A Device to Grab Data From Cell Phones

what about writes "Apparently there is a quick, simple, and undetectable way to grab all of your cellphone data. CNet reports on the Cellular Seizure Investigation (CSI) Stick, developed for law enforcement but available to the public, which 'connects to the data/charging port and will seamlessly grab e-mails, instant messages, dialed numbers, phone books and anything else that is stored in memory. It will even retrieve deleted files that have not been overwritten. And there is no trace whatsoever that the information has been compromised, nor any risk of corruption. This may be especially troublesome for corporate employees and those that work for government agencies.' I use mobile knox, a secure storage application, for my important data, but I would be very upset if somebody grabbed my telephone list, SMS, or anything else from my locked phone."

Comments

Non free is always this way.

[twitter]

Anyone have any doubts left about the importance of software freedom for all your devices?

Re:Non free is always this way.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its great. Theres now a way to copy DRM-laiden MP3s and ringtones from your phone.

Re:Non free is always this way.

[davolfman]

It's a failure of security through obscurity. The cell phone companies have concentrated so much on selling the syncing systems for absurd amounts that they never bothered to actually secure the interface.

oye!

[houbou]

I always knew that cell phones are vulnerable, but to know there is a device which can basically clone your data out, with NO trace, that's downright scary! Even when LOCKED? We should start reading our contracts and our EULAs on our phone, somehow, somewhere, there's got to be something to rely on legally, if this can happen.

Re:oye!

[plover]

I always knew that cell phones are vulnerable, but to know there is a device which can basically clone your data out, with NO trace, that's downright scary! Even when LOCKED? We should start reading our contracts and our EULAs on our phone, somehow, somewhere, there's got to be something to rely on legally, if this can happen.

Such a device is called a "computer", and many people already own one. By means of a secondary device, called a "USB cable", one can attach a computer to a cell phone and read the contents from it.

If you read the "instruction manual" that comes with your cell phone, you can see plainly that a cable can be connected between the phone and the computer and the contents read from it. No phone manual I have ever read says anything about authentication of the USB cable connection. Therefore you have already been informed of as much as you need to know, legally.

Re:oye!

[houbou]

Gee, I must have dumb written all over my forehead for you to write that, because, I know that IF I take MY OWN PHONE and I hook it up to my PC I can clone it. The article is about phones that can be cloned while locked. The lock feature isn't working as advertised, I believe that's the issue here. It can be easily overriden. There is software out there to do so, maybe that's what that original article was all about. My worries is that what's the point of locking your phone and someone can rip the data out of it regardless? Right? RIGHT?

Re:oye!

[houbou]

Uh.. gee, let's put imagination 101 to the test.. say for example, your phone is:

1. locked, and
2. lost or stolen..

In real life, who the hell would locked their phone and maybe lose it uh? right? can't possible happen, that's way to fictional, going on sci-fi here..

You would THINK your phone numbers and whatever else is stored, at least is somewhat safe, but wait.. not anymore.. if a company sells you a phone and says it's safe when it is locked, only for anyone with the right software to override the locked feature, I think there is something wrong with this picture. That's the problem as I see it, if I'm naive, so be it, but I think there is a point to this, so, call me naive here, but I think you forgot that part of the equation in your comment :)

Re:oye!

[TedRiot]

I would like to know if USB sync works on Nokia E-series that has been remotely locked using SMS. If anyone has tried - I haven't, but I probably will tomorrow just out of curiosity.

Regarding stolen phones my company uses Intellisync, where you can set the phone stolen (I don't remember the exact term used in the UI). The option does a reset to factory settings and destroys all data on at least Nokia E-series and 9300.

I know, doesn't prevent fast people from syncing PIM data from the phone or reading the file system.

This only works on SOME phones

[davidwr]

Phones without a data port are immune.

Phones whose firmware will not send a particular piece of data over the data port are immune as long as the firmware isn't updated. Updating the firmware leaves a trace.

This goes to show that in many cases, physical access is ultimate access.

I see a market for "secure" phones where the data part of the data/charging port is disabled unless you plug in a key or type in a code. Many companies will gladly pay for such a device.

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[linzeal]

Physical access still is not going to break some encryption, what worries me is that phone companies are not allowing you to have that level of encryption for your contact list, SMS and other "proprietary" parts of the phone's logic.

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a market for "secure" phones where the data part of the data/charging port is disabled unless you plug in a key or type in a code. Many companies will gladly pay for such a device.

You know what those "secure" phones are called? Blackberries. Go buy one today!

On a blackberry, you can have all content on the phone strongly encrypted with AES. If your company has a blackberry enterprise server, you can even make this mandatory and prevent the user from disabling content encryption.

If content encryption is on, then the blackberry won't send data via the data port or bluetooth until the password is entered. Enter the wrong password 10 times and the blackberry securely wipes itself.

Despite the proliferation of mobile phones & wireless email, no one comes close to the blackberry platform for features & security. Not iphone, not windows mobile, not nokia. Some very smart people at RIM have looked at wireless email from end-to-end. The blackberry platform has also been audited from end-to-end by many governments and tech experts. What RIM really needs is a good marketing campaign to establish themselves as a "cool" brand.

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[thetartanavenger]

Whilst this is getting better pretty damn rapidly with newer smartphones, I wouldn't have thought most phones would be able to handle that much encryption. Tis rather processor intensive, killing the battery. Although I guess they could add in extra hardware for the purpose, again killing the battery.

For a lot of people phones should be basic things that make calls, send texts, and not die on them, enryption doesn't even enter their head. With the phone makers, it not about not allowing you to have strong encryption, it's encryption being too resource intensive. Of course not all phone makers have this issue and the likes of the jesus phone should be providing such critical function.

I do agree with you though, so bring on the openmoko, or possibly android...

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[Tony Hoyle]

The connector on it looks like a Nokia handsfree connector, so it'll only work on those phones that have that sort of connector... and even then only those that have a data port there (very few in fact.. most have the data port under the battery these days).

A single device that would get data off *any* phone is impossible - there are too many differences in them. You need a device per phone model, and even then you'd need the data format which is often proprietary (connecting to an iphone is totally unlike connecting to a 3310 for example).

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[pdxp]

Sounds like they've got the software licked. Now if they would only make some decent hardware, people might start to believe the whole "cool" thing.

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[dotancohen]

I see a market for "secure" phones where the data part of the data/charging port is disabled unless you plug in a key or type in a code. Many companies will gladly pay for such a device.

So long as the data port is not playing double duty as the charging port, take a screwdriver to it. That's what people in sensitive government jobs to the cameras in their cellphones. In Israel, it doesn't even void the warranty under most circumstances.

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[phoenix321]

We're not talking about a stream cipher that encrypts megabytes of data per second but phone number, a string with a maximum of about 15 digits, maybe more.

And then the contents of SMS, again 160 half-bytes at max. I mean, these phone CPUs can decrypt tiny videos at 15fps and not break a sweat, come on, they CAN encrypt less than a dozen kilobytes without killing the battery.

Then again, I'd rather recharge the phone every fourth day instead of every fifth when I can be sure that no one can clone its contents when I look away for a second.

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[noidentity]

If content encryption is on, then the blackberry won't send data via the data port or bluetooth until the password is entered. Enter the wrong password 10 times and the blackberry securely wipes itself.

Couldn't it do something less-drastic like exponentially reducing the frequency of password attempts allowed? So after 10 errors, there's an hour delay before it allows another? And after say 15, several hours?

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[coaxial]

If content encryption is on, then the blackberry won't send data via the data port or bluetooth until the password is entered. Enter the wrong password 10 times and the blackberry securely wipes itself.

Of course this is dependent on the software acting the way you describe. It's just as easy to have the dongle send some command, and then have the data dumped regardless of the encryption status. Sure, you'd have encrypted data (assuming of course that the password isn't stored in a two-way cipher on the phone itself.), but your faith in "oh but it won't send anything without my password" is naive.

Some very smart people at RIM have looked at wireless email from end-to-end. The blackberry platform has also been audited from end-to-end by many governments and tech experts.

The security of the wireless email is irrelevant here. We're essentially talking about cloning phones via physical access.

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[lysergic.acid]

they need to adopt a moron urban vibe, maybe do a commercial with kanye west.

yo, where you at, dawg?

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[lysergic.acid]

oops, that should read "more urban vibe." i'm not a racist, i swear.

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[Kanasta]

since when were data ports standardized anyway?

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[neonsignal]

the data port software for my phone has such an arcane interface that I would be surprised if even the manufacturer can get data off it!

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[the_B0fh]

You smoke something really really good. There are so many issues with blackberry security that it is scary. To start - everything goes through their "cloud". They own your keys. What makes you think that there's no backdoor in there? If someone as big as IBM/Lotus Notes will put a backdoor in, can a small company like RIM, which actively targets the govt market, not put something in?

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[DigitAl56K]

You know what those "secure" phones are called? Blackberries. Go buy one today!

Hah! RIM doesn't even support it's own device security properly. Want to get your encrypted photos back off the device? Good luck! You have to downgrade your desktop software installation to a special old version just to do it because the later revisions that feature a Roxio application in place of the media manager don't seem to support decrypting photos.

Just Google ".jpg.rem" to see the extent of the problem.

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[thetartanavenger]

Good point. I'm just so used to using putty on my phone and having it die by the end of the day that any word of phones and encryption and it cries out in disgust.

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[funfail]

Well, unlike Notes, the blackberry platform has been audited from end-to-end by [...]

Hey, Lotus Notes is used by CIA and many governments all around the world. I don't think they chose it without auditing.

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[Anachragnome]

I was kind of thinking of doing this myself.

Finding out which contact(s) in the port are for data transfer, and wire in an INTERNAL (as in, have to take the fucking thing apart) switch to manually sever the data circuit(s). While I was at it, I was wondering if I could also hardwire a switch for the camera lense in case my phone ever becomes compromised (without my knowledge), it couldn't be used for visual snooping.

Then I realized that my tinfoil hat would probably interfere with the transmission of such snooping anyways, and dropped the idea altogether.

I've also considered taking my phone to the lake and teaching it how to fly (see my post about Verizon).

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[the_B0fh]

Hey Fucking Anonymous Coward, here's a way to grab the information off an encrypted blackberry.

http://www.blackberryforums.com/general-blackberry-discussion/49434-blackberry-forensic-research.html

So much for your "it's so fucking secured ooooooo" nonsense.

And let's not talk about things like bbproxy and other things that opens your inside network completely to attacks. Yes, finally RIM recommends putting your BES inside a DMZ, but that was only after a proof of concept was shown, and how many companies deploy it that way?

And what about things like that pdf vulnerability?

I hate people who read a couple of websites and all of a sudden is a fucking security expert. Moron.

Re:This only works on SOME phones

[djdavetrouble]

What RIM really needs is a good marketing campaign to establish themselves as a "cool" brand.

They need to lose about 99 buttons too, the user interface and physical design are messes.

How much? Where?

[damn_registrars]

Anyone know where I could pick one up? It could be useful for backing up my phone. I occasionally move my SIM card between phones (or multiple cards between my phone, depending on the need) and some phones drop certain things when they detect a SIM card swap.

Wait... "troublesome for corporate employees"?

[DrEldarion]

If you're using your employer's phone, you really shouldn't expect the things you do on it to remain private.

Re:Wait... "troublesome for corporate employees"?

[andy1307]

I think they're talking about other companies(in the case of corporate cellphones) and unauthorized people(in the case of govt. cell phones) getting access to the data.

Re:Wait... "troublesome for corporate employees"?

[shawn(at)fsu]

I think you could say.... Well thats what you get for using a phone as a data storage unit. We all know that once some one has physical access it's just a matter of time. So all this just showed us is that its a small matter of time. You want you data secured? Keep it on a secure server somewhere. Access it in a way that doesn't leave copies on your phone.

Re:Wait... "troublesome for corporate employees"?

[Hyppy]

You want you data secured? Keep it on a secure server somewhere. Access it in a way that doesn't leave copies on your phone.

So, how does one exactly go about dialing a number without leaving a trace on the phone?

Re:Wait... "troublesome for corporate employees"?

[mikiN]

Sign up with a dialing/switchboard service that uses voice recognition, maybe?

suggestModerate(parent, -1, "D'oh");
this.append(smiley);

Re:Wait... "troublesome for corporate employees"?

[EdIII]

You completely missed the point. This is not about the employee being able to keep their actions private from the world, or even their own employer. It is about the company being able to keep their actions private from the world, which obviously includes the actions of all of their employees.

It is a completely reasonable expectation, and indeed quite desirous by corporations, that an employee be able to maintain some level of privacy (and security) from the rest of the world. So when the article mentions that it is "troublesome for corporate employees" it is really talking about the implications for security for the entire company.

Re:Wait... "troublesome for corporate employees"?

[dotancohen]

So, how does one exactly go about dialing a number without leaving a trace on the phone?

Maybe put on a glove?

Security Cameras, Data Sucks, I'm Not Surprised

[curmudgeon99]

How can anyone feign surprise at having your entire electronic life be compromised. If you have a device smart enough to keep up with several email accounts and manage them all, of course you've also opened up a pig portal. If you want to have secrets, fill your world with post it notes under desks.

Re:Security Cameras, Data Sucks, I'm Not Surprised

[Aetuneo]

Post-it notes under desks aren't very secure: as soon as someone has access to the desk, all your security is gone. Filling your world with a few hundred low-capacity encrypted SD cards or flash drives (all identical, of course), and each using a different password, would be secure: sure, you'd have to remember a lot of stuff, but even if someone gets their hands on all of them, they 1) wouldn't be able to crack the encryption, and 2) even if they were able to, they would have to crack it possibly hundreds of times. Of course, this would be difficult to implement, but, if done correctly, very, very secure.

All phones?

[gevreet]

Seems to only support motorola/samsung (and I suspect usb only) http://csistick.com/models.html

Re:All phones?

[Tony Hoyle]

So it doesn't support even most phones let alone all phones. Not even the common ones, even. Seems a bit of a waste.

Re:All phones?

[pkinetics]

Since I own a Samsung, it has settings to be recognized as a USB device. Plugged in with the right cable, my computer recognizes it.

My guess is if the phone can be set up as a USB device, it can be breached.

So I wonder when they will have one for the iPhone?

Only Samsung and Motorola, so far

[wonkavader]

I wonder if those are the most common phones, or the easiest to mess with via the port?

Re:Only Samsung and Motorola, so far

[Tony Hoyle]

Well it's missing the largest cellphone company in the world - Nokia - and within that the most popular phone in the world - the 3310.

So no, they are not the most common ones. (You'd need Sony Erricson and LG in there as well for the popular ones, even if you limited it to phones in the last year or two).

Possibly easiest to hack.

If they can make this

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why is it so hard for me to sync my phone?!

Re:If they can make this

[Johnno74]

Use a nokia and its not an issue.

I've been using various Nokia S60 smartphones since 2003 and I've always used the nokia pc suite to sync outlook contacts and calendar with my phone. Initially the PC suite software was extremely flakey, but its improved a _Lot_ in the last year or so. Still leaks memory badly though...

Yes this is a windows/outlook solution only, but it has worked extremely well for me. I get a new phone, sync with outlook, change sim cards and sync again.

The PC suite software also lets me browse the phone's filesystem via bluetooth.

Plot Device Failure.

[GNUChop]

This device will never be used to solve a real crime. Cell phone companies already keep the required records for billing. This will simply allow TSA and other would be snoops to dig into people's private business. I had to laugh when I saw this:

The good news: the device should find wide acceptance by parents who want to monitor what their kids are doing with their phones, who they are talking to and text messaging, and where they are surfing. It could also be valuable in secure areas where employees need to be randomly monitored to insure that sensitive information is not compromised through the use of a cell phone as a memory device.

These will be the real users of this kind of device. Free software for cell phones can not arrive fast enough.

Re:Plot Device Failure.

[Anachragnome]

That is precisely the sort of crap they spooned out when Verichip tried to persuade parents it was a good idea to have their kids RFID chipped ("If your kid is lost or kidnapped, they can be located!").

And that, my friends, was just the first salvo in the attempt to get people-chipping popularly accepted.

As I once said, the day they start chipping people is the day I start offering my services to remove them and feed them to the migrating geese that pass through our area, in little balls of bread dough.

Re:Plot Device Failure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously because i'm about to bash a company that specializes in digital forensics products.

I've used this device, physically. Had the csi sticks in the lab and attempted to seize cell phone information via this device...

Your data is perfectly safe. It couldn't acquire data from any phones more recent than 3 years old and even then, a quick click through your cell phone would yield just as much results. (doesn't retrieve deleted items).

Put your tinfoil hats away, I've had better methods to acquire cellphone information than this POS device that didn't work on new phones or even unlocked phones in general.

The tech support is lacking and their programmers are all from the ukrane, which means that if I have to acquire a phone *right now!* and it won't work, it'll take a month and a half to patch the software to get the phone data.

Moral of this story: Your data is perfectly safe, its a condensation of the tech that i've been using for years, except it doesn't work nearly as well.

I returned it for a full refund, so at least i got THAT value back...

Re:Plot Device Failure.

[the_one(2)]

Puts tin foil hat on... Or maybe you are working for THEM!! Trying to make me believe there is no danger....!!!

Re:Plot Device Failure.

[strjms72]

It's very annoying to see how everybody sees the harsh monitoring of kids and employees as such a great thing! They're so f-ing happy that everybody's privacy can pe violated at any time. It makes me sick. How could our parents, and the parents in the past, raise us?? I mean without monitoring us through pc, phone, gps, cameras, without knowing every step.. geesh

Re:Plot Device Failure.

[GPS Tracking]

A gps tracking device would be a better crime solver.

Probable Cause and Warrants

[Doc Ruby]

In the US, we used to have this requirement that the government protect our rights:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Without probable cause and a legitimate warrant based on it, there is no reasonable search or seizure, no usable evidence. There's only an armed gang assaulting and violating their victim.

A fancy new way to invade privacy is just an expensive and effective battering ram.

Re:Probable Cause and Warrants

[noco80]

Actually, you should read up on your Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Court, led by Justice Thomas, has begun to read the text literally. If you notice, there is no requirement that a search be made after a warrant is granted. Instead, it protects people from unreasonable searches. WHEN a warrant is issued, that warrant must be based upon probable cause. Generally, it has been presumed that a search of an area where a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy is only reasonable when done pursuant to a warrant. This view, though, is not the only one. The Court has begun to evaluate a search as whether it is unreasonable - not merely if it was done pursuant to a warrant.

Re:Probable Cause and Warrants

[Doc Ruby]

Like I said: we used to have requirements to protect our rights.

Clarence Thomas, as everyone not blinded by Republican loyalty knows, isn't a "Constitutional" justice. He's a rightwing pawn.

Which is why he and his Republican Supreme Courts have tended to throw out the requirements that the government protect our rights. Including the long-understood requirement that a warrant be produced from probably cause to be reasonable.

But hey, if you want a "literal Constitution", let's finally dismiss that standing army and finally get the well-regulated militia instead, that the Constitution requires.

Without due process, like reasonable cause producing warrants as the only legitimate search/seizure, the government can arbitrarily invade us. I bet King George III and his agents would have claimed all their searches and seizures were "reasonable". But that kind of "court" isn't the kind that we replaced with our Constitutional representative democracy.

If you want a Court that operates like a cracker gang exploiting any possible vulnerability in the "operating system" to destroy our rights rather than protect them, well, Clarence Thomas is your kind of "justice".

Re:Probable Cause and Warrants

[Doc Ruby]

The border has always been an exception to enforcement of government protections of our rights, even when unjustified by any actual risk response. This decade has seen those exceptions turn extremely abusive, even on totally legitimate US citizens and visitors.

We have to fix our border to protect us from both foreign threats and domestic abuses. And we especially must reverse the trend of finding any exception to protecting our rights as an excuse to violate them elsewhere.

Re:Probable Cause and Warrants

[Xonstantine]

Clarence Thomas, as everyone not blinded by Republican loyalty knows, isn't a "Constitutional" justice. He's a rightwing pawn.

Statements like this is why you're a commie stooge, Doc. Clarence Thomas has been on the side of individual rights far more often than Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, or Breyer.

Kelo vs Connecticut...who sided with government power and who sided with individual property rights?

Heller vs DC...who sided with government police power and who sided with an individual's right to self defense?

Raich vs US...who sided with personal growth and consumption of marijuana and who sided with the government's prosecution of such under the Commerce Clause?

As for the expectation of privacy when crossing the border, there has NEVER been an implied or explicit right. The US government has always maintained the power to search your belongings on entry. Your allegation that Thomas is somehow throwing out the Constitution with this decision illustrates your basic ignorance on the Constitution, Constitutional law, and Clarence Thomas...in other words, par for the course for you.

Re:Probable Cause and Warrants

[daigu]

I notice you failed to address cases that support the parent's argument, perhaps the most obvious was Clarence Thomas agreement with the Bush administration regarding executive authority in Hamdi v. Rumsfield. Please feel free to outline an argument that indicates Clarence Thomas was not acting as - what does the right wing call it - an "activist judge" promoting an ideology over law. Also, for extra credit, add in a comment or two about Clarence Thomas and stare decisis and what that means in a legal system that is normally thought of as common law. Since you paint yourself as so knowledgable on these topics, I eagerly await your response so that I might be better informed.

Re:Probable Cause and Warrants

[sgt_doom]

Statements like this is why you're a commie stooge, Doc.

Doc...a commie stooge???? Hilarious???

Niggling points about Thomas are truly silly, as he is indeed a rightwing stooge, and the Justices, similarly to "our" senators and representatives, practice something known as "throwaway votes" (or decisions in this case), whereby the vote one way after ascertaining the way the majority is voting to appear to be politically rightwing, or leftwing or centrist. If your state has two senators of the same party - do a graph sometime to correlate their votes - and include all their votes - as the only votes they cast which truly count are those votes for leglislation which passes --- or those votes against legislation, which fails to pass.

Remember, America - as this is what we're discussing in this thread - is a socialist plutocracy which has given plenty of military tech to a "communist" country of China (really just a totalitarian capitalist state). No commie stoogies here.....

Re:-1 insightful???

[dark whole]

he has been modded down so much it didn't raise him from -1 im guessing.

Hmm...

[kabocox]

I think this should be highly illegal. What about the whole secure in your person, papers, and property bit? This is like copying all your papers and transactions for the past few months so that they can just look at them when ever! If the law enforcement needs this, it needs to be required by law that they need a warrant signed by a judge to use!

On corporate phones/PDAs, it's completely impractical to say that you aren't going to have a data/charging port. You've pretty much have to have one. Now, initially, I could see the default to be to work with any device. If you or your IT department wants the device secured, then they'd have to read the manual and set it up, any computer that you hooked the phone up to could work, but you'd need at a min a username/password before you are given access to the device. (There is a part of me that would like little finger print readers/retina scans in the phone and you'd have to have the person their to unlock the phone before it could be used with other devices. Let's remember if they've got you and your device physically, there really isn't much you can do to defend yourself at that point.

Re:Hmm...

[EdIII]

Do you mean the product should be illegal, or the act of using the product as it is intended?

This is being marketed as a forensic product. The primary user of this device is going to be a forensic technician in the field. That usually implies crime scenes, etc. There are no problems legally in that context as the technician clearly has rights to be there, or is working in a lab on evidence.

So the product itself is legal as any use in a forensic capacity does not violate the 4th amendment. There are quite a number of products that could be used to violate someone's privacy, including a simple video recorder.

Now law enforcement, including intelligence agencies, using this against suspects out in the field should absolutely be working with judicial oversight. I agree there.

Since this is available to the public, most likely people will be using it in a clandestine fashion that would have legal implications. There is your biggest problem with respect to privacy, and it does not come from law enforcement.

Re:Hmm...

[BrokenHalo]

Let's remember if they've got you and your device physically, there really isn't much you can do to defend yourself at that point.

Well, actually there is. You can be very careful what you leave lying around on your phone.

Unless, of course, you really are a terrorist or some other sort of criminal, "they" won't get much joy out of your contacts list or "c u @ 7.00 2nite" text messages.

Re:How much? Where?

[Fred_A]

Anyone know where I could pick one up? It could be useful for backing up my phone.

My thoughts exactly. It would be nice if it could also *write* to the phone though. Backing up without being able to restore isn't all that useful.

Synch vs snarf

[ilovesymbian]

Umm, why is it easier for them to steal my data than its for me to synch my phone to my computer? :(

Re:Synch vs snarf

[russotto]

Umm, why is it easier for them to steal my data than its for me to synch my phone to my computer?

Because compliance with the government's requirements are enforced by large men with guns and the power to throw people in jail forever (ask Qwest's former CEO), and compliance with your requirements... isn't.

Re:How much? Where?

[RiotingPacifist]

just plug it into your pc, this is just an automated gadget that speeds up the process.

why are you letting strangers have your phone

[SuperKendall]

Of all the things you can worry about, this seems to be one of the sillier ones - a phone is one thing pretty much never out of sight or touch in public. How is anyone going to plug in anything without your permission?

Look to your Bluetooth stack if you are concerned about data leakage.

Re:why are you letting strangers have your phone

[ArsenneLupin]

Of all the things you can worry about, this seems to be one of the sillier ones - a phone is one thing pretty much never out of sight or touch in public. How is anyone going to plug in anything without your permission?

Any occasion where you undress... Imagine having a sex-date, and while you have fun in the bedroom, an accomplice of your date is having it with your phone that you carelessly left on the coffee table.

Re:why are you letting strangers have your phone

[ColdWetDog]

Any occasion where you undress... Imagine having a sex-date, and while you have fun in the bedroom, an accomplice of your date is having it with your phone that you carelessly left on the coffee table.

Nice fantasy life you have there, Mr. Bond.

The rest of us won't be worrying about this....

Re:why are you letting strangers have your phone

[ArsenneLupin]

Yes, indeed. In most cases, the perp would be more interested in rummaging through your wallet than through your phone... unless (s)he was trolling for phone numbers of hotties in your addressbook, hehe...

Mostly nuisance for most of us

[fermion]

This is likely not be a casual things. It looks like the tool costs $200, and then at least $100 to read the stick. And while text data is going be easily acquired, the thing only has a gig of RAM. Enough to acquire all the data of a regular phone, but it is likely to choke on a smart phone with 4-32 GB or memory.

Then of course it is only going to download at the speed of the phone, so it is in no way instantaneous. There is a warning on the product that says downloading an entire phone could take hours. It is clearly designed to steal text data. Again, at only 1 GB it will choke on any multimedia files in a smart phone.

The company also appears to have tool to take data from Garmin devices, so maybe that is upcoming too.

In the end I am not sure that this adds to the danger, beyond the script kiddie factor. There are clearly ways to unlock phones without knowing the code. It seems to me that you could spend $300 on a portable computer, get a dock cable, and just sync with whatever phone you like. This would certainly not take 'hours', and one could acquire more than 1 GB. This to me a much more credible threat profile. The key is smaller, but in most cases, for instance valet parking, the size is not necessarily a detriment.

Re:Mostly nuisance for most of us

[Francis85]

Yes, there are excruciatingly easy ways to unlock certain phones without the password..

When I got my first cell phone, a Razr V3C, I put a password lock on it, only to find out on the first try what if you power it up and then close the lid while it boots, it will simply not ask for your password, and you'll be in.

Fantastic!

Why should we worry?

[nickswitzer]

How many people are actually going to be running around stealing data by plugging a device into someone's phone. The only thing that I can see from this is someone actually writing a virus that can use the same program from this technology and add a simple mailto command, emailing all your data to them to use for statistics as well as more devious things.

FUD??

[Endo13]

Ok, so after RTFA, I'm a bit confused. What exactly does this device do that you couldn't already do with a laptop using bitpim and bluetooth or the correct usb cable for the phone??

Sure, it's more portable, but it's still not so small that you wouldn't notice someone using it.

Re:FUD??

[Tony Hoyle]

Nothing at all that I can see. And it's only for a limited number of phones at that.

I'm sure it has a use in its field but to sell it as a general use device is just silly.

Useless..

[denzacar]

Why use something like that?
Don't you know the super-secret-one-world-government PIN code? 0, 0, 0, 0, YES.

It works in 99.9% percent of the cases.
Those 0.1% must be used by some kind of hackers.
You know... Like Keanu Reeves.

Re:How much? Where?

[EdIII]

My thoughts exactly. It would be nice if it could also *write* to the phone though. Backing up without being able to restore isn't all that useful.

It is a forensic product. Any product in that field that changes the evidence is worthless, therefore it is entirely appropriate that it does not write anything at all to the phones.

keep your calls from showing up in the call list

[floor84]

1. Clear your call list after a call. (most phones have this feature)

2. Make your calls through a forwarding service, only one phone number will show up on your dialed calls list.

Re:How much? Where?

[damn_registrars]

just plug it into your pc, this is just an automated gadget that speeds up the process.

Not all phones support all functions by plugging into the PC. Some barely even support charging through USB. If this gadget is as great as the summary claims, then it would be worthwhile for those phones that don't cooperate as well through USB.

if so, i am fux0red

[paniq]

...or can i sue them for copyright infringement or violating other peoples intellectual property rights when they steal my crazy frog ringtone?

Undetectable...

[BaatZ]

I do have to object to the term 'undetectable', it's not wireless or something so as long as you keep your phone in your pocket nothing happens. That being said, i'd like to have such device for ehr... dunno, i want one !

Breaking into a Blackberry

[Anonymous Coward]

adds a whole new meaning to the term "crackberry."

Re:unfortunately, I use a blackberry!

[aristotle-dude]

Where all the content is strongly encrypted with AES. Maybe you shouldn't have bought that iphone if you were concerned about security!

They have a model for the Blackberry in the works. Since this device is designed for forensic investigation by either law enforcement or corporate compliance investigators, I would not be surprised if it hooks into low level OS calls put in place for this purpose. The NSA has a back door into virtually all systems out there.

Physical access? get physical

[Anonymous Coward]

The device requires physical access .
Warning ! If somebody stuck a device in my cellphone , I wonder if the hospital can remove it from their Arse or stomach . because that is where it would be, and I'm not Joking

Re:How much? Where?

[barzok]

Not all phones support all functions by plugging into the PC

*cough*Anything from Verizon*cough*

Re:-1 insightful???

[ThatFunkyMunki]

he probably has the worst karma of any /. user

Re:How much? Where?

[GodBlessTexas]

Yeah, you can find it at csistick.com. Price is $299 for the hardware + Device Seizure Lite software to access the acquired data.

I have a couple of these at work, since my job is as a forensics investigator, and they're nifty, but they're very limited in what you can do with them since they only support Motorola and Samsung. There are better tools out there:
PDA Seizure, Cell Seizure, Pilot-Link (Open Source), BitPIM (Open Source), ForensicSIM, etc.

BlackBerrys

[Kooty-Sentinel]

I didn't RTFA, but does this apply to BlackBerrys too? I thought the entire partition on the phone was supposed to be encrypted.

A convenient list of phones not to buy

[erroneus]

http://csistick.com/models.html -- Remember, before buying or recommending a phone, check this list to be sure your phone is not on it.

Re:A convenient list of phones not to buy

[slamtastic]

Sheesh! This device does NOT work on the V3 and V3r ( I have tested it with the latest firmware EVEN THOUGH They are listed on the site as supported. Grrr....

Re:unfortunately, I use a blackberry!

[SpectreBlofeld]

If the Blackberry is locked and password protected, there is no way to interface with the device via the USB port until the password is provided.

  Furthermore, if the incorrect password is entered a predetermined number of times, all data on the device is wiped.

  Lastly, if the Blackberry is connected to a Blackberry Enterprise Server (or a BES-lite consumer solution like Blackberry Unite), the device can be wiped clean of all data remotely by the server at any time.

  I don't doubt that a version of this is in the works for a Blackberry, but I'm sure it will only be effective if the phone isn't locked.

Undetectable?

[DigitalReverend]

I'm sorry, but if someone runs up and connects something to my data port on my phone, I am pretty sure I am going to notice it.

Re:Troll, mod down

[TheRaven64]

Yes it is. The contents of a mobile device should only ever be stored in persistent storage in an encrypted form, so that it's only accessible externally with the device's cooperation. The software on the device should only cooperate with properly authenticated external software. To avoid bricking the device, you might want to provide a mechanism for externally replacing the entire contents of the device's internal storage, but if you do this without first taking a backup (which you can't do without the device cooperating) then you can't install anything nasty on the device without the owner knowing the first time they try to access their data.

Re:Enough with the overrated tag already

[TheRaven64]

Your comment is probably marked overrated because pretty much every phone sold in the last five years comes with a cable for backing it up. Mine certainly did four years ago, although I've never used it, since I tend to sync via bluetooth, but it was one of the cheapest ones available back then (free with the cheapest contract on offer).

A Device to Grab Data From [SOME] Cell Phones

[WMIF]

From TFA:
"It plugs directly into most Motorola and Samsung cell phones to capture all data that they contain. More phones will be added to the list, including many from Nokia, RIM, LG and others, in the next generation, to be released shortly."

Ask anyone in the mobile forensics field, and they will tell you what a joy it is to have so many choices of software/hardware that can get data from every mobile phone out there. [/sarcasm]

Take a look through the documentation of any of the mobile phone forensic software packages, and you will find that one company supports this phone, another company supports that phone, etc. You will also find a very slow process in updating to support additional phones. The differences between hardware, firmware, and file systems on the devices vary too greatly right now, even from the same manufacturer.

Re:Enough with the overrated tag already

[damn_registrars]

Your comment is probably marked overrated because pretty much every phone sold in the last five years comes with a cable for backing it up

Maybe I'm crazy, but I would say there has been a trend of my un-moderated comments being hit with the "overrated" tag. And being as the "overrated" tag seldom (if ever?) comes up for meta-moderation, it is a pretty bullet-proof way for someone with an ax to grind to knock down the comments of someone they don't like.

You could be right. It may be that someone honestly felt that this product is irrelevant and nobody cares where it is sold or how much it costs. And I wish I could believe that is the case. However, this trend suggests otherwise.

And on top of that, how often do you actually see the "overrated" tags applied in general contexts around here? I've seen plenty of posts of questionable merit moderated up to +5. Yet somehow my posts are being knocked down as "overrated" - sometimes while they are still just at their starting score of +2.

You have NOTHING to worry about....

[Anonymous Coward]

All, 1. This device supports a VERY small list of phones. 2. Of the phones that are supported, the device rarely works. due to firmware diversity inherent in all phones. 3. You have a better chance of getting the data out of your phone using bitpim (www.bitpim.org). 4. The company that sells the device (Paraben) is notorious for making (and selling) poor software and feeding off the FUD (Fear Uncertianty and Doubt) of local PD that don't know better. It's stories like this that the company uses to sell their product. 5. The company makes other products: like software to predict lottery numbers. Not sure that I would trust them with MY data.

I'm sure this device...

[Kjella]

...is good at what it does, but isn't the real problem getting your hands on the cell phone at all? When it's not charging at home, it's usually in my pocket and you'd have to be a pretty good pickpocket to steal and return it. I don't usually leave it anywhere due to thieves, so what would you do? Break into the locker at the gym? Ask me to borrow it to make a call? If I had something sensitive on it I wouldn't unlock it and give it to you. If you steal it or have a warrant it doesn't matter one bit what you'll hook it up to later. I'm sorry, but I really don't see any need for any of the features except in a B-class action movie.

you have it backwards

[SuperBanana]

Despite the proliferation of mobile phones & wireless email, no one comes close to the blackberry platform for features & security. Not iphone, not windows mobile, not nokia. Some very smart people at RIM have looked at wireless email from end-to-end.

Um- wrong. Blackberry wanted to get government contracts, so they went through all the government security requirements.

You make it sound like this is some sort of rocket science. It's preposterous to suggest that only RIM has the talent to design a "secure" phone. It's not a matter of talent; it's a matter of whether or not the market demands it. We've seen it with the iPhone; after the initial crazy rush for v1.0, v2 has much more for enterprise users.

What RIM really needs is a good marketing campaign to establish themselves as a "cool" brand.

You incorrectly assume that RIM wants to compete in a "cool" market. Many companies purposefully restrict the market they target.

Re:How much? Where?

[hesaigo999ca]

anything that you know could be used on a blackberry....app wise, i still cant get one that does...
I am sure seeing as a blackberry has a port that it can be read, but i am not sure how well....is there not encryption?

Proprietary software is untrustworthy.

[jbn-o]

Proprietary encryption, like any other proprietary software, is untrustworthy. You don't really know what you have or who can read the encrypted data when it's encrypted with proprietary software.

Re:Proprietary software is untrustworthy.

[the_B0fh]

And you know nothing about encryption. Quit following up all the posts criticizing Crackberry with that link about NATO AUDITING CRACKBERRY AND FOUND NO DINGLE BERRIES OK?

And just in case you think certifications mean a damned thing - Windows is also certified under the rainbow books. So fucking what? Still hacked and broken in all the time.

Re:Proprietary software is untrustworthy.

[jbn-o]

No, because I don't trust those organizations so their audits mean nothing to me. I wouldn't even trust them to tell me the full scope of their audits nor would I trust them to tell me if something turned up that they were unsatisfied with. I do trust my own code inspection abilities and when I paid others to do comparable work, I trusted them. I trust the free software community to inspect and fix things therefore I run free software on my computers. Using S/MIME and PGP encrypted messages atop proprietary software won't give Blackberry users software freedom. Proprietary software remains untrustworthy and Blackberry's proprietary software is no exception.

Where do I buy one of those?!?!?

[nairbv]

I don't care if it's "traceable", ... I just want to find a way to get my contacts synced from my phone! I tried the software on the nokia site, but it just doesn't work.

Where can I buy one of these things??

and why, if they can build that, can't any cell phone company (that I've found) seem to build a simple phone that will let me import my contacts to my computer???

I bought a "smart" phone, but I can't imagine it being any dumber.

Re:How much? Where?

[GodBlessTexas]

Paraben has renamed PDA Seizure to Device Seizure, and it supports Blackberry forensics acquisition. Also, check out this link at blackberryforums.com that explains the caveats of blackberry forensics and data acquisition.

Re:How much? Where?

[RiotingPacifist]

how would verizon change what the hardware/firmware support. apart from getting moded informative for being a shot at verizon i doubt a network could change how the phone behaves when plugged into your pc.

Also if a phone doesn't support a function when plugged into a pc how is it going to support it when plugged into a piece of hardware with only a subset of the abilities a pc has

Re:How much? Where?

[flink]

how would verizon change what the hardware/firmware support. apart from getting moded informative for being a shot at verizon i doubt a network could change how the phone behaves when plugged into your pc.

Verizon overwrites the manufacturer's firmware with it's own crippled firmware. They do this to prevent you from putting your own multimedia and apps on their phones and instead force you to go through their store.

OpenMoko

[StarKruzr]

is an OS distribution, not a phone.

And unfortunately, it is next to impossible to get cell phone parts manufacturers to make their interface specifications open such that an open-source developer can make their software work with it. I doubt we will ever see OpenMoko make any real progress in the near-term future, or open-source software of any kind.

Re:How much? Where?

[barzok]

Verizon overwrites the manufacturer's firmware with it's own crippled firmware. They do this to prevent you from putting your own multimedia and apps on their phones and instead force you to go through their store.

Not to mention more basic functionality like syncing with another device. Verizon removes almost all Bluetooth profiles; I think I can tether my LG VX8300 to a computer, and can use my Bluetooth headset/remote "control", but OBEX and everything else is disabled.

No Nextels

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the list of supported devices, you will notice that not a single Nextel phone is on there. Motorola makes the Nextel phones just like they make the phones that comprise almost 80% of the phones compatible with the CSI stick.

Why is this? Were the Nextel phones designed differently? Were the non-Nextel phones designed this way on purpose (with a back door)?

I know when I try to back up my contact list on my Nextel I have to enter the PIN. (I don't recall if it is the SIM PIN or the phone PIN.) Do the other Motorola phones require this?

Re:No Nextels

[konohitowa]

The specific feature set found on a Motorola phone is dictated by the carrier. Which is why Verizon labeled versions of Moto phones are frequently feature-poor so that Verizon can then lease those capabilities back to you.

Someone could make a fortune on this

[Candysland]

Kudos to the first person who starts a company that will do this for average joes! I have my husbands old cell phone and would PAY to get the deleted text messages transcribed. Or the deleted pictures. Cheating spouses- watch your phone!