Slashdot Mirror


MS Researchers Develop Acoustic Data Transfer System For Phones

angry tapir writes "Smartphones that support NFC have been making their way onto the market, but many handsets still don't support the wireless technology. As an alternative, Microsoft researchers have prototyped a system that instead uses a phone's microphone and speaker to transmit and receive data. The P2P data transfer system uses a novel technique of 'self-jamming' to stop nefarious third parties from monitoring transfers, and the researchers believe it's more secure than standard NFC communications. No word on whether it sounds like the squeal of a 56k modem."

12 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Ah, the circle of technology by SDrag0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's amazing what comes back as "new developments"

    --
    I don't have time to make a sig
  2. So they reinvented chirp.io by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    So they reinvented chirp.io ?

  3. Acoustic couplers' nostalgia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    GREETINGS PROFESSOR FALKEN.

  4. Already done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217790/Sound_based_system_promises_chipless_NFC_now

  5. Already exists by 3vi1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can already transfer music between phones like this, but it's quite lossy depending on the quality of your speaker.

  6. Re:And they call it by krlynch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've always found it interesting that "modem" and "modern" are so easy to confuse in most fonts....

  7. Why would it need a carrier tone? by mlts · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unlike a modem that requires a carrier tone, two acoustic devices that need to send a couple frames of data (such as a Diffie-Hellman exchange) could easily send and receive the data with a few bursts. DACs and ADCs are good enough to be able to discern the encoded static, find errors and correct them, and pass the decoded packets along. This wouldn't be fast, but it would be good enough for creating a shared secret or just validating each other's public keys so future communications can be reliability secured without need of a CA.

  8. Re:And they call it by Russ1642 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a keming problem.

  9. Amazing Development by elysiuan · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's almost like they're modulating a signal and then demodulating it. I wonder if there's a name for this sort of thing.

  10. Security issue may be flawed by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First this is a wonderful idea so I don't want to put it down as a useful contribution to the low bandwidth limited distance problem for comunications. Where the authors seem to go south here is the huge time they devote in the article to touting that NFC has no physical security and their system does via "jamSecure". Unless I'm missing something there's no reason, other than changing the standard, that radio based NFC could not also implement JamSecure and even do it better. The idea of JamSecure is that both ends of the communitcation channel transmit at the same time, anyone listening in hears the sum. If one of the emitters is sending simply random noise then the sum is randomized. Yet because the receiver knows what they are emitting they can subtract it out. Don't see why NFC cant do that. Also I don't see why having two (or more) microphones in different locations on an eaves dropper doesn't ruin the addition the encryption is relying on. At least with NFC you can have the transmitters be spatially diverse too, with sound that's harder.

    But for very close by communications using existing tech, why not use the screen and the camera? Each phone looks at the others screen and reads it. bandwith becomes the screen refreshrate time the number of resolvable pixels. Presumably at a meter or so that should be close to or better than sound in band width.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  11. Re:Return of the acoustic modem by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Grandpa here.
          My recollection is that paper tapes and punchcard readers where a lot faster than cassette tapes for loading in programs. The reason cassettes were nice is that that the cost of the reader hardware was cheap--you probably already had a casstte player. and the results were compact. In my experience the paper tapes were the most durable. the tapes tended to go bad on you or not work between different machines with different settings. If you dropped your punch card deck it could get scrambled. the paper tapes were compact and reliable.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  12. Re:And they call it by orgelspieler · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think you mean: That's a wooshing problern.