the unknown intensity of the drawn pixels (i.e. pixels in the middle of the screen may still be brighter than the pixels being drawn at the top) make the idea of reading from diffuse reflection seemingly absurd for anything other than extremely high contrast test cases.


      You haven't been scanning through the paper too well. Dealing with the impulse response fo the phosphors is what sections 3 and 4 are devoted to. The phosphor response is simply a linear convolution filter. Approximate deconvolution is covered in any undergraduate-level signals class.

      --

      I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!

    13. Re:Ridiculous by Dahan · · Score: 2
      Those fingers weren't even in the 4Mhz [pre-]butterworth filter one

      Sure they are... it's very faint, but if you zoom in on it, you'll see a smudge there. I ran the pdf through Ghostscript's pdf2ps, then extracted the uncompressed image to make a PNG. Run it through... The GIMP, and out comes this.

      Looks like the original picture has been JPEGged in the process of turning it into a PDF--I bet it'd be even clearer in the original.

    14. Re:Ridiculous by jareds · · Score: 2

      Sorry but the premise just seems questionable given that computer screens usually have P22 phosphor, which has a decay of, or so I've heard, about 100 usecs for the blue and green, and up to 1000 usec for the red, yet this paper shows their test case shows a 90% decline (to 10%) in about 0.55 usecs.

      Human vision is approximately logarithmic in its perception of intensity. A search with Google should confirm this if you don't believe me. Thus, the exponential drop in that graph is not an exponential drop in the perceived intensity. Furthermore, CRTs work because of persistence of vision. If a CRT were frozen in time, only a fraction of the screen would appear illuminated, even to a human's logarithmic visual system.

      I'd like to point at that at this point, all of your specific claims in this thread have been shown to be baseless.

    15. Re:Ridiculous by ergo98 · · Score: 2

      My specific problem with the paper, which may or may not be groundless, is that as mentioned the test monitor appeared to have phosphor that decayed 90% in 0.55usecs, yet as mentioned real world monitors, like the one in front of me, decay to 10% from between 80 usecs (and it would vary by pixel as well as it isn't set in stone) - 1000 usecs, so it sounds like a test case that may have been rigged to basically, as mentioned, be a trace gun illuminating the opposing wall. My doubt is the gap between a possibility (there is no one who doubts that if you're reading the ray trace gun that you can determine what image was on the screen), and the practical reality with much longer decay phosphors.

      The 500Hz comment was merely joking, but it was based upon the difference between the sample phosphor decay and what people are practically use to.

      This whole debate, ironically, is very similar to the LED debate of a few days ago: There are practical limitations of the reponse time of a LED that limit what can be read for anything other than a hypothetical.

    16. Re:Ridiculous by Markus+Kuhn · · Score: 1

      The decay curve in my paper is realistic and nothing is "rigged". The monitor is the first one I tried, a very common model, and operated under default conditions. Other decay curves that you might have seen in the literature before (see the phosphor literature that I quoted and discussed) were most likely measured with *significantly* slower photosensors that miss the initial spike in the first microsecond completely. The use of a photomultiplier with around a nanosecond raisetime in this test is critical to obtain this result.

  10. Just be thankful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This article was posted Wednesday. Maybe people will get the clue and read slashdot before they send in submissions and just maybe the editors will do the same as well.


    Given Slashdot's track record, we should be glad that the editors haven't reposted the LED story several times already. Heh.

  11. On the other hand... by danro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Considering the quality of the output, maby a funky wallpaper and transparent terminals might be enough for all the tin foil hat type persons out there...

    A _field_ test of this would probabli yield a even worse picture, methinks...

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    1. Re:On the other hand... by SagSaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "A _field_ test of this would probabli yield a even worse picture, methinks..."

      The method used is very simple, and could be vastly improved by using better/more sensors, more computing power (for higher order filters/longer convolutions), or more time to experimentally tune the process to the characteristics of the target display. It must be assumed that the big boys (i.e. world governments, maybe some corporations) have access to all three of the above.

      --
      Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
  12. Cover the windows! by KartMan · · Score: 1

    I've already painted my walls and made a tinfoil hat for my computer - now I'll have to cover my windows with black plastic. Maybe Transmeta knew about this back in the day? Well, I guess it didn't help them, their competitors must have stole their, uh, secrets.

    --

    Go Kart Parts - Got to love driving with the ground an in
    1. Re:Cover the windows! by martissimo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Forget the hat, in times like theese only a Full tinfoil body suit will do!

    2. Re:Cover the windows! by frozenray · · Score: 1

      I've already painted my walls and made a tinfoil hat for my computer

      Now wait a minute. You mean the tinfoil hat is supposed to go on the computer? Dang.

      --
      "There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
  13. Knowing your enemy by sting3r · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I am no advocate of government eavesdropping. I am a card-carrying ACLU member and have sent funds to the EFF prior to the passage of just about every draconian piece of legislation since the DMCA.

    I see a lot of potential in this sort of technology, though. When the government wants to crack down on terrorism / kiddie porn / the "threat" of the day, they will usually issue tens to hundreds of search warrants and confiscate tons of computer equipment in the name of "finding the bad guys." They will no longer have an excuse to do that, since they will now be able to eliminate potential suspects just by looking at light that was leaked from their residences. This will be a true victory for those of us (remember SJ Games?) who are scrutinized by our government without reason: they will have no reason to break into our private homes, steal our legitimately purchased equipment, and go on a "fishing expedition" in search of wrongdoing. No judge could ever let them harass a criminal suspect unless they have exhausted all other avenues and proven to the judge that that suspect is actually engaged in wrongdoing.

    And that is good for us all.

    -s3r

    1. Re:Knowing your enemy by adam613 · · Score: 1

      Or it could allow them to find MORE people to terrorize.

      Secret Police to Judge: "We looked at his monitor emissions and he was reading about terrorism. No, we can't tell you what it was. Why not? National security."

    2. Re:Knowing your enemy by PhotoGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      they will now be able to eliminate potential suspects just by looking at light that was leaked from their residences
      But isn't this exactly the same as the case where they used thermal imaging to determine a pot growing operation? I think that case was thrown out, as an invasion of privacy.

      I don't see how decoding blue light leaking from a residence would differ from decoding infrared radiation leaking from a residence.

      I'm all for catching bad guys every way possible, (and even for reducing the rights of the masses to do this) but given the current state of affairs, I don't think this would work without the same warrants required for other monitoring.

      Neat technology, though. One night, after seeing the neighbors TV glow flickering on their wall, I had thought about how it should be possible to monitor people's TV viewing habits, but spotting the patterns of illumination, comparing it to known broadcasts. Should be trivial to find the best match. Just one more thing for the paranoid conspiracy theorists to worry about. :-)

      -me
      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    3. Re:Knowing your enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I am no advocate of government eavesdropping.
      I am a card-carrying ACLU member

      Anybody else but me find that a little incongruous?

    4. Re:Knowing your enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while (rant) {

      They wont have to use obscure methods like this that could probably even be surcumvented. Place a TV next to your monitor or behind it. Use a bright light. If the gov't wants to spy on you, they will use keyboard loggers, phone taps (works with modems too), and logging at your ISP, photography, bugs, camera, etc... The gov't, hehe, thats the people that would use this. Besides, I can tell by your post you a a very reactionay and non-thinking person. So what you're some stupid programmer/engineer/etc.., join the crowd, on /. alone you are one about ten's of thousands. So STFU you right-wing bastard.

      }

    5. Re:Knowing your enemy by DutchSter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah on the surface, it seems to be. There are a lot of misconceptions about that ruling. A significant part of the ruling was that SCOTUS declared that the government saying that they couldn't look at intimate details of your home (ie - are you growing pot in your underwear or in a body suit?), they didn't need a warrant. The court reaffirmed that "Such an approach would be wrong in principle because, in the sanctity of the home, all details are intimate details." (United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705).

      Interesting to note however, is that it is still a gray area as to whether stuff that is in "plain view" from the outside can be considered private. If I am correct, in order for this technology to work, they essentially need to be within line of sight of your monitor. To do this would require an open blind. That's the same as me (as police officer) walking by and seeing three teenagers drinking beer in the front window. Not only could you not accuse me of breaking in to look at you, I would have the right to inquire about whether underage drinking was occuring (since it was observed in plain view from a public place). Given that, I don't know that the thermal imaging case is 100% applicable because a large part of the technology is dependent on plain view.

      Now, having said that: You might have an affirmative defense in saying that such an evesdropping technology is not in the public domain. While anybody can walk by and see your underage beer party, its doubtful that Bill Public would have the resources to just walk by, pull out his imager and see what's going on.

      Am I unsure of what to say? Yeah pretty much, like anything else, this specific use of technology will be taken to the courts by one side or another. In the meantime, pull the blinds Mr. Tin Foil man :)

    6. Re:Knowing your enemy by Eppie · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand the requirements for search warrants. Police do not need to show they have exhausted other avenues before they can get a search warrant. All that is required is a showing of probable cause to suspect criminal activity, a description of what is searched for and the location to be searched, and a neutral judge's signature.

      I would argue this is a victory for government surveilance because you might not need a warrant to grab emanating light. (The S.Ct. has held that you do need a warrant to detect and interpret emanating heat to catch marijuana growers using lamps in their basements, but who knows how they'd come out on this one in the current political climate.) Once your screen has been read using this method, police can use the eavesdropped data to show probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

      Also, warrants are not much protection against surveilance. Government surveillance for prosecution requires warrants. Government surveillance for information technically requires a warrant but in practice there's no compelling reason for the government to follow that requirement. As a citizen, your only real remedy to unauthorized searches is the exclusion of evidence found during those searches. This means that if the police kick in your door without a warrant, they probably cannot use the drugs they find in your apartment as evidence to prove a criminal charge that you are a dealer. OTOH, if they just want to use that knowledge to lean on you, there's not much stopping them from doing that. If data is obtained solely for intelligence/defense purposes, the warrant requirement is toothless.

    7. Re:Knowing your enemy by SirRichardPumpaloaf · · Score: 1

      I guess not. Why would I?

    8. Re:Knowing your enemy by Loligo · · Score: 2

      >One night, after seeing the neighbors TV glow
      >flickering on their wall, I had thought about
      >how it should be possible to monitor people's TV
      >viewing habits,

      Seems it would be easier to just get an inside at the local cable company to track what channels they watch on a regular basis.

      The cable box I use is clearly two-way, for pay-per-view and on-demand viewing, so I'm pretty sure Time Warner has the CAPABILITY to log what channels you watch and for how long, and knowing TW I'm willing to bet they do some sort of demographic tracking BS.

      I have to wonder how many nights they've been able to figure out "Ok, he's home drunk and alone and flipping through the Skinemax late-night features..."

      Er, about my neighbors, I mean.

      -l

    9. Re:Knowing your enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason that the thermal imaging was considered an invasion of privacy though non-intrusive was ruled that because special equipment was required that it was not in public, it was an invasion of privacy. However, if everyone easy and available access to thermal imaging technology then it would have been allowable.

    10. Re:Knowing your enemy by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > I'm pretty sure Time Warner has the CAPABILITY to log what channels you watch and for how long, and knowing TW I'm willing to bet they do some sort of demographic tracking BS.
      >
      > I have to wonder how many nights they've been able to figure out "Ok, he's home drunk and alone and flipping through the Skinemax late-night features..."
      >
      >Er, about my neighbors, I mean.

      Well, sure, but you didn't need anything as high-tech as two-way cable or the tech described in this article to tell what was on if the light on your walls was mostly pink instead of blue, and its intensity varied in a sine wave with a frequency of about 1-2 Hz... ;-)

  14. Van Eck phreaking by ushac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow, that's really neat. I wonder how good the results of this is compared to say van Eck phreaking (eavsdropping on the EMI emitted by the CRT-gun)?

    Regards / ushac

  15. Spying from the Outside by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    Of Couse, this is along the lines of looking in through windows from the buildings from across the street.

    If your server is in a oversized closet opening into an inside room, then the odds of someone actually doing something with it from the outside is pretty slim.

    Of course, If you have to worry about a hacker from inside the company, then you have other problems as it is.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Spying from the Outside by jareds · · Score: 2

      If your server is in a oversized closet opening into an inside room, then the odds of someone actually doing something with it from the outside is pretty slim.

      Why would anyone want to know what's on the screen of a server in a closet? Getting a screen image is probably only useful if a human is sitting at and using a computer. Humans often try to get offices with windows.

  16. Sunlight==good by los+furtive · · Score: 5, Insightful
    now you might have to do without sunlight to be secure!

    According to the text it's just the opposite:

    In a sufficiently dark environment and with a large enough sensor aperture, practically significant reception distances are possible.

    That's just another reason why I'd rather not subscribe to /. Not only do the editors fail to avoid dupicate stories, those submitting them don't even read them properly.

    --

    I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    1. Re:Sunlight==good by _underSCORE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      actually, I think they were talking about working in a totally windowless office.

      Well, at least I'm secure... pasty white, but secure.

      --
      "This is not a company that appears to be bothered by ethical boundaries."
      Attorney General Mike Hatch on Microsoft
    2. Re:Sunlight==good by jamus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think he was talking about a building not having any windows to be secure, rather than the amount or kind of light in the room.

      People can't see the LED's if they can't see in your windowsless building. You also won't be able to see the sun :P

    3. Re:Sunlight==good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the guy means that you'll have to close the doors, black-out the windows, move to the basment, etc. Hence do without sunlight.

      Possibly.

    4. Re:Sunlight==good by MobileC · · Score: 0

      I'd move to the basement first.
      Makes it easier if you only have to do things once.

      --

      Fran
      :):):)
      1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!

    5. Re:Sunlight==good by alexburke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the editor was making a stab about your adversary pointing this geegaw at your window and reading your screen from the high-frequency fluctuations in the light cast into the room by your monitor.

      Hence, you might have to do without sunlight to be secure -- by not having windows in the room.

    6. Re:Sunlight==good by los+furtive · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Shucks, the more I think about it the more you're right. But at the same time, it cannot be stressed enough that for /. to succeed in the subscription world, they are going to have to get off their amateur asses and put out something a bit more solid in nature. For me to pull a fast/lazy one at the bottom of an on-topic comment is still fair enough. But next time I promise to include the tags ;-) In other news: there's no need to hide behind your anonymous coward style, I don't bite.

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    7. Re:Sunlight==good by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I'm reminded of a tale told by a friend who works as a janitor (don't laugh -- she makes $26/hour plus OT and benefits!) at a secure Rockwell facility. Seems they have this lead-lined anti-eavesdropping room with all the trimmings.. wherein they were reminded of a wee little security hole when vines began growing roots up thru the seam between the lead walls and the concrete floor.

      Now, if we could only teach those vines to carry microphones and nanocameras with them... :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    8. Re:Sunlight==good by epsalon · · Score: 2

      I think he was talking about a building not having any windows to be secure

      That definately important! If you have Windows in the building, they can use magic lantern or other M$ software holes.

    9. Re:Sunlight==good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wouldn't it make a difference whether the ambient light comes from inside the room or outside? Somebody outside pointing a sensor at the room would get the impression that it was indeed dark, and the monitor's contribution would be significant enough to be usable.

      AFAIU, what they meant was "with no other light-sources in the room", i.e. a lamp. The lamp being in the same room (near to the computer, from the POV of an outside observer) would indeed "drown out" the monitor's signal for a distant observer.

    10. Re:Sunlight==good by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Hence, you might have to do without sunlight to be secure -- by not having windows in the room.

      This is just more anti-Microsoft FUD. Windows is harmless unless you install it.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    11. Re:Sunlight==good by PortalCell · · Score: 1

      The point I was making was that if you want sunlight during the day, you need windows. Windows (not WindowsTM) will allow people to see the blue flicker with their sensitive instruments during the night.

  17. Yet another advantage of Linux... by cmckay · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the end of page 14:
    "Rooms where a significant amount of the ambient light comes from displayed sensitive information should be shielded appropriately, for example by avoiding Windows."

    Ha! Take that, Microsoft!
    --Cam

    1. Re:Yet another advantage of Linux... by ahknight · · Score: 2

      Not only that but now that Apple's on an all-LCD line up they can claim they're more secure. ;) That'll last as long as the supercomputer gag did, but hell, they gotta try.

  18. Pretty Obvious by Renraku · · Score: 2

    This whole thing was pretty obvious. If you've ever driven by houses with televisions near windows when the tv is on, you usually see a blue room. Get some really sensitive piece of equipment, and you could measure the blue content and get an image of their screen. Specially tinted windows could reduce or eliminate this threat, but you could tell from the outside that the windows were tinted such.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Pretty Obvious by Account+10 · · Score: 1

      If it is so obvious, why didn't you write the paper?

      And just because there is a blue glow doesn't mean there is information - if the decay of the phosphor was too slow the information would just be blurred (in the time domain)

    2. Re:Pretty Obvious by Renraku · · Score: 2

      If you have good eyes, you can usually tell what someone is watching by the way the blue color flickers and is shaded if you're not moving too fast. So finding out exactly what they're watching shouldn't be a problem for a machine.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    3. Re:Pretty Obvious by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

      If you've ever driven by houses with televisions near windows when the tv is on, you usually see a blue room.

      It's trivially simple to figure out what someone is watching by looking at the glow coming out their window. The best place to see this is near a high rise retirement complex full of old people. I don't know what happens to you as you get older, but it seems that the older you get, the more likely you are to watch TV with no other lights on in the room. After watching for about thirty seconds, you can tell which rooms have TV sets tuned to the same channels. It's fascinating and depressing at the same time.
      The best observation times are Sunday evenings. When 60 Minutes and Touched by an Angel are on, almost all the windows in any retirement complex become synchronized and light up or go dark all at once.

    4. Re:Pretty Obvious by Eric+Destiny · · Score: 1
      I don't know how correct this is, but here goes:


      A while back I remember reading that during the German bombing raids on London during WWII that some British factories used a special kind of light (I think sodium) along with filters on their windows that kept blue light from getting out. This allowed them to labor thoroughout the night and keep production up during the war.

      --

      "The meek shall inherit the earth, the rest of us shall go to the stars." Isaac Asimov

    5. Re:Pretty Obvious by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      We are talking about reconstructing data by catching the indivdual pixels as they get painted. You are talking about something a lot more trivial.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    6. Re:Pretty Obvious by snowlick · · Score: 1

      Actually, the signal wouldn't ever be 'blurred'. You just pick out a spot and measure the intensity of light on it, compare it to the known specs of the display, and viola. A display that emitted light with an extended decay rate wouldn't be useful anyway.

      But then again, light itself tends to have a uniform decay rate. Can you imagine how cool light would be if it did have an observeable decay time? Think of the savings! Turn on the light once in the early evening, and have the house lit until midnight.

      --
      Crystal Meth: Would you ingest somthing made from a poisonous gas and an explosive metal? You do it every day -- Salt!
    7. Re:Pretty Obvious by Account+10 · · Score: 1
      You can't pick out a spot and measure the intensity because you're measuring an average from a diffuse reflection off of a wall.

      The extended decay rate wouldn't have to be that extended. In the monitors they were snooping on ...
      even though the overall afterglow of the phosphor lasts typically more than a thousand pixel times, a noticable drop in luminosity occurs within a single pixel time
      if a pixel retained its full brightness for 10 pixel times, then the horizontal resolution of the snooping would be significantly lowered and the display would look the same as before (the CRT is drawing a third of a million pixels at 640x480)
  19. Sunlight? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
    now you might have to do without sunlight to be secure!

    No problem for most slashdot readers, since they are most likely asking: "What is this sunlight you speak of?"

    1. Re:Sunlight? by danielrose · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you ripped of this comment. Wouldn't you agree?

      Mod this guy down as redundant :)

      --
      i hate pansy republicans
    2. Re:Sunlight? by rtaylor · · Score: 2

      I hear they compete with Tide.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    3. Re:Sunlight? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      No problem for most slashdot readers, since they are most likely asking: "What is this sunlight you speak of?"

      Don't be silly. We all know what sunlight is: light from the sun.

      The real question is: What's the sun? And why haven't I seen it before? And why does it 'tan' others but not me?

  20. simple answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    paper your walls with tinfoil. reflective materials are a bitch if they're slightly crumpled.

  21. Next, Randomly Scanning monitors by cyber_rigger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can see it now. Random scan order on your monitor. CRTs will (probably), eventually be a thing of the past and replaced with somthing that doesn't have a scan timing to be deciphered.

    1. Re:Next, Randomly Scanning monitors by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

      CRTs will (probably), eventually be a thing of the past and replaced with somthing that doesn't have a scan timing to be deciphered.

      Uh, you mean like, LCDs?

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  22. Sunlight? by Knunov · · Score: 2, Redundant

    "Forget taping up LEDs or living in a metal box - now you might have to do without sunlight to be secure!"

    What's this 'sunlight' I keep hearing about?

    Knunov

    --
    Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
  23. Duh... by CTalkobt · · Score: 1

    From reading the pdf linked - it sounds like with a sufficiently high sammpling rate ( their words more or less ) it's possible to re-render the text. This should hold true to the way scan-guns work on most monitors.

    What's new here? This is almost equivlant to putting a Video Camera infront of a monitor and then hooking the output up to your TV.

    --
    There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    1. Re:Duh... by Bistromat · · Score: 2

      the difference is, as you would no doubt know if you actually HAD read the article, that this attack allows the reconstruction of the CRT image from reflected, diffuse light; the only information an attacker needs is the glow of the monitor on the walls of the room.

      ever looked in a window down the street late at night and seen the whole room lit up by a television?

    2. Re:Duh... by CTalkobt · · Score: 1

      Uh - That's what I thought I said.. Anyway, to restate:

      Due emission of the signal and sampling of it it's about the same as a VCR recorder going except the sampler on the VCR doesn't have to do an scan - it's getting samples of the monitor gun firing at the current time. THis, coupled with a fairly easy routine to take those samples and display them into an array should yield a fairly good greyscale image ( possibly you can get more but ... anyway.. ).

      Because this is only a small alteration on the basic premise of a VCR I don't see what the big deal is.

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
  24. Please change your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Some of us are browsing /. from the workplace (sure beats doing actual work) and cannot use a better browser than IE, and I guess it's your sig that widens the page with a windowed IE (I get scrollbars unless I suppress your post). Have mercy on us poor souls, thank you.

  25. TFT! by ThatComputerGuy · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Yeah, I better get my Tin Foil Top out too..

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  26. Computers And Networks Leak Like Sieve by pryan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know why everyone is so shocked that people can eavesdrop, there is almost zero emmission security in almost anything deployed almost anywhere. Then again, currently, there's no practical need for such secured equipment in a normal civilian environment.

    On of the guys I used to work with would talk about the truck that would park outside their NOC to listen to their ethernet via radio receivers on the truck. One can guess where the truck came from, but the scary part is that this was more than a decade ago. They were doing things that might possibly be of interest to spooks, or perhaps a well-funded competitor.

    It's fun to engage in a fantasy world where government spooks are around every corner, but in reality there's no justification for spending large amounts of money or time to protect yourself from imagined threats like that. I am more worried about somebody breaking into my house to steal my stuff or script kiddies from Germany installing an IRC server on my boxes than the government spying on me.

    Most of us do not have anything that would justify non-criminals to bother with us. Those of us that do usually have the budgets to do something about it. And the criminals are not terribly sophisticated, so common sense and a decent system administrator are usually enough to meet the standard threats. Most criminals are opportunists, if you present a challenge, they'll move on to the guy who has his root password set to "password".

    The people who have highly sensitive stuff know that there's no real security in most hardware and software and work to build environments to protect their stuff. They probably do not buy their hardware from Dell.

    Those of us who really only need to protect our banking and personal information as well as our bandwidth don't need to worry about monitor emission security just yet. For banking information, it's much easier to get that information in much more mundane ways than eavesdropping on your monitor. You should worry about what your local convienence store does with their copy of your credit card receipt.

  27. This is old! by scorcherer · · Score: 1

    Studying in cam.ac.uk, I went to see a talk by Duncan Campbell on modern espionage in October 2000. In the end he asked Markus Kuhn from the audience to explain his latest work, CRT eavesdropping. So I guess 'news' is a relative concept :-)

    --

    --
    The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.

    1. Re:This is old! by oakbox · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I thought that this was discussed at the 95 Hacker-con in Washington DC. The story was that the FBI has/had a device that could 'read' your screen for up to a kilometer away by looking at your light/RF CRT emissions. Anyone else remember something about this?

      -oakbox

      --
      Not just answers, the correct questions.
  28. Flat Screens by Technician · · Score: 2

    LCD's do not use a scanning electron beam, so the screen display is not made up by the high bandwidth light output. LCD's on the desk top and on laptops are a step in the right direction. The other solution is never use a computer in a dark room. Kick on a few compact flourescent lights. Their high frequency operation and high output goes a long way to adding lots of noise (opticaly) to the environment. Tempest then becomes difficult the same way it is to eavesdrop on the couple whispering to each other a few rows up at a concert.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
    1. Re:Flat Screens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm, yah, flourescent high frequency? they still run at 60 Hz, and you prolly use a 85 Hz refresh on the your monitor, but that's hte vertical refresh, you horizontal is much much higher, like 110 khz or something. so if someone is sampling at a rate high enough to reconstruct your screen, the lamps will look like a slowly creeping band of intereference over a pretty clear reconstruction.

    2. Re:Flat Screens by Technician · · Score: 3, Informative

      flourescent high frequency? they still run at 60 Hz
      Please research the electronic balast on the compact flourrescent bulbs. They are not a big inductor that the old F40CW bulbs used. After AC is rectified into DC, a high frequency oscilator drives the bulb through a balast capacitor. They operate depending on manufacture in the 6-25 KHZ range. Even the PDF file mentions they are a good source of noise because sevral bulbs are not in sync making the noise harder to predict and remove as a repetative waveform.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  29. Re:Waste of cpu cycles by heretic108 · · Score: 1

    Has any Windows XP source code turned up in there yet?

    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
  30. monitor tans by RestiffBard · · Score: 2

    um don't most of us shun sunlight now anyway? heck my drapes never open. I think the dust has glued them shut.

    --
    - /* dead coders leave no comments */
  31. paranoia by chargi · · Score: 1

    It never ceases to amaze me how we paranoids are constantly proven right yet so many refuse to believe that they are out to get us.

  32. I win by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 2

    I already covered my windows with lead a while back to keep the Illuminati mind rays out!

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

  33. Read the Article by Wire+Tap · · Score: 2

    This works only for 10 MBs and lower equipment. IE: phone modems, many NICs, etc... etc...

    --

    Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.

  34. A really good point by JMZero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If someone wanted to steal information from our files, they could do so through the internet.

    Or they could tell the receptionist they're here to see Bob, and then go look at the paper files. I think it would be easier to do the latter.

    But very few would attempt the second kind of attack, because it's hard to say "Oh yeah, I was just checking out security. Just playing." when someone discovers you digging through files on someone else's property.

    In the same way, stealing information via CRT flicker requires too much of a physical commitment for it to gain much popularity I think. At least in most cases - it might be different if your office is accross from a competitor's. Even then, seems like it would be easier just to zoom in and watch them type their password.

    Interesting article anywho.

    .

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    1. Re:A really good point by BreakWindows · · Score: 1

      If someone wanted to steal information from our files, they could do so through the internet.
      Or they could tell the receptionist they're here to see Bob, and then go look at the paper files. I think it would be easier to do the latter.


      What if your internet connection is secured? Or, more likely, the sensitive data isn't even on a machine connected to the internet? And since you work with something worth stealing, you hired someone more aware than a receptionist to block entry to the building, and your important paper-trail isn't left out on a desk in an unlocked room? Persons working with large companies and government institutions should at least be aware that things like this exist.

      Obviously this isn't relevant to some little dotcom startup. But data worth stealing will be stolen...and if they can't get physical access, or net access, they have to take on other means. Bribery is an option, but risky since it's easy for someone to blow the whistle. Same for blackmail and extortion. This seems easy compared to some alternatives, especially considering many large companies exist in large cities: I can get an apartment or an office across the street from their servers, and try to pick off data without anyone in the world knowing. If you're a security professional, this should at least be in the back of your mind.

    2. Re:A really good point by JMZero · · Score: 1

      Definitely - sometimes it's hard to remember the wide disparity between the security needs I have, and the security needs of, say, national defense. Good point.

      Perhaps the advice then for someone with truly sensitive data is that lots of these types of attacks are out there. And no matter how secure your data is virtually, you still need fences, guys with guns, and thick walls.

      .

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  35. Would we be breaking T&Cs? by rant-mode-on · · Score: 1

    Don't think my cable co is gonna be happy when they find out that somebody else is watching all those adverts that I've only paid enough for myself to watch...

  36. Van Eck radiaton attack much worse by diablovision · · Score: 1

    This attack looks pretty innocuous when you look at how it's possible to reconstruct the video signal via the EM signal your CRT generates.

    http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_ gc i550525,00.html

    Forget closing the windows. Better build a grounded copper mesh encases your house.

    --
    120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
    1. Re:Van Eck radiaton attack much worse by gordguide · · Score: 2

      It gets even better...
      Run this Linux program and beam music all over the house, by turning your monitor into a radio station (modulating it's signal). It's a pretty convincing proof for those who doubt the "story" about reading your CRT from a properly equipped van down the street.

      http://www.erikyyy.de/tempest/

  37. Software protection against that ? by tempmpi · · Score: 2

    The monitor gets its sync information over the vga cable but the persons that tries to read the screen using this technology must guess the sync information.
    A little software that modulates the h and v sync rate every frame should make it much harder to get a readable image. But I'm not sure if you could still get a stable image on the screen if your change your sync rates every frame. That software protection could be effective because it is very likely that they need to record more than one screen refresh to get a image that has a good enough to read it.
    Also high resolutions and high vsync rates in general should make it harder to use that technology. Using non-standard resolutions and sync rates also make the sync information guessing harder.

    --
    Jan
    1. Re:Software protection against that ? by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

      it doesn't have to do any "guessing", all it has to do is look for the horizontal vertical blanking periods, which are pretty easy. You can have the horizontal timing after two scan lines, and the vertical timings after two refreshes.

      As far as dynamically changing scan rates in software... that won't work, and would probably damage the monitor, if someone managed to do it.

      This isn't meant to capture one "screen" of information, it's meant to give you a duplicate, real-time image of what's on the target monitor.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  38. Question to ./ community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we all feeling so collectively insignificant now that we need to invent these paranoid fantasies to prop up what's left of our dignity?

  39. How about a digital LCD? by Tom7 · · Score: 1

    I doubt anyone here actually knows about this, but we can all speculate together...

    How safe is a LCD monitor with a digital (DVI) connection? The video card is probably not putting out RF emissions (because it's sending a digital signal), and there's no scanning CRT to track. What would be the easiest route to eavesdropping on that?

    1. Re:How about a digital LCD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how it's possible to spy on a video card that has no analog signal processing.
      say you have an asic, and you know the clock frequency. i don't see how you could distinguish between the magnetic fields from the transitor for the red pixel and the magnetic fields for the transitor that powers the green pixel. not to mention how hard it'd be to try to read those fields from outside a house in a van.

    2. Re:How about a digital LCD? by kwishot · · Score: 2

      Don't many video cards with digital connections also have standard analog connections? I seem to remember that quite a few of the ones that I've seen have.

      If so, do both connectors output the signal even if only one is in use?

      -kwishot

    3. Re:How about a digital LCD? by Tom7 · · Score: 1

      Yes, mine does. I think that's pretty common, since DVI output is seen as an "extra".

      I think that the analog output is off normally (since there is a way to select outputs in the control panel), though I'm not sure if that prevents RF emissions or what.

    4. Re:How about a digital LCD? by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

      pet peeve:

      The video card is probably not putting out RF emissions

      Yes it is. All signals of any kind that are not D.C. and have sufficiently fast frequency emit RF, and any kind of switch to on or off (digital) WILL emit RF.

      That includes flicking the power switch on ANY device, and the digital signals going across your cable.

      At any rate, this isn't the problem with the method described, the problem is the LIGHT from the CRT, since it can be sampled and dupicated.

      LCDs do not do this, because they don't scan, so your LCD is safe from this kind of eavesdropping.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  40. Security to do list by appleprophet · · Score: 5, Funny

    1) Remove Windows from computer
    2) Remove windows from computer room

    1. Re:Security to do list by Infinite+Monkeys · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha! That was funny, homeslice! MOD THIS UP EVEN MORE!!!! He bashed Windows! Har har har. Slashdot sucks my fucking hairy balls.

  41. So what... by mlg9000 · · Score: 1

    In order to take advantage of this or the LED trick you have to have some line of sight and the equipment on hand to do it. Every corporate server I've ever worked on has been kept in a locked room somewhere where only a handful of people have access. If someone did manage to get into that room there would be much worse things to worry about than this. On the client side access would be easier but most likely you'd have a user sitting there to deal with. I just don't see why anyone would go to the trouble of trying something like this when there are much easier ways of doing it. Besides the standard everyday break-ins what about all the RF signals a computer gives off? You don't need a line of sight to pick those up. With a powerful enough antennas you might even be able to pick them up miles away! Only ultra secure organizations like the NSA, CIA, etc... would really have to worry about something like this.

  42. Your Mother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like your mother is a whore. Wouldn't you agree?

    Fuck this guy up as insightful.

    1. Re:Your Mother? by danielrose · · Score: 1

      Ehek! Ehek! The least you can do is post without being an AC, fuckwit.

      --
      i hate pansy republicans
  43. Easy prevention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just do what I do... watch TV and play on the computer at the same time.

    Won't the government be surprised to find that Mulder and Scully are surfing Google for new signs of alien life and government conspiracy!

  44. static by Parsec · · Score: 1

    In theory, wouldn't it be possible to also defeat this by turning a few old televisions in the room to an unused channel displaying static?

    But your screen can probably be read off that tin-foil hat while a Carnivore analyzes the time difference between encrypted packets based on one-handed typing.

  45. Add some noise to the decoding problem by Bogatyr · · Score: 1

    Add some light sources that interfere with the signal to be decoded. Get some strobe lights, some Intellibeams. Get a lava lamp or two. Get a mirrorball. Live, work, and code in a dance club.

    Or just turn on a particular kind of CRT called a television with the sound off, not in your field of vision but lighting up the room, especially if it's aimed towards the windows. Leave it on any active channel.

    1. Re:Add some noise to the decoding problem by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Or you can be productive and secure at the same time by getting a second or third monitor. I'd like to see them try and use this on me, with my 3 monitor xinerama setup.

    2. Re:Add some noise to the decoding problem by Bogatyr · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

    3. Re:Add some noise to the decoding problem by beaubell · · Score: 1

      I envy you.

    4. Re:Add some noise to the decoding problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soultion.
      Dual head video card - or more -
      2 outputs inverse signal to #2, to an identical monitor, so all ones. more random outputs on 3+4, plus an antenna stirrer above the monitors. if video clocks were common.. difficult.

  46. Don't use Microsoft by racerx509 · · Score: 1

    "Rooms where a significant amount of the ambient light comes from displayed sensitive information should be shielded appropriately, for example by avoiding Windows."

    Well Gee, didn't we already know that?

    --
    13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
  47. What's sunlight ? by Jasynxxiii · · Score: 1

    Is it available in code ?

    --
    >;)~!
  48. VESA by Turbyne · · Score: 0
    According to the paper,
    This test image was displayed in the same video mode as before (VESA 640 x 480@85Hz).
    and that the tests were performed on a Dell D1025HE 17" monitor.

    I'd be interested in seeing the results from the same experiment, except with a framed Despair, Inc. poster hanging on an old-skool-Mac beige or old-skool-iMac blue wall, with funky Star Trek red alert lighting (or disco lights too), and two 17" monitors at 1600 x 1200 side by side, with a third 15" montior running some spiffy Winamp visualization at 1024 x 768 to the left ome, and a funky Sharper Image thing glowing on the desk.

    Or you can just do the experiment at 1280 x 1024.

    Turbyne
    "Guys cry over cars; men cry over boats, but real men cry over guns." - unknown
    --
    ~A'Ëq'i4d)^'$ÊSÈòB
  49. It's in the book "Cybershock" by ImaLamer · · Score: 2
    ...I borrowed it from the library, and 'tempest' is at the end saying that it was the next level of 'cracking'. Or eavesdropping, I should say that instead. I can't say what edition the book was so the year is also impossible to know. Supposedly this "Hack" has been on Geraldo.

    Just goes to show that computers draw together the people who are nervous and those who actually want to watch those scared people who are putting duct tape over their windows.

  50. This isn't new... by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

    It's already known that your monitor gives out EM waves in a way that with a radio it might be possible to tell what's on the monitor...

    It was on slashdot a while ago...

    --
    Don't quote me on this.
    1. Re:This isn't new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, mother fucker, you're pretty damn sharp! That's only been said about 5,000 FUCKING TIMES ALREADY.

  51. New way of doing an old trick. by BenTheDewpendent · · Score: 1

    CRT monitors have been "sniffed" with a special raido setup that allows whats ont he screen to be reconstructed. This is part of the reason antialasing fonts have be come popular because it make the text blury too the sniffers.

    1. Re:New way of doing an old trick. by Tipsy+McStagger · · Score: 1

      I always figured that AA on fonts came from the desire to have them look nice and not hurt your eyes so much.

    2. Re:New way of doing an old trick. by BenTheDewpendent · · Score: 1

      I said part of the reason not the entire reason.
      I personaly couldnt tell when i switched to AA fonts when they became avaliable for windows 98.

  52. the blue flash will tell an eavesdropper... by gTsiros · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...that the computer just crashed nastily (AND that it was running windows) if anything.

    --
    Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
  53. Re:I love pi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pi is not the greatest number.
    There are many numbers greater than pi.
    4>pi.

  54. This is a violation of the DMCA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a copy protection circumvention technique which bypasses the built in copy protection of DVDs and allows for the unauthorized reception of DVD video viewed on CRT displays. I'm going to call Jack Valenti right now, shame on all of you...

  55. solution? by bpb213 · · Score: 1

    if youre monitor and graphics cards had high refresh rates, what if you were to alternate screens of gibberish into the refresh at random cycles, and have some form of lcd shutter goggles that are synced to block the gibberish from you. Anyone think that could work or be feasible?

    --

    This .sig looking for creative and witty saying.
  56. OLEDs... by Hallucinosis · · Score: 1

    What will this mean for OLEDs? They will be able to read the information directly off of the OLEDs AND the reflections!

  57. Photonic interference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Counting a lamp, a desklamp, flashing LEDs, an aquarium lamp, a lightning ball thingie, and candles, my computer room has 10 - 30 light sources that *aren't* my monitor.

    Good luck decrypting my photonic code when I set the lightning ball to react to my tunes. :)

  58. Slashdot submission recipie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a +5 comment from a previous article and submit it as a story. If the moderators thought it was good, then the editors should, too!

  59. Where is the red? by stuffman64 · · Score: 1

    Truely superb work. However, if you notice, red does not come through on the reconstructions. Perhaps this is something to do with his use of P22 phospors, or I missed some important detail.

    So, what does this teach us? If you are doing anything illegal on your computer, and you do not want to be caught, stick with red text on a black background. Or, if you want full color on a good CRT, put a hood on it like those turn-of-the-century cameras. Imagine the look on your co-workers face (or friends at a LAN party) when you stick your head under the hood and go to work. Then listen to them laugh as you reach for your coffee and spill it all over the place because you can't see anything. Oh well.

    --
    --- At my sig, unleash hell.
  60. Why? by molywi · · Score: 1

    Why do people waste time on useless studies? (ok, not useless) This technology would never be something put into use as it is not feasible and will definetely not be reliable to use as a spying tool. The only peopl to pursue this might be the government as they are always looking for ways to find out what people are up to.

  61. OMG, Whatever next? by WasterDave · · Score: 3, Funny

    God, maybe someone standing behind me can see what's on my CRT too?

    Dave

    --
    I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
  62. No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would require optimal lighting conditions, correct paint (by this I mean how it absorbs or reflects light as well as how it shifts light in the color spectrum), and very specific measurements of the room and all reflective surfaces. I really doubt this.

  63. Different problem - same fix by Sabalon · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have a ton of LED's in my computer room. It used to have an odd glow, but some electrical tape over them fixed that. Now, with the exception of my speakers, you can't see any of the LED's - it's now secure from LED sniffing.

    So, I just applied the same fix for this, since my monitor faces a window. There is now a few strips (about 30) of electrical tape covering my monitor and the flicker is gone.

    I appologize for any typing errors though. Every fix has a downside :)

    1. Re:Different problem - same fix by Tipsy+McStagger · · Score: 1

      I would do the same for your speakers if I were you. You don't wanna get done for unauthorised broadcasting..

  64. I knew there was a good reason... by stienman · · Score: 2

    I knew there was a good reason to run my screen a 1600x1200x75Hz. Someone would have to be receiving a 144MHz optical signal to get a decent reading of my screen, and from far away it's not easy...

    -Adam

  65. Truly Amazing! by Baalam · · Score: 1

    According to the article, with the aid of a device called a telescope I can see someone's screen from a long distance. What will they think of next, using a magnifying glass to see thing that are very very small?

  66. Different story, same people by hackshack · · Score: 1

    From the folks who brought you "that LED story," comes "that CRT story." Check the PDF.

  67. Flat panels? by Kizzle · · Score: 1

    Can this evesdroping happen witha lcd screen too?

  68. A good excuse by LatJoor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    See, my girlfriend is always complaining because I keep the blinds pulled all the time. My computer is right next to the window, and the glare gets to me. Plus, I sleep on the side of the bed that's toward the window. (Small apartment, same room.) So, now I have a good excuse: it's to protect me from government scrutiny. It's better than the old excuse, which is that I'm a vampire.

    --
    I gave up my +1 bonus, don't mod me down!

  69. There's only one thing to do! by thefuckedupgenius · · Score: 1

    Buy a tinfoil hat, a shotgun, some TV glasses, and a bomb shelter and move to Iceland.

    --
    I hate those losers who can't come up with a decent sig. Oh, wait...
  70. NOT tempest by Barbarian · · Score: 2

    Tempest refers to stray electromagnetic radiation that is "read" by appropriate radio equipment nearby, this article is about stray light emissions that are picked up by a photosensor.

    1. Re:NOT tempest by ImaLamer · · Score: 2
      Well, look at the title "CRT Eavesdropping: Optical Tempest".

      Exactly nigga.

      see where that word is appropriate and fits anywhere? remove the stigma!!!!

  71. It's no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get one of those bright lights which are used to help people in the North with seasonally affected disorded (SAD). Put it next to your window. Turn it on. I quarantee, there won't be a bit observed anywhere if you pump some serious light of your windows.

  72. Huh? by Cynical_Dude · · Score: 1

    ...now you might have to do without sunlight to be secure!

    What is this sunlight you speak of?

  73. Security holes in walls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I guess, their network was Banyan Vines? ;-)

    1. Re:Security holes in walls by Reziac · · Score: 2

      LOL!! Actually, at the time it might well have been! :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  74. Sunlight? by riflemann · · Score: 1
    now you might have to do without sunlight to be secure!

    What's "sunlight"?

  75. Re:I love pi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    e is better

  76. Big deal by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Informative

    you can evesdrop on conversations by hiding in a bush and using a gadget to read the vibrations of a window from the reflected light on it.

    You can pickup cordless, and maybe even cellphones (digital/encryption though).

    You can open up the phone junction box outside the building and tap the wires.

    You can pick-up the emf from a monitor or tv and reconstruct the image (pretty hard i think).

    You can use the earth wire in a house to transmit data from bugs hidden in plugs.

    You can use tools like netbus etc.. to view peoples computer over a network.

    You can trick security guards with dumb-busty-blondes(tm)*

    *I in no way endorse the use of busty-blondes(tm) or in anyway imply that they are all dumb, or that security guards are shallow/thick and are easily seduced.

    You can look into windows with telescopes

    You can recover badly deleted data from disks

    You can packet sniff

    You can abuse the fact that your an admin for that network and get anything you want

    You can even use money to get information

    And now you can use LEDs and monitor flicker too... And the FBI wants _more_ rights to tap you?!?!? how does that work?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  77. News update!! by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    The MPAA has just released a memo to all government agencies and private detectives hoping to use this method for surveillance. Apparently you cannot use it while someone is watching a film or other copyrighted work on their monitor as this is a violation of the DMCA. They had originally planned to ban this technology completely, but Bush decided that it would put the USA at a distinct disadvantage in the surveillance world, so they settled for this fix instead.

    If you want to protect yourself, have a dvd looping in a small window on your monitor and spies will be forced to stop watching, or face the penalties. This law also applies to Russia and all other countries by order of US international law(tm)

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  78. Optical data capture by toxcspdrmn · · Score: 1

    The next thing you know, they'll be telling me that people can get information on what I'm doing, using no specialist equipment just by standing behind me and looking at the screen over my shoulder! I'll have to start doing everything using ssh (Secure SHpectacles).

    --
    "E pur si muove!" - attributed to Galileo Galilei, 1564-1642
  79. That's what I was thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I forget how, but at some point I was taking pictures of my monitor and it's clear to see that the phosphorous glows some time after the beam has hit it. I'd say about 1/5 of the screen was still visible in the pictures, brightest on the scanline the beam had just passed and dimming on upwards about 1/5 of the screen until it was too dark to see. I would think the best you could do then is obtain the average color of each scanline, which isn't of much use.

    As for needing a 500Hz refresh rate, that isn't the case. The persistance of vision that allows your eyes to see a constant picture on the screen has nothing to do with how long the picture is there, only how many times it is there in a second. Anything 60 or more is fine. If you have a surface that continues to display the picture long enough for the next retrace beam, then you don't need even 60, since the picture really is there all of the time.


    Televisions, although being 30 frames a second, display an interlaced picture which means there are 60 pictures displayed a second, which is aparently good enough to trick our eyes. Movies aren't anywhere near 60 frames per second either, so each frame is flashed on the screen two or three times so that there are at least 60 flashes per second. It doesn't matter how short the flashes are, just so long as there is at least 60 of them and they contain enough light for out eyes to see them. (Shorter flashes will need more light.)

    1. Re:That's what I was thinking... by mr3038 · · Score: 2
      I forget how, but at some point I was taking pictures of my monitor and it's clear to see that the phosphorous glows some time after the beam has hit it. I'd say about 1/5 of the screen was still visible in the pictures, brightest on the scanline the beam had just passed and dimming on upwards about 1/5 of the screen until it was too dark to see. I would think the best you could do then is obtain the average color of each scanline, which isn't of much use.

      I'd say that the shutter time was about 1/5th of your screen refresh rate. If you take a photo of 100Hz monitor with 10ms shutter time full screen should be visible with equal intensity simply because monitor can draw full screen in 10ms. With 5ms shutter time you get exactly half the screen and so on.

      If you constantly measure light level and digitize it every 5 ns [1] you should be able to get pixel intensity value for every single pixel on a 1600x1200@85Hz screen. The problem is to get meaningful readings with 5 ns "shutter time". Fortunately for you, there'll be much extra noise from the light emitted from the still more or less gloving previous pixels and office lighting and whatnot. However, the pixel the CRT is currently drawing is the brightest and this is how it works... if it works. If you want to make it hard for 'them' just use high resolution with high refresh rate. And extra small fonts.

      1. Roughtly the time needed per pixel when drawing 1600x1200@85Hz, I calculated this as 1/(1800x1400x85) sec to take CRT scanning into account.

      --
      _________________________
      Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
  80. A prediction by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

    queue lots of arguments about whether it's blue or green that has the longest wavelength.

  81. simple solution... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    so just add a few strobelights, a mirror ball, some other types of disco lighting to the computer room and Voila.. no more security risk and the work environment has been improved...

    Now to get this project's captial budget approved in the name of company security...

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  82. New method but isn't this YEARS old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember on Tommorows World (UK TV Science program) many many years ago (80's I think) they showed someone sitting outside a building picking up radio emmisions from screens and redisplaying them.

    Don't worry, if you have anything worth stealing it's probably already long gone...

  83. I love the irony.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of all the techno-fetishists who say the vacuum tube is dead, and now we have a PMT spying on a CRT ...
    I love vacuum tubes!

  84. Ummmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The red part of the test screen didn't make it. Just use a red-only color scheme and you're ok, for as long as you can stare at a red screen. Hey maybe that will be training for a Mars mission?

  85. Thanks for all the good news! by Erris · · Score: 1

    I'd be real concerned if pros like you were not keeping my data safe . I will also sleep well at night knowing that the government has no interst in my personal letters and phone calls or my company's records. I will continue to use my high speed internet access without fear of eavesdropping. The constituion and people like you protect me!

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:Thanks for all the good news! by pryan · · Score: 2

      Those items you mention are all social and political issues, there're not really technological issues.

    2. Re:Thanks for all the good news! by Erris · · Score: 2
      Those items you mention are all social and political issues, there're not really technological issues.

      Gee, thanks troll. I thought I was talking about eavesdropping, and that the parent post was trying to tell me not to worry, that no one was really interested in insignificant little me especially with hard to use toys like optical tempest. The things I pointed to make blue light chasing unneeded but also show intent to look into everyone's life strong enough to use optical tempest. Of course the article said that optical tempest was good from 200 feet, so it would work from a van on the curb or a house next to yours. Sleep well.

      --
      DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  86. Possible solution: by CoolVibe · · Score: 2

    Cover the CRT/LCD of your screen with duct tape. One downside: Duct tape isn't really that transparent, but I guess that was my point... :)