Slashdot Mirror


Airgap-Jumping Malware May Use Ultrasonic Networking To Communicate

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Dan Goodwin writes at Ars Technica about a rootkit that seems straight out of a science-fiction thriller. According to security consultant Dragos Ruiu one day his MacBook Air, on which he had just installed a fresh copy of OS X, spontaneously updated the firmware that helps it boot. Stranger still, when Ruiu then tried to boot the machine off a CD ROM, it refused and he also found that the machine could delete data and undo configuration changes with no prompting. Next a computer running the Open BSD operating system also began to modify its settings and delete its data without explanation or prompting and further investigation showed that multiple variants of Windows and Linux were also affected. But the story gets stranger still. Ruiu began observing encrypted data packets being sent to and from an infected laptop that had no obvious network connection with—but was in close proximity to—another badBIOS-infected computer. The packets were transmitted even when the laptop had its Wi-Fi and Bluetooth cards removed. Ruiu also disconnected the machine's power cord so it ran only on battery to rule out the possibility it was receiving signals over the electrical connection. Even then, forensic tools showed the packets continued to flow over the airgapped machine. Then, when Ruiu removed internal speaker and microphone connected to the airgapped machine, the packets suddenly stopped. With the speakers and mic intact, Ruiu said, the isolated computer seemed to be using the high-frequency connection to maintain the integrity of the badBIOS infection as he worked to dismantle software components the malware relied on. It's too early to say with confidence that what Ruiu has been observing is a USB-transmitted rootkit that can burrow into a computer's lowest levels and use it as a jumping off point to infect a variety of operating systems with malware that can't be detected. It's even harder to know for sure that infected systems are using high-frequency sounds to communicate with isolated machines. But after almost two weeks of online discussion, no one has been able to rule out these troubling scenarios, either. 'It looks like the state of the art in intrusion stuff is a lot more advanced than we assumed it was,' says Ruiu. 'The take-away from this is a lot of our forensic procedures are weak when faced with challenges like this. A lot of companies have to take a lot more care when they use forensic data if they're faced with sophisticated attackers.'"

265 comments

  1. Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/10/31/1955239/ars-cross-platform-malware-communicates-with-sound

    1. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This one has a much better summary for people who don't RTFA, though.

    2. Re:Dupe by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It even has the exact same link! What is the point of having the 'main link' put in the submission form if you're not going to check it?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Dupe by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      "Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes..."

      Can it be any more obvious?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Dupe by pellik · · Score: 1

      Well the link could have been to the previous slashdot article instead

    5. Re:Dupe by richlv · · Score: 1

      wow. this is a new low. a dupe while first one is still on the first page. maybe it's time do downscale to weed and alcohol.

      --
      Rich
    6. Re:Dupe by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      Maybe one of the editors is trying to get an FP.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong...this is not a new low. Slashdot has had front-page dupes every now and then for years. This sad state of affairs is business as usual, I'm afraid.

    8. Re:Dupe by istartedi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Give them a break. Somebody made a funny noise in their office and now all their machines are infected with SlashDupeW32.exe.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    9. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This H*gh P*ckens fellow seems very ugly and retarded. Can we get rid of him? Is he going to die soon?

    10. Re:Dupe by beuges · · Score: 0

      First page is nothing... how about one story between original and dupe?

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

      maybe the last one didn't get enough response, so they posted the story behind the link. most seemed to not care anyway, since no one can discover with any real proof if this is a high frequency attack!! but enough is there to show it "could be possible" .

      Part of the problem is no one bothers to reads the linked articles, and when they do they seem to shit in one hand and pray for gold in the next!!! Until this happens to them, oh wait I forgot no one cares!!!

    12. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give them a break. Somebody made a funny noise in their office and now all their machines are infected with SlashDupeW32.exe.

      Oh Noes, we've been duped.

    13. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Evidently this story jumped the airgap in samzenpus head.

    14. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's the Roland Piquepaille of this decade.

    15. Re:Dupe by Hentes · · Score: 1

      It's so infectous, it's already reproducing on Slashdot.

    16. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what air gap? I thought it was a vacumn! Otherewise we'd have no dupes and the site would work much better

    17. Re:Dupe by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Well the link could have been to the previous slashdot article instead

      No! I hate when they do that. When I click on a link, I expect to be taken to the source material. If you're going to link to a previous slashdot article, *indicate* that you're doing that.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    18. Re:Dupe by Roland+Piquepaille · · Score: 1

      Hey, I resent that!

    19. Re:Dupe by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1, Funny

      Slashdot even had front-page goatse several times a couple of years back. It's hard to best that...

    20. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so infectous, it's already reproducing on Slashdot. Oh hell, now I'M infected with SlashDupeW32.exe!! Damned script kiddies... Hentes, you owe me a computer!

    21. Re:Dupe by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't it be, "I resemble that remark!?"

    22. Re:Dupe by rullywowr · · Score: 1

      Yeah but I thought Mac's are WAY better than PC's because they don't get viruses! OMGz! /sarcasm

    23. Re:Dupe by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      So is your comment, the first poster said exactly the same thing. Guys, there's this thing called the "firehose" where you can moderate stories before they're posted. One of the downmods is "Dupe". So the /. editors aren't all there are to blame, you didn't vote it down so STFU, you're to blame, too.

    24. Re:Dupe by esampson · · Score: 1

      It's so infectious it's already reproducing on Slashdot?

  2. Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it really SO hard to get rid of dupes that are less than 24 hours old? You seriously call yourself editor if you don't even manage to get those basic things straight?

  3. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bust out an oscilloscope and a logic analyzer and start looking at these signals. It shouldn't be hard to get a waveform capture of the audio running over the speaker and the handshake between a USB device and the host.

    1. Re:So? by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      ^^ This. You beat me to it.

    2. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As long you have a microphone that can work at those frequencies.

    3. Re:So? by Fjandr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the internal mic and speaker on a standard laptop can be used to maintain the ultrasonic connection, I don't think this requires an ultra-hifi mic in order to capture the frequencies being used.

    4. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's my point.

    5. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I work for a company specializing in this tech on mobile devices. It's startlingly reliable but very low bandwidth.

      Check out Yamaha Infosound, Sonic Notify, and LISNR for real world uses.

    6. Re:So? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You made it very badly.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bust out an oscilloscope and a logic analyzer and start looking at these signals. It shouldn't be hard to get a waveform capture of the audio running over the speaker and the handshake between a USB device and the host.

      You can't because this malware/badbios will infect your oscilloscope and logic analyzer too.

      Then it will infect your brain into thinking the article isn't completely bullshit.

    8. Re:So? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The mics in most Android phones will piss on those in a PC. Load an Android scope app and job done.

      I call bullshit: if a machine running OpenBSD is claimed to be compromised, the claim is probably suspect. OpenBSD machines are normally servers, and don't have microphones (and any on-board speakers would have trouble at 300 baud over the noise in a server closet).

      As for the story that "its the BIOS wot done it": how is the bios supposed to interact with the OS in the manner described in an OS independent way? And who the hell has a TCP/IP stack that takes its input from a sound card? Its hard enough get one that works on Ubuntu with a Ralink wifi card!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    9. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put them in a vacuum, you'll die but let's see them communicate then

    10. Re:So? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Complete the scenario; when we finally find out who wrote it, give him a public send off, like Mussolini.
      There really needs to be instances where justice distributed by angry mobs is good and righteous.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    11. Re:So? by geogob · · Score: 1

      Why would I die if I put a computer in vacuum? In fact, I'll do that all the time...

      And vacuum might even be ineffective. What if the sound waves get transported outside through the materials?

    12. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LISNR? Lowest Intentional Signal to Noise Ratio?

    13. Re: So? by necro81 · · Score: 2

      It's startlingly reliable but very low bandwidth

      That was something I wondered about. Sure, you could get information across an airgap this way, but could you get enough information across to be worthwhile? If the purpose of the ultrasonic link is to permit the virus to repair itself against attack, it must be able to download patches and software modules on the fly. Could you do that with bandwidth limited to, say, several kbps?

    14. Re: So? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Could you do that with bandwidth limited to, say, several kbps?

      Several kbps...sounds like dial-up modem speeds back in the day.

      Yes, I'm old enough to remember using 2400 baud dial-up.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      A couple notes:

        * You don't need a IP stack for a sound card to transmit data - just like you don't need an IP stack over Tor to use Tor
        * This BIOS interacts with the OS in an OS-independent way the same way Mac deals with printers -- think `apt-get install $(uname)-driver`
        * Lower than 300 baud

    16. Re: So? by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      well if it is hard to detect, it could run for days, weeks, or even years at a time. I remember when people used to start downloads and then go do something else for a day while they waited. (less common these days but with slow VPNs and DVD images, it still happens)

      Even a MB per day is a lot when you figure high value files tend to be on the smaller side. A quick ls -lRt of the majority of the RHEL box I am typing on now: 39 MB

      Might take a day or two at those speeds, but with only a little intelligence you could reduce that size, especially if you do any processing on that box to reduce it. Once you have that, you can target specific files.

      This is definitely reasonable as a covert tool.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    17. Re:So? by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Obviously the microphone of a standard laptop is good enough.

    18. Re:So? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Why would I die if I put a computer in vacuum? In fact, I'll do that all the time...

      You won't, but it will sure screw up your vacuum. Even one of those that they show on TV sucking up ball bearings will choke on a laptop. Imagine a Cyclone with your computer going round and round and round ....

    19. Re:So? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      But be sure to use oxygen-free copper cables and - many people get this wrong - remember that top quality cables are directional.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Who puts a networking stack on a sound input/output device. Since OpenBSD is open source, this seems like a pretty easy thing to check.

    21. Re: So? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      That was something I wondered about. Sure, you could get information across an airgap this way, but could you get enough information across to be worthwhile? If the purpose of the ultrasonic link is to permit the virus to repair itself against attack, it must be able to download patches and software modules on the fly. Could you do that with bandwidth limited to, say, several kbps?

      Easily. Consider something like 'BasicLinux' It's a full fledged operating system that fits in a 2.8MB file. Even if you could only achieve an abysmal 300bps transfer rate, it would only take about 22 hours to transfer an entire operating system. (2.8 * 1024kB/mB * 1024B/kB * 8b/B / 300b/s / 3600s/hr )

      300bps would be incredibly slow, and I wouldn't be surpised if that could be pushed much higher.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    22. Re: So? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I rather doubt it's self-repairing over the ultra-sonic link, more likely there are repair files loaded onto the infected machine from the infecting USB stick and the ultra-sonic link is to feed any files that Snowden didn't get out through a networked machine.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    23. Re:So? by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 2

      Bust out an oscilloscope and a logic analyzer and start looking at these signals.

      As long as you have a microphone that can work at those frequencies.

      1. As several posters have already pointed out, that's not much of a hurdle.
      2. Who said anything about a microphone? The easy way is to connect your scope directly to the electrical signal that drives the speaker -- one channel to each of the compromised machines, and you get the signal you want with no hassle. Unless the software is being particularly clever, you won't even have to crack open the case -- just plug in a Y-cable with an external speaker on one leg and a pigtail with bare wires to clip the scope probes to on the other.

      Using a microphone to pick up the signal is just senselessly complicating stuff -- now you've got both sides of a presumably duplex connection* and the sound of you coughing, the click of each knob on the 'scope, all coming in through one mic, and have to figure out what frequency is what? No thanks.

      *And if there's more than two compromised machines, you've either got multiple simultaneous duplex connections, or the whole thing runs CSMA like ethernet.

    24. Re: So? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2

      Could you do that with bandwidth limited to, say, several kbps?

      Several kbps...sounds like dial-up modem speeds back in the day.

      Yes, I'm old enough to remember using 2400 baud dial-up.

      What's interesting, is that transferring data via audio using modems was artificially limited in data rates, not by the technical capacity of our modems, but because the telephone system basically applied a bandpass filter for voice audio. IIRC it was something like 4khz was the upper frequency that was allowed to pass on voice lines, because human voice reproduction didn't really require the frequencies above 4khz to be understood. That resulted in an artificial boundary compared to the theoretical maximum amount of data Shannon's Theorem indicates you should be able to send over the lines. For telephone lines, excluding fancier techniques, you were basically limited to 2400 baud.

      Yet for this audio over air-gap, there isn't that artificial restriction on the bandwidth. You could probably figure out a theoretical maximum transfer rate by taking the bandwidth contained between the maximum limits of human hearing, and the physical limitations of the speaker-microphone pair. Then all you need to do is consider what the S/N ratio is and you could get a pretty good idea of the bandwidth this malware is capable of. (then you need to figure out things like compression, sample rates, etc.)

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    25. Re:So? by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      And who the hell has a TCP/IP stack that takes its input from a sound card?

      What's the difference between a sound card and a modem?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    26. Re: So? by minstrelmike · · Score: 3, Funny

      Could a dog hear it? I can picture an entirely new computer security model now, one that barks.
      Or wags it tail more to the left than the right when the computer is broadcasting.
      Maybe John McAffee could hear those sorts of infections and that's what drove him crazy.

    27. Re: So? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Sure, you could get information across an airgap this way, but could you get enough information across to be worthwhile?

      Yes. If you use assembly you can make tiny programs that run blazingly fast. I wrote a fully operational two player battle tanks game back in 1983 that was only a few hundred bytes long. Back in the late eighties there were complete viruses that were measured in the tens of bytes.

    28. Re: So? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      2400 baud? That was a great improvement over a 300 baud acoustic coupler. (Note: "baud" was often misused as a synonym for "bits per second". It was actually one signal per second. Faster modems often were able to scrunch two or three bits into one signal, and had more bps than baud.)

      This was, of course, on my Z80 with up to 64K of main memory, and floppy disk drives that could hold maybe 140K. Can you fit a piece of modern malware into something like that nowadays, in particular one that includes its own I/O system?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    29. Re: So? by ChoosyBeggar · · Score: 1

      Could a dog hear it? I can picture an entirely new computer security model now, one that barks...

      Fun idea, but a better one would be an ultrasonic random noise generator. Might be a good Arduino project. Anyone want to devise a schematic?

    30. Re: So? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Fun idea, but a better one would be an ultrasonic random noise generator. Might be a good Arduino project. Anyone want to devise a schematic?

      I don't know about a schematic, but I've got some old fluorescent light ballasts.... err I mean Cyber-acoustic-gap countermeasures for sale. Only $3700.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  4. Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be...? by Bonker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A certain alphabet agency that's been in trouble for tapping all kinds of folks lately? Or are they too clueless to put together a monster like this?

    1. You'd have to write a boot loader that a) loads your bare-metal-level sound and microphone driver, networking driver, sonic network protocol, and payload.

    2. You'd have to write the forementioned a) bare-metal-level sound and mic drivers. Network drivers that might as well be bare-metal, implement a sonic network protocol, and then get them to successfully transmit your payload.

    3. You have to TEST this combo on many different machines.

    We're either looking at someone who has a LOT of free time and hardware on his hands, or a 1st or 2nd world military-level dev team with LOTS of cash to spend, IMO.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  5. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by jrumney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're either looking at someone who has a LOT of free time and hardware on his hands, or a 1st or 2nd world military-level dev team with LOTS of cash to spend, IMO.

    You've discounted the most obvious option - an attention whore who isn't adverse to making shit up.

  6. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by retech · · Score: 1

    You can say NSA we're all adults (sic) here. Besides they have a hard time spelling so you're just as likely to not be flagged.

  7. BUNCH OF CRAP !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, no speaker in a Mac can generate "ultrasonic" !!

    Second, no mic in a Mac can capture "ultrasonic" !!

    Even assuming this were possible, there is no way anything could be conveyed without massive error, so bad nothing even close to 'digital' could be had !! And no, an old-style acoustic modem is not ultrasonic and it very isolated. Ultrasonic BEAMS like light - any deviation from the norm and it is somehting else !!

    What a fool can make himself believe, if he doesn't know how things work !!

    1. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by jrumney · · Score: 1

      First, no speaker in a Mac can generate "ultrasonic" !!

      Second, no mic in a Mac can capture "ultrasonic" !!

      Sure they can. Maybe not very efficiently, and not far above the range of human hearing, but they are analog devices, so there is no sharp cutoff at some limit. I agree on your conclusion about the fool nonetheless.

    2. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded down? He's (or she!) is right. It amazes me that a supposedly technical site like /. endorses some rather simplistic and ignorant pseudo-intellectual crap so easily. This is also seen in 3D printing stories and private space fantasies.

    3. Re: BUNCH OF CRAP !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey buddy its real. The bandwidth of this type of communication is low but the hardware will do it. The startup I work for is focused on transmitting data through high frequency audio and we're not the only ones.

      Case studies include Yamaha info sound, Sonic Notify, and LISNR.

      The only reason I'd doubt this story is because the bandwidth is less than 300 bits per second in most implementations I've seen.

    4. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Sure they can. Maybe not very efficiently, and not far above the range of human hearing, but they are analog devices, so there is no sharp cutoff at some limit.

      To explain a little more: The requirement for mic/speaker on a Mac is to generate/record audio in the audible frequency range in high quality. To have high quality on the high end of that spectrum, you'll have to use a mic/speaker that will still work at yet higher frequencies (read: ultrasonic), with decreasing quality the higher you go.

      So in the ultrasonic range you do have a working mic/speaker with mediocre quality. Add:
      - filters to compensate for different output volume at different frequencies (sorry -- missing the technical terms here)
      - detection for frequencies that should better be avoided because the signal/noise ratio is too bad
      - error detection/correction on the digital side
      - retransmission of lost packets ... and you have a working network link.

    5. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The speakers and microphones are analog, but they're behind D/A and A/D converters - which are in turn behind lowpass filters. So, there is actually a cutoff.

    6. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by tibit · · Score: 1

      LOL, what a bunch of uninformed bullshit. Quality, in audio, generally means distortion. When you've got narrowband signals, typical harmonic distortion is irrelevant in in transmission because the harmonics are way outside of your bandwidth. It is somewhat important in reception, since you've got leakage between frequencies, but that doesn't need much mitigation, typically. Even intermodulation and other kinds of distortion won't matter all that much. It'd take a bit of testing to determine what kind of modulation would get the best S/N ratio, but I presume that BPSK would be easy to deal with as you've got decent ability to detect signal strength to determine if your demodulator output is worth anything.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    7. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by Bazman · · Score: 1

      A neighbourhood ecologist friend of mine has a bat detector. Shall we settle this once and for all?

    8. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by jrumney · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pretty sure the Mac can be set to record and playback af 48k samples per second.That gives you at least 4kHz of bandwidth above the limits of human hearing right there. With modern encodings, that's probably good for around 20kbps.

    9. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Not quite true, but signal levels will be extremely low and signal quality will be very bad because of sampling rates in the A/D, D/A that are designed for audible frequencies only, filters that are designed to prevent ultra-sonics getting in or out, unsuitable microphones and speakers, etc. In practice, it could, at best, be suitable for very, very slow data transmission, think acoustic coupler.

      So, no, it is not going to work. And of course, there is no way to infect a computer via its microphone.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      I think the claim is that it's going to keep infected through the mic, that is, new rootkit pieces being put in through it.

      so the badbios would have mic input drivers built in, which would still allow throughput to regular audio functionality.

      the author should have provided examples of the communications. I mean, isn't this missing the usual proofs, like dumps of the said bios supermalware, dumps of the audio communications etc..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    11. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1

      But what's the upper frequency cutoff of the speaker?

    12. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by jrumney · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are you paying attention? A speaker is an analog device. It doesn't have a "cutoff", it has a frequency response curve. Speakers typically used in laptops are quite small, so tend to perform better at higher frequencies than lower ones. Typically I'd guess they're +/- 3dB between 200Hz and 15kHz, with more attenuation outside of that range. Better ones (as might be fitted to a Mac) might manage to stay within +/- 3dB between 100Hz and 20kHz.

    13. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The microphone system is analog? Is it recording the output to an internal phonograph drum? The sensor doesn't matter, the SYSTEM matters. The SYSTEM is digital, discrete, and uniform-time sampled, leading to simple calculations for the upper limit of detectable content as a function of frequency. If the sampling function of the microphone ADC could be triggered non-uniformly in firmware, it could detect acoustic signals into the ultrasonic, controlled by the response of the microphone and the resources dedicated to the compressive sensing scheme.

    14. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1

      Are you paying attention? We're talking about usable output above 22k. A 3dB rolloff at 15k is going to be what at 22k?

    15. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      The speakers and microphones are analog, but they're behind D/A and A/D converters - which are in turn behind lowpass filters. So, there is actually a cutoff.

      That is a true statement--there actually is a cutoff in the possible sound the speakers generate.
      However, there is not a severe cut-off about the electrical signals any specific circuit could generate. I'd be interested to know how the speakers were turned off. If they were disabled as hardware (which I assume since he turned them both (speaker and microphone) off at once) or if the speaker was merely muted yet the infection still worked.

      Enquiring minds want to know,

    16. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      That gives you at least 4kHz of bandwidth above the limits of human hearing right there.

      Actually only 2KHz because of sampling theory.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    17. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by a4r6 · · Score: 1

      most DACs can actually do 96khz if they want. (so 48khz max reproducible freq.) and most humans can really only hear up to 16khz even though the "theoretical max" is 22khz. with all that bandwidth to work in, 300 baud shouldnt be hard.

    18. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 1

      That gives you at least 4kHz of bandwidth above the limits of human hearing right there.

      Actually only 2KHz because of sampling theory.

      The upper limit of human hearing is generally considered to be 20 kHz, mainly because that's a nice round number (it's substantially above the mean for all humans, but a decent estimate for children). If you mean to assert that we should be considering the limit to be 22kHz, you might want to make that assertion explicitly, and be prepared to back it up; if so, do consider the demographics of the people any such malware is at risk of detection from (IT workers, sysadmins, security researchers, but generally not grade-school children).

      GP specifically mentioned 48 kHz sample-rate, giving a maximum representable frequency of 24 kHz. So his claim of 4 kHz (the band from 20 kHz to 24 kHz) above the limits of human hearing is rather accurate. (Perhaps you were thinking of the red book CD sample-rate of 44.1 kHz, instead of the one GP actually mentioned?)

      p.s. SI. Learn it!
      "kHz" means 1000 Hz.
      "KHz" means 1 kelvin * Hz.

    19. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by esampson · · Score: 2

      Quickly! To the Batdetector!

    20. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It is missing the proofs, and you are asking exactly the right questions. Some people with the relevant experience have looked at parts of them and found nothing. Here is one link: http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/1pm66y/meet_badbios_the_mysterious_mac_and_pc_malware/

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    21. Re:BUNCH OF CRAP !! by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The theoretical max always used to be considered 20kHz (as another user pointed out, for adults the limit is more like 16kHz - I've measured my own limit at about 15kHz, with significant drop off starting at around 12kHz, but I may have above average hearing loss). The 22.05kHz theoretical max for CDs was supposed to leave some room for anti-alias filters.

  8. What a load of complete rubbish! by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is being 'proposed' is NOT anything infecting through the speaker/microphone, but a pre-existing inection (that was probably USB based)
    then communication through these methods - a VERY VERY different thing.

    The hype and BS layers need to be peeled off this.

    There is no possible infection vector via microphone/speaker, or via power cord as semi-implied (unless you had a powerline modem..), it is simply a
    way to get data out of the airgapped but INFECTED machine to others that may not be airgapped.

    The 'solution' here is simple, remove the infection! there is more to security than just network airgapping!

    Time to go back to security 101.

    1. Re:What a load of complete rubbish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is possible attack vector over sound. If there is bug in sound driver or sound server above it(on input). Find it, exploit it. Broadcast some sound that may trigger reaction on target machine, and you may trigger zero day like attack. I don't believe it's likely to happens, but who knows? I just don't rule out possibility.

    2. Re:What a load of complete rubbish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also any mic and speaker system made for domestic use are tuned for human frequencies (20Hz to 20KHz)... you can't send or receive ultrasonic signals with them, that's total BS

    3. Re:What a load of complete rubbish! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's clarifying what the OP seems to suggest -- that infection might be happening thru the speaker. A detailed read shows they think this is rootkits using USB for the initial infection, then burrowing into various hardware such that reflashing the bios, replacing the HD, and reloading windows off a known CD isn't enough -- the stuff burrowed into PCI or other hardware re-infects the BIOS. The exact role in the speaker ultrasonic data is not yet known, but it also sounds like he's suggesting some communication aiding in the re-takeover of the airgapped machine.

      Perhaps the little stub in the PCI controller or whatever doesn't have enough room to store infectors for everything else, so downloads it via audio from another machine.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re: What a load of complete rubbish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > a preexisting infection

      On a Mac Book Air?? Panicking, running, screaming back to the tinfoil bunker.

    5. Re:What a load of complete rubbish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's been shown over and over that you can. Mics and speakers aren't "tuned."

    6. Re:What a load of complete rubbish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose it depends on what software has access to the mic. If the mic is enabled, then its a certainty that something is listening - whether it be a driver or chat program, I guess it's a matter of overflowing the buffer on that software if possible. If u could overwrite script files or batch files etc. from the overflow, then you're in.

      Disclaimer: Not a hacker/cracker. Please discredit.

    7. Re:What a load of complete rubbish! by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can also add, a pre-existing infection in hardware into the mix. The extra electronic component fitting into the hardware at the manufacturers that doesn't do what you expect it to do but rather simply carries a payload that it uploads into the system. You can fit an awful lot of data into a pretty small easily concealable chip but you would want to maintain some pretty surreptitious communication methods to hide the presence of that chip. The best place by far to do this stuff is always going to be at the manufacturers.

      In that case, the best place for security is at the manufacturers, so essential infrastructure, local audited manufacture on all hardware otherwise you are just guessing whether it is secure or not. Hell, the chip could be embedded within a layer actually inside the motherboard completely invisible, picking up connections as they go through the mother board. Once you can insert and or substitute stuff inside the manufacturers with the use of secret do not tell warrants under threat of treason, anything at all is possible.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:What a load of complete rubbish! by tibit · · Score: 2

      It doesn't work that way. Just because you get decent performance up to 20kHz doesn't mean that suddenly and abruptly the sensitivity drops off a cliff right above 20kHz. Remember: sharp filters are expensive, you won't get one by accident.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    9. Re:What a load of complete rubbish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't get decent performance in a laptop speaker up to 20k Hz. It is more like decent up to 11k and rolls off gradually from there.
      (taking into consideration variances from between manufacturers). There is no way a crappy speaker is sending ultrasonic signals reliably enough to be used as a communication link.

    10. Re:What a load of complete rubbish! by cnettel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It all depends on what timespan you have. All you need to do is to emit sounds that are quite inaudible or at least indistinguishable from high frequency noise that we have been trained to accept (PWM noise from LCD brightness control etc). If you have plenty of time, you can reduce your bitrate heavily in the handshaking step, basically looking for just a few bits of signature in a very wide span of frequencies and encodings. When you have a basic channel, you can tell your counterpart what SNR you are getting and successively tune the channel.

      You would never want this for regular networking with any kind of latency demands. If you are rather just trying to get a specific updated payload across at some point, with any number of retransmissions, then I find it quite believable.

    11. Re:What a load of complete rubbish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

      I've done ultrasound depth sounding experiments with the standard speakers in my thinkpad T400. It's in fact really easy, you write samples like { 0, 0xffff, 0 } and you get an inaudible click out of the speaker which can be picked up on reflection from several meters away (following radar loss law at 4th power), that means at standard radiation law you can detect the chirp from tens of meters away. Demodulating a carrier is just as simple or difficult as it is with standard SDR techniques (doing depth sounding is easy, just highpass filter, and look for the first peak, count backwards to figure out distance).

    12. Re:What a load of complete rubbish! by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      The low pass hardware filter in any remotely decent D/A converter should wipe that out pulse out.

  9. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently /. really wants us to believe this bullshit story.

    1. Re:wtf by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I feel like I'm taking fucking crazy pills reading this idiocy.

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

      Hopefully someone with half a brain will volunteer to hook a microphone up to an oscilloscope to see if the claim being made is true.

      I'd like to believe that would have happened before going public but making extraordinary claims on the internet is much more fun, isn't it?

  10. You Are Five Months Early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    April Fools Day is five months away. Come back and repost this then.

    1. Re:You Are Five Months Early by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Nope. It's perfectly posted on Halloween. I read this just as Jamie Lee was stabbing Michael Meyers with a hanger pokie, but this story had already raised about 80% of the hair on the back of my neck.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  11. Huh? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    Where, exactly, were these "packets" flowing when the networking cards were removed?

    Are they UDP or TCP?

    How long does it take you to download a movie over your speaker?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Huh? by AHuxley · · Score: 0

      One computer is infected networked or was networked, the other is the infected ready target computer never on any network.
      Sound becomes your update modem between two computers you control but one is no longer on any network.
      This is a great way to get to the secure 'air gapped' computer that is used to usb drive a lot of data/software to a clean network computer.
      You can infect and *update* the safe computer via the networked one. You can outpace any AV daily cleaning on both computers.
      The burst of data would only need to be in the few megabytes. A very selective keylogger could send the few password strings back up from the non networked computer to the networked computer and a distant server.
      Whats a few packets more when surfing on a 'clean' computer already infected?
      Its not about the amount of data, its just enough passwords in plain text to make any encryption junk.
      The hard part is getting both computers infected and set up. After that it would be just staying hidden and off and behaviour detecting AV products.
      Not a great challenge on a few consumer OS brands. Some smart ethernet packet sniffing might show the control link or data upload if not careful crafted.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The operating system still has a network stack when there are no network cards. (loop-back etc.) Most likely a modified sound driver acted as a software modem, interfacing to the OS network stack like any other network card driver.

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good question: how does the packet analyzer know that packets are flowing, if it doesn't know what interface they're flowing through (i.e. a hidden /dev/soundcardnet)? Would diabolical geniuses be able to hide an interface that completely, yet not somehow rig the packet in and out counts?

    4. Re:Huh? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      How long does it take you to download a movie over your speaker?

      Assuming a movie is 2GB and the data can be transferred at phone-modem speeds (say 57kb/sec), about 3 days.

      Of course, nobody was suggesting transmitting a movie via sound waves; malware (and/or the data it wants to exfiltrate) would be much smaller than that.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:Huh? by knsomething · · Score: 1

      You sound like a fucking creationist in your denial that this tech could be real. The very tech that pays my salary. And how long would it take to download that movie? About 11.5 years assuming an optimistic bandwidth of 1000bps and a file that's 700MB with no bad packets, you insensitive clod.

    6. Re:Huh? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The suggestion is that even air gapped machines that are infected can still leak information to network connected machines via audio. In future air gapped machines need to have their speakers disconnected or maybe just uninstall/disable the audio drivers.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since a regular microphone can't record sound above 20000 Hz, you will be limited to 20kb/s, probably much less.

    8. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just call more-secure machines "vacuum gapped". Have power filters and isolaters as well as removing any video cameras, speakers, and microphones.
      Ultimately though, there's still the screen and keyboard/mouse to infiltrate, and we've already seen keyboards and mice used as attack vectors.*

      * - Keyboards and mice containing USB dongles, at least. Optical mice can be used as low-resolution video cameras, and keyboards have two-way comms via the status LEDs at the very least. All of these have been used for communications by amateurs for years.

    9. Re:Huh? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Surely you'd want to download a movie through your camera, not your speaker, wouldn't you? ;-)

    10. Re:Huh? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Surely you'd want to download a movie through your camera, not your speaker, wouldn't you? ;-)

      You'll need 5.1 speakers if you want the true Dolby 5.1 surround sound copy.

    11. Re:Huh? by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      Audio gaps have been used by the NSA for years, once they realized you could hear a teletype over a phone line and if you could hear the teletype printing, you could maybe decipher what it printed. So there were no phones inside the print rooms.

    12. Re:Huh? by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 1

      Since a regular microphone can't record sound above 20000 Hz, you will be limited to 20kb/s, probably much less.

      You assert 1 bit/s/Hz as the limit, why?

      That does fall out of the Shannon-Hartley theorem if we assume the SNR is unity (0dB). Some justification might be in order, or at the very least, state that you're making that assumption. As it stands, there's no indication you've ever heard of the Shannon-Hartley theorem, which seems to indicate you're speaking with no theoretical basis.

      Anyway, regular microphones of the sort found in ordinary laptops, tablets, and mobiles, have no trouble recording ultrasound at 24 kHz (the maximum generatable by a sound card at 48 kHz sample rate), just as laptop etc. speakers have no trouble producing such sounds. There's some attenuation (at both ends), but it's still way above the noise floor. Your denial of this (which I, and numerous others posting in this thread, have all verified personally) indicates you're speaking with no practical basis.

      Since you can't or won't even give the slightest impression that your claim has any basis, theoretical or practical, why should anyone care how many bit/s you think is likely?

    13. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It had to be RFC1149 traffic.

  12. Re:solution by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

    Anyone who identifies a dupe can be moderated +6 awesome for 7 days.
    Anyone who submits a dupe is automatically modded -1 for 7 days.
    Karma bonus for both memory over a week, and reading comprehension. And fuck dice for ruining what once was mediocre.

  13. They used to check dupe link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the point of having the 'main link' put in the submission form if you're not going to check it?

    Slashdot used to check for duped link in the submission, at least, it did, several years ago.

    It used to be that you had to put at least ONE original article link to accompany the article submission.

    Somehow that requirement was gone - along with the dupe-link check.

    1. Re:They used to check dupe link by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, that's so that they can bestboy and let in "editorials" and other "original content", so some people get to advertise themselves with shit articles of shit troll quality.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:They used to check dupe link by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      Slashdot used to check for duped link in the submission...Somehow that requirement was gone - along with the dupe-link check.

      Probably some kind of bios infection on the server.
      Just a guess ;-)

  14. Alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a question, if someone goes to such an extent to create cryptic malware, why give away its presence so trivially by disabling functionality in the OS? If your software runs at such an elevated level (above ring 0 that is), you can just spoof whatever the user gets to see.

    1. Re:Alright by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      You need both computers infected. The air gap computer may never get on a network or infected usb again so you try and really keep your code in the computers safe.
      The networked computer is easy. The non networked computer needs to be listening for new data/code and to send small amounts of data back out.
      The amount of application data needed to sniff passwords, hide the passwords, get them ready to send, the sound sending software and hide from new AV detect might not leave much room for better spoof options.
      Hope the user just blames a faulty consumer grade motherboard and reboots as normal vowing never to buy that brand again?
      Also the skill set needed to spoof whatever the user sees might get too cute and give the creators origins away. You go from any very skilled global coder to *some* state sponsor. Better to keep the target guessing.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  15. Doctor Diagoras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should have investigated if he wasn't himself used as a medium of transmission. See a short story Doctor Diagoras in Memoirs of a Space Traveler: Further Reminiscences of Ijon Tichy by Stanisaw Lem.

    1. Re:Doctor Diagoras by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      I think it's transmitted by LSD. My computer stopped doing that kind of stuff as soon as I stopped taking it.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  16. May be an attack via the network controller. by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    I read the original article, but I don't see any part where someone recorded what was going out the speaker and looked at it. If someone is sending data over audio, it will show on a scope. Clearly that's not going to do much unless the receiving side has some kind of modem code listening for it.

    Then there are claims like "It seemed to send TLS encrypted commands in the HostOptions field of DHCP packets." Attacking via DHCP packets is plausible; DHCP clients get told a lot of things they're supposed to do, and some of the older vendor-specific extensions are very insecure. But TLS? TLS isn't used within the DHCP protocol itself. There's a way to store DHCP configuration info in an LDAP server and have a DHCP server access it via LDAP.

    If someone is seeing strange DHCP packets, and reloading the BIOS won't help, it's possible that what's going on involves an attack via the network controller. The fancier network controller parts now have CPUs and EEPROM. This may be an attack which puts code in the network controller which in turn patches the BIOS.

    The people studying this need to list exactly what network ICs the machines involved are using. Some network devices are too dumb to be used as an attack vector, but some have whole protocol stacks, WiFi support, remote administration support, etc. It would not be surprising if those were attackable.

    I've expected attacks via network controllers for years. That's been used to attack servers. There's a known attack on PCI controllers which can survive rebooting and reloading the BIOS.

    If the machine has wireless networking hardware and the attack exploits the network controller, it may be able to do wireless networking even if the user thinks they have the hardware disabled. Time to open up the machine, clip onto the JTAG port on the network controller, and read out the device memory with a JTAG debugger. Compare the dumps with other machines.

    1. Re:May be an attack via the network controller. by dbIII · · Score: 2

      I read the original article, but I don't see any part where someone recorded what was going out the speaker and looked at it.

      Now that is somewhat embarrassing and puts this entire issue somewhere below the level of a high school project.

    2. Re:May be an attack via the network controller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This whole thing sounds very much like the Intel Active Management Technology (aka Intel vPro).

      It has the ability to flash BIOS firmware remotely, it has access to BIOS boot settings to prevent booting from CD or USB devices, it's managed via DHCP packets with TLS encrypted content, it has hardware-based VNC server for remote hacks.... and it only works on Intel hardware.

      That can't all be coincidental, can it?

    3. Re:May be an attack via the network controller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Update: Intel vPro seems to have known vulnerabilities -- announced at Black Hat conference 2009, matching the time when he first noticed something fishy?

      http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-vPro-Hacked-101286.shtml

      I also suspect that it's not USB or "ultrasonic networking", it's someone with access to his network... vPro allows remote access any time when the machine has an IP address via DHCP.. even when the machine is powered off. Removing ALL standby power from the laptop (=the battery), for the purpose of removing mic&speaker cables, might result in losing the wlan IP address and making it appear like removing the mic&speaker cables had an effect?

    4. Re:May be an attack via the network controller. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will only show on the scope if the signal deposits significant energy in a narrow band. If the signal is spread spectrum or frequency hopping, it very well may not show. See Cinavia for an example of a currently undetectable and non-separable (by pirates thus far) hidden channel.

    5. Re:May be an attack via the network controller. by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 1

      It will only show on the scope if the signal deposits significant energy in a narrow band. If the signal is spread spectrum or frequency hopping, it very well may not show. See Cinavia for an example of a currently undetectable and non-separable (by pirates thus far) hidden channel.

      (Note: my knowledge of Cinavia is entirely derived from reading the paper purporting that it is in fact separable by pirates (or, in theory, by those seeking to make legal copies under fair use, who would never, ever dream of violating copyright law) and explaining how it is removed.)
      Cinavia works because it's embedded in media, so there's plenty of data for it to hide in. Since the pirates don't know the bit-for-bit original without Cinavia, it's not easy to isolate Cinavia. (If you did know the original, you could use that to first reverse the phase/speed errors Cinavia introduces to obfuscate the data channel, then (in the frequency domain) divide the original by the phase-fixed version of the protected track, and the result is the Cinavia modulation. As it is, a bloody mess of heuristics is required.)

      This, on the other hand, is applied on top of whatever the speaker's currently supposed to be outputting, which is not only known to the user, but under the user's control. Therefore, you can set it to output silence, and see whatever's left. Even if it's spread across the entire reproducible frequency range of the sound card, there will be some signal (even if it has the appearance of broadband, low-amplitude noise) where there should be none.

      If this malware worked, like Cinavia, by modulating the existing audio signal rather than superimposing its own signal, it would be undetectable when the computer is supposed to be outputting silence (so the above method doesn't work), but it also would be incapable of communicating under the same circumstances. Even if this were the case, we could substitute any known signal (e.g. a pure sine wave at a given frequency) and monitor for variations from the expected output.

  17. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, why did you "sic" up there? Do you know what sic means and when to use it? I know what it means and I'm confused right now.

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It would be easier and cheaper to pay the manufacturers (or, if you're the Chinese doing the manufacturing, order them) to hide the basic, hardware-specific components, i.e. the network protocol in the sound card, in the chips at the point of manufacture. The virus itself need only be a command/control module that activates private API's in the hardware and stores itself in a ready-made nest that was built into the machine in the factory. That way, the hardware-specific bits can be modularized and isolated from the C&C, reducing complexity and infection difficulty.

    Captcha: horror

  20. It's not malware. by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    It's just a ghost using your machines.

    1. Re:It's not malware. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Ghost in the Shell, you mean?

  21. DMA by dfsmith · · Score: 1

    With most sound chips attached directly to the PCI(e) bus, it's not out of the question to initiate a DMA into memory before the bootloader can start. Gives you a very nice pre-BIOS vector.

    1. Re:DMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow, you really didn't read the article and have no idea what you are talking about.

  22. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by narcc · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, you're still wrong.

    Here's how it works:

    Because you couldn't here my clear my through [sic] when I typed the word adult in reference to the /. community.

    See how easy that is?

  23. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Or are they too clueless to put together a monster like this?

    From the various leaks it appears that such a thing is technology far beyond what the NSA is capable of. After that Star Trek set thing it's starting to look like the Albanian State Washing Machine Company is far more capable in dealing with technology.

  24. You were all warned about this malware for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But people just beat their chest and ridiculed the people posting, locking and shuffling threads or in some cases on commercial antivirus forums, deleting threads and moving them to hidden sections or trashed them altogether.

    I believe this is a huge conspiracy which has been going on for years. People in malware forums have been shouting from the rooftops about this but no one wanted to listen.

    What you overlooked and should have read:

    1. Nobody Seems To Notice and Nobody Seems To Care - Government & Stealth Malware
    http://anonymous.livelyblog.com/2012/10/05/nobody-seems-to-notice-and-nobody-seems-to-care-government-stealth-malware/

    2. Spy agency ASIO are hacking into personal computers
    http://anonymous.livelyblog.com/2013/01/13/spy-agency-asio-are-hacking-into-personal-computers/

    3. Will security firms detect police spyware?
    http://anonymous.livelyblog.com/2013/09/17/will-security-firms-detect-police-spyware/

    And several PDF files on blackhat pages, forums, and conferences.

    These attacks against non-networked computers runs deep - some changes are so subtle and appear to blend into normal black box Windows activities people overlook them. Read article #1 which includes the sad state of malware detection on *nix.

    When you Google enough for firmware, PCI, AGP, BIOS, sound card malware, SDR, FRS, and why some distros autoload the ax25, rose, and netrom modules by default (including TAILS, check it for yourself with lsmod), it is quite unusual. Why would a distribution like TAILS need hamradio modules? They're in there, too, in addition to the ax25, rose, netrom modules. Batman mesh networking is included in TAILS too.

    People repeat the same mantra: the only safe computer is a non-networked computer. This is a lie. The truth is, an entirely shielded TEMPEST room with no network connections and shielding down to every piece of the computer is the best test environment, but who is going to take such precautions? Is the shielded computer in the shielded room bound for other locations outside of this safe room?

    Wikileaks have released Spy Files, listing many companies developing malware to root your box beyond detection often aimed at Governments and Military sources. These secret communications are no secret, and some have been detected via FRS, but that's only one source out of many.

  25. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Because you couldn't here my clear my through when I typed the word adult in reference to the /. community. "

    I had to read that about 15 times before it started to make sense. I think you were trying to be sarcastic. Is that possible? English doesn't seem to be your first, or even second language, but to indicate sarcasm one uses quotes.

    The latin "sic" means THIS, you use it when you are copying something verbatim but you know it is wrong.

    "Sorry that one went over your head"

    You might want to check your arrogant attitude and tone it down a bit. You aren't as "adult" as you think you are and could benefit from LISTENING to others and maybe LEARN something instead of looking like a complete JACKASS.

  26. It's definitely possible... by CODiNE · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As the Ars article points out, the individual pieces needed to do all this have already been proven over the years.

    Here's why it makes even more sense to me.

    A military minded person cannot allow threats to exist anywhere. If anyone anywhere has a weapon that they don't, they must immediately take steps to duplicate it, and defend against it.

    Now take that mindset, combine it with a large team of military hackers. Now every single exploit ever publicly disclosed becomes a checkbox on a list somewhere. As a recent Snowden leak story showed, 0-day vulnerabilities have been purchased by the government. We can be sure they run the largest honeypot networks in existence and immediately dissect every new worm, root kit and exploit that touches them.

    Every theoretical exploit must be tested for feasibility, turned into a proof-of-concept and then packaged as a tool.

    And all that $$ and hacker power is under the command of someone who wants turnkey solutions and "kill switches" for everything.

    So it's definitely possible that such tools exist. But why would he be a target? I dunno, maybe someone wants advance notice on what the presenters at upcoming security conferences might be talking about so they can Barnaby Jack them?

    Sometimes people will claim something they strongly believe already exists in order to motivate people to look for it and find their proof. Sometimes they get lucky and proof is found, other times they get exposed for it. I hope he's wrong, I really want him to be wrong, but part of me believes it's real because it's definitely possible. After all, if it's just a few years out, then "they" have had it for a decade or more.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:It's definitely possible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WSJT protocols do pull data, albeit at low bit-rates, out of signals well below the noise floor. How do y'all think we can hear those tiny transmitters from satellites way, way out on the edge? I have successfully used it myself; and it is FOSS.
      http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Hooton_Taylor,_Jr
      Dr Joseph Hooton Taylor, Jr. an American astrophysicist and Nobel Prize in Physics laureate.
      He and wrote several computer programs and communications protocols, including WSJT ("Weak Signal/Joe Taylor"), a software package and protocol suite that utilizes computer-generated messages in conjunction with radio transceivers to communicate over long distances with other amateur radio operators. WSJT is useful for passing short messages via non-traditional radio communications methods, such as moonbounce and meteor scatter and other low signal-to-noise ratio paths. It is also useful for extremely long-distance contacts using very low power transmissions.

      http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/

    2. Re:It's definitely possible... by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      Why would he be infected?
      Let's get real. It was probably accidental, just like Stuxnet.
      Or pretty much every god damn worm in the field, spreading relentlessly due to a single mis-coded line.

      Stuxnet wasn't discovered by Iranians, it was discovered by European security researchers who were accidentally infected.
      /* it may have been discovered by American researchers first but they were probably each hired by NSA and their comments removed from the Apple forums ;-) */
      If your machine had the original version of the dogWhistle-virus, then your only indication would be that you can read a CD-Rom
      How many slash dotters even try to use a CD? And if it doesn't work, you'd assume a bad driver.
      I suspect the latest version fixed that error.

  27. communication versus infection by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 5, Informative

    These machines do two things:

    1. They try to infect other machines. They seem to use several methods for this. One is infecting USB sticks and other media. They have been observed abusing an old windows exploit that uses true type fonts as the vector for that.

    2. They are trying to communicate with other infected machines. They use some rather inventive carriers for that it seems. One of these appears to be sound. How it works isn't published yet. Another seems to be to use out-of-band communication by putting data inside host-option packets in DHCP. It's obvious that the malware uses such side channels to avoid detection. The OOB communication is done purely to keep in touch with "the swarm" and is not used to infect other machines.

    The real nastiness appears to be that this malware is able to infect multiple operating systems that are usually passed by malware manufacturers and also happens to be able to nest itself on the eeprom of infected machines. Both are more or less "a first" and the combination hasn't been seen in the wild either.

    Right now, there's a lot of discovery being done and a lot of speculation taking place as to who made it, what it can do, how it gets itself in eeprom and prevents itself from being overwritten during reflashing of the bios. It's not known if the virus will attempt to infect virtual machines, or will only infect machines that will let it nest in it's bios. Also, anything malicious apart from infecting and communicating hasn't been observed. For all we know, it may be a true worm that does nothing but replicate and is an out of control experiment.

    So far, no infections appear to have been seen on virtual machines, or machines that don't have an intel chipset. I haven't seen any linux infected machines mentioned, but don't hold your breath on that, if *BSD and OSX have been infected, Linux may very well be infected too. Windows is infected for certain, but what versions are exactly vulnerable isn't clear to me at this time.

    Thus far, the only thing that can be advised to prevent infection is the usual; don't trust content/media from sources that could be spreading infections, knowingly or not and keep your system up to date. If applicable, set your bios read-only with hardware switches or jumpers and if at all possible, put passwords on bioses and put software blocks on updates as well. To this date it's not known if and what software blocks will prevent the malware, but it's best to give it as few attack surfaces as possible.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:communication versus infection by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I don't believe the whole thing for that very reason. It infected both an OSX and FreeBSD machine, which in itself is quite impressive. Two pretty tough systems with low market share, versus a single much weaker target with large market share: Windows.

      Then it managed to infect two totally different BIOSes - hard to imagine the OSX and BSD machine were the exact same hardware. So it can handle various BIOSes, too.

      And then there must be a quite complex bit of software that can talk to the network stack (there were packets flowing) and have these packets modulated and played over the sound device. And that, too, is working on two very different architectures.

      I call it a hoax.

    2. Re:communication versus infection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But all computers made in the last several years have Intel HDA audio interfaces. Regardless the codec attached to the HDA port, the hardware appears at fixed or easily discoverable addresses, and all has the same interface. Sometimes the codecs need some setup, but it's likely, particularly on a running OS or after a warm reset that the codec remains configured.

      You might be surprised by this, but software doesn't need an OS to run. If you have an exploit to get your code into BIOS, SMI or ACPI code, or into some codepath that is executed at ring-0 you can figure out how the MMU has been configured and find a gap to fit your malware in, without having to consider any aspect of the OS specifically.

    3. Re:communication versus infection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, OS X machines don't have a BIOS, they have UEFI and OpenFirmware. There's a few little quirks that scream "this may or may not exist" to me.

    4. Re:communication versus infection by geogob · · Score: 1

      I don't believe market share is relevant. This seems to be a specially crafted attack for a very specific task. You're mistaken to think virus and rootkit writer always want to reach the biggest pool possible.

    5. Re:communication versus infection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further investigation soon showed that the list of affected operating systems also included multiple variants of Windows and Linux.

      So basically Linux has fallen too.

    6. Re:communication versus infection by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      You have a point there.

      However it's quite interesting that it can infect not only two different OSes, but also two different BIOSes. And that researcher happened to have the exact right version of both, for the malware to infect, and managed to get infected. Possible? Yes. Plausible? Not really.

    7. Re:communication versus infection by geogob · · Score: 1

      Why isn't plausible. To infect the machine you'd need physical access to it. Once you have physical access, you can gain enough information about the hardware and software to craft a very specific attack for this combination or the few combination your are targeting.

      You need to think about the context. Why is the machine "air-gaped" and why would someone want to infect such a machine. I think the answers to those questions are obvious. Now, even if you have physical access, you might not be able to get data out (audit, security, what ever). Bridging the air gab with audio to a less secure machine is quite ingenious. You'd only have to infect the two machines and voilà.

    8. Re:communication versus infection by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      This appears to be a generic attack, not a targeted. The summary suggests the infection was accidental, and there is no evidence that this person was targeted specifically - like with the Stuxnet virus that targeted a very specific set of components.

      Researcher says he noticed his systems doing stuff spontaneously, he evidently didn't write it himself, so it was an external source.

      That's why I call it implausible. It's not likely the attacker would have known the exact configuration the researcher has, nor is there an apparent reason to attack this researcher using such a sophisticated method.

  28. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Khyber · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "You have to TEST this combo on many different machines."

    I'm calling hoax as fuck on this whole thing, but for just your microphone and speakers, the majority of laptops are using RealTek. Bare metal for that shouldn't be too hard to handle, as the driverset remains the same across all AC97 models and HD models. Two compliant bare-metal drivers shouldn't be too hard to fit in. Now, transmitting over ultrasonic is a whole different beast, and to do this through a supposedly truly airgapped room via noise should be impossible, as real airgaps will easily kill those frequencies.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  29. Re:You were all warned about this malware for year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  30. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why go to such lengths to make the malware difficult to detect when you're going to disable features inside the OS making it obvious malware is present?

    1. Re:Hmm by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Utter plausibility fail.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  31. God damn it. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

    This is just fucking stupid. Why would anyone post this drivel? If you didn't realize this was just risible, abject fucking dipshittery after reading about 2 sentences of this god damn idiocy then you should not work anywhere in the field of computing.

    This actually makes me angry. Unaccountable nerd rage.

    1. Re:God damn it. by stridebird · · Score: 1

      Tentatively, "this".

      Dunno, it's all above my pay grade really, but either this is as you say utter dipshittery or it's so obscure it's irrelevant. Reads like a poorly written April fool joke.

  32. Did he bother to check for actual sounds? by LaughingRadish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I haven't yet seen mention of someone setting up microphones sensitive to ultrasonic frequencies to check to see what, if any, odd sounds are being made by the computers. A lot of extraordinary claims are being made and I just don't see the requisite extraordinary evidence.

    1. Re:Did he bother to check for actual sounds? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I doubt you'd even need a special mic - obviously (allegedly) the receiving computer can record the sound.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Did he bother to check for actual sounds? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Quite frankly, I see basically no evidence at all. Also, measuring ultra-sonics is easy: Just get an ultrasonic microphone (basically a 5 USD/EUR microphone with a higher-than-normal frequency range) and hook it up to a cheap digital oscilloscope. You will even see spread-spectrum signals that way immediately. And you can do even better: Connect the oscilloscope directly to the speaker input lines. There are obvious other problems, for example that nobody going to so much trouble will be as careless as to make an infection obvious (not booting, "packets seen sent" - whatever that may mean), exceedingly bad bandwidth, and a complete impossibility to attack a system through this channel.

      This thing sounds completely bogus to me, but apparently has the right mix of technology, magic, conspiracy-theory to sound credible to a lot of semi-competent people. My guess would be some con-artist with a bit of technological background looking for press exposure.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Did he bother to check for actual sounds? by knsomething · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take special hardware. Several companies use this tech. See Yamaha Infosound, Sonic Notify, and LISNR.

    4. Re:Did he bother to check for actual sounds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thinking back, the first sneaky virus one can remember reported, is Diablo daisywheel printers in CP/M days, also when HP introduced the first printer network cards, and more recently centrifuge industrial control chips, or Sony hiding viruses in music CD's when plug and pray was wide open,or DRM hidden inside the battery pack. Routers and Video cards can also be programmed.
      Heck, the sound card could be programmed to detect a mobile phone going off - and bingo, another side channel. Real security places do not allow mobile phones in.

      The Open BSD claim, kinda ruins everything - it is a tough nut to crack , more so with a few immutable tweaks. More likely physical access was gained, and then sound used as an update vector. You then ask which class 1 opponent burgled your place and did the dirty. Driver issues - hardly, most old PC's for 486/Pentium 200 speed had IR ports, and it is simple to recycle the old, and assumed to be a little harder to digitally sign. We also know through ATAPI/ATI, the bios in your hard drive is unpublished, so should be assumed vulnerable.

      Now mobile phones will be allowed in planes, is another security breach. Those paranoid about laptops being inspected, and who Santa knows to be bad (Southpark S17E01) now get a 2nd chance to be careless. Chances are, you walk around with bluetooth on - oops. Even journalists can have a go. In short shut up and write nothing down, assume you are tapped. Let them be aware that Aliens are everywhere, and eventually they will move on, as they are wasting resources with a nutcase.

    5. Re:Did he bother to check for actual sounds? by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 1

      Now mobile phones will be allowed in planes, is another security breach.

      Yeah, actually you're on crack.

      Mobile phones have always been allowed on airplanes. They've also been allowed to be turned on (e.g. to use as an ebook reader, mp3 player, etc.) in part of the flight, provided the cellular radio is turned off. They're still required to have the cellular radio turned off.

      The only difference is that you previously weren't permitted to have them powered on during takeoff, climb, approach and landing.

  33. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by tibit · · Score: 2

    For an engineer with embedded programming experience, this shouldn't be that big of a deal. The challenge isn't only in coding it up, it is also in looking up and comprehending possibly vast documentation needed to pull it off. The code, presumably, runs in system management mode on x86 machines.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  34. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by tibit · · Score: 1

    It really isn't as hard as it sounds. A dedicated engineer (or perhaps two, depending on how many chipsets one wishes to support) could pull it off in a year. Presumably one could leech some driver code from open-source kernels like Linux or FreeBSD.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  35. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by tibit · · Score: 2

    An air gap merely means that no network or other data cables cross it. It doesn't mean keeping things physically away!

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  36. This has always been known... by GrpA · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why do you think network security engineers always have headphones on? They're not listening to music, they're packet-sniffing.

    GrpA

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
  37. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or an NSA asshole that is trying to discredit these 5% of us society that has any objections to fascists in US gov. It seems to me that today all options are possible.

  38. This is interesting or informative ! by burni2 · · Score: 1

    It is.

    1. Re:This is interesting or informative ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so mod parent up

  39. That comment USED to work, before Snowden proved i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That comment USED to work, before Snowden proved it all.

    The conspiracy theorists were right. All bets are now off.

  40. BadBios and Airgap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering the formal aspects of the content above and below, this threat already has a speculative quality of almost e p i c proportion .......

  41. Gpu based paravirtualization rootkit, all os vuln by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Gpu based paravirtualization rootkit, all os vulne

    http://forum.sysinternals.com/gpu-based-paravirtualization-rootkit-all-os-vulne_topic26706.html

    see the thread here where it says you were warned for years about this problem

    and -

    #BADBIOS - You Were Warned About This For Years!
    http://slexy.org/view/s2BLnoBPxn

  42. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And being so bright, he allows easy detection that somthing is wrong by breaking booting from a CD. Could be, but... not so likely, no.

    Also, you'd need to be infected before communication would be possible. For an actual attack I would suggest malware (not the BIOS) that uses the speaker when it is prodded (this is the malware that should learn about the way it is researched) and there is no other way to communicate, and other malware (perhaps on a phone even or on other lab equipment, which may be on an unsafe network) that listens in.

    Infecing everything on a BIOS level and making visible machine changes just does not make much sense. Putting malware on a machine that spits out bits as sound does.

  43. Smart phones by GenomeX · · Score: 1

    Is this why my smart phones battery life is so bad?

  44. Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by gweihir · · Score: 1

    While ultra-sonic communication seems plausible at first, it fails to take into account that the audio-system is not up to it. For one thing, most microphones are of the ElCheapo variant, and cannot handle signals above the highest frequencies humans can hear in any meaningful way. For another, the typical, sane audio-design has cutoff-filters that prevent ultra-sonics from being processed. Then, the speakers are pretty unsuitable for generating ultra-sonics. All this leads to very, very bad signal transmission capabilities with very, very low bandwidth.

    On the other hand, no "packets" sent are visible anywhere when using a channel not known to the OS, and this one is certainly not known to the OS as a data-transmission channel. And ultra-sonics are easy to measure: Just get a ultra-sonics sensor (basically a microphone with a different than normal frequency range) and hook it up to a cheap digital oscilloscope. The signals will be very, very obvious. That this test has not been done indicates the possible/likely fraudulent nature of this story.

    The article also seems to suggest that infections can come in that way, which is complete nonsense. Audio-input channels can take _any_ audio signal without buffer overflow or the like and turning an audio signal into code would require advanced demodulation software which is just not available on the target before infection.

    I think somebody is looking for some cheap press-exposure and people are (as usual) to gullible to see the obvious large implausibilities and gaps in the explanation given.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Well, shows what you know with all your fancy book-learnin'.

      While you may be correct if you go by the dictionary definition of ultrasonics, the adult human ear - my adult human ear, certainly - is incapable of hearing anything over around 15kHz. Freakin' 8kHz in my case :(

      I generated an 18kHz tone in Audacity, played it through my 10-year-old Dell desktop's built-in speaker, and my phone's mic picked up the spike clearly from a few feet away in a mildly noisy office. None of the younger humans around me heard it, but I started hearing some low-frequency grumbling from them around 12kHz so had to abandon the experiment.

      The article also seems to suggest that infections can come in that way, which is complete nonsense.

      The headline implies it, but the summary and article are less ambiguous on the matter. It's post-infection communication.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by knsomething · · Score: 1

      The article implies that USB drives are the attack vector. Once infected they may use inaudible frequencies to transmit data to other infected machines. The vast majority of "ElCheapo" audio hardware can record and reproduce audio in these frequencies. Test it if you don't believe me. Most drop off around 21kHz, which allows for reliable but very low bandwidth data transmission. Several companies use this technology for analytics and context-specific advertisement on mobile devices.

    3. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by gweihir · · Score: 1

      "Book learning"?? 18kHz is not ultrasound. Some people will hear it. I am over 40, and my hearing goes up to 13.5kHz (just measured). People seem to have incredible bad hearing these days...

      You also forget that in order to transmit anything useful, you have to put modulation on it and make sure people do not hear that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I don't dispute that. But for one thing, 21kHz is not high enough for nobody to hear it. And your dog may get nervous, as it can hear up to 45kHz if healthy and not too old. Also, the very low data-transmission rate makes it basically unusable except for very specific things. Sure, if you do a targeted attack where you want to avoid the network, have a way of later collecting the data without the network and you are looking for something very specific and very small (encryption key, e.g.), it can make sense, but this is no general-purpose malware.

      Also, it would be very easy to detect such a transmission, once you have a suspicion. Hookup an oscilloscope to the speaker input and you are done. That this seems not to have been done in this case is highly suspicious and stinks of fraud or incompetence.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      If people can't hear it, they can't hear whether it is modulated or not. FFSK on a 22.5kHz carrier? I bet the local bats hate it, and maybe it will annoy your dog too, but I doubt you could hear it yourself, unless at 115dB. Your PC speaker probably cant put out even 60dB at this frequency. Anyway, if you have a SMPS in the room, the noise will be drowned out. (Ultrasonic means what the sales guy at PC world says it means) A lot of us remember 110 baud.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    6. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also forget that in order to transmit anything useful, you have to put modulation on it and make sure people do not hear that.

      And with a 256QAM encoding, you can transmit 8 bits/sec in 1Hz of bandwidth (1baud), or 8kbps in 1KHz (1000baud), less FEC.

      That gives you a spectrum from 17.5 to 18.5KHz. 8kbps isn't a lot but it's probably enough for a lot of purposes.

    7. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you can hear 13.5 kHz but can you hear it a 1 cycle per second? Thats a duty cycle of 1/13500. I doubt it.

      What is the duty cycle that you can hear loud chirps and still not recognize it?

      There could easily be 10 baud or 100 baud in there that you can't hear even though you CAN hear it.

    8. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by Megol · · Score: 1

      21kHz is ultrasound and no non-superhuman will hear it - it isn't like this haven't been tested and documented for ages. Dogs wouldn't react much either as they don't react to standard ultrasonic transmitters (most are at 40kHz however lower frequencies are used too). Standard computers tend to be set at 48kHz sampling frequency which (according to the again well documented and proven Nyquist factor) means a frequency of 48/2=24kHz can be transmitted. Ultrasonic transmission and reception using normal notebook computer speakers and microphones is documented, some examples have been posted elsewhere in the comments to this article and some year ago ./ also linked to project that used ultrasonics to detect if anyone way using the computer by the way of ultrasonic sonar pulses.

    9. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      In the article, he says he started off thinking the initial infection came from the USB but at the end of the article he's not so sure. Thinking back, maybe it was already infected some other way and then infected the USB second. That re-thinking tended to confirm to me he is a serious researcher constantly re-checking his own assumptions and memory.

    10. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Book learning"?? 18kHz is not ultrasound. Some people will hear it. I am over 40, and my hearing goes up to 13.5kHz (just measured). People seem to have incredible bad hearing these days...

      It's not nearly as bad as the epidemic of missing-the-point-itis, however. Hint: 13.5 kHz is not the same thing as 18 kHz, and the GP is using "ultrasound" as shorthand for "stuff most humans can't hear".

      Also: when you get tested and they say you can hear up to 13.5 kHz, they don't mean you can hear a 13.5 kHz tone as well as you can hear stuff down at 2 kHz. Perceived volume is not the same as actual volume, and the curve relating the two is far from flat! The physiology of the human ear greatly attenuates both extremely low and extremely high frequency tones. Hearing tests crank the volume way up to probe the upper limits of your hearing.

      There's also a psychoacoustic phenomenon known as "masking" which must be accounted for. Masking is the principle behind perceptual or lossy audio encoding standards such as MP3: loud tones "mask" (or prevent you from noticing) softer ones. A lossy codec identifies relatively quiet portions of the original signal, and throws them away because you can't hear them. What's important here isn't just the difference in measured signal amplitude, either: it's about differences in perceived amplitude. HF signals are really easy to mask because even relatively loud ones (as measured by a meter) exist at a much reduced perceived amplitude compared to quiet (by the meter) signals closer to the center of your hearing range.

      If you were designing a system to transmit bits over audio at frequencies technically inside the audible range for humans, using a high carrier frequency like 18 kHz and transmitting it at a relatively low volume would make it inaudible in any environment with normal background noise. Even to owners of very young ears who have never listened to loud music.

    11. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is a bit more complicated. One limit is the PC speaker, which you rightfully quote. That one also has a digital driver (1/0 only) and it would be very hard to output a clean signal on it. Then there is the problem that in offices, most people will use headphones or headsets. And the problem that with the digma-delta A/Ds used in cheaper soundcards today you want a pretty sharp input filter at around 20kHz (or much lower if you have a cheap microphone in an USB headset) as to not get completely unusable output. Sure, something could be done, but it is dicey, complicated, has a high risk of detection and would fail in many situations.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I was doing a hearing test myself, just before posting, with a signal generator and an oscilloscope hooked up to check the amplitude and high-quality earphones that go up to 18kHz before dropping off significantly. Higher amplitude only gives me 100-200Hz more and much lower I cannot hear at lower frequencies either. I think these 13.5kHz are what I would notice. Very low volumes would get drowned out by microphone and quantification noise anyways. Now, if you have a high-quality microphone, you can get a clear recording of a whisper from the other side of the room (tried that with an MCE 2000, really impressive), but all cheap microphones are noisy like crazy.

      The other problem is that this signal must stay inaudible at all times to hide the communication. At night, when people walk through certain resonance spots, etc.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    13. Re:Sounds like nonsense once you look at details by gweihir · · Score: 1

      We are not talking about a straight hearing test. We are talking about strange resonances that shift frequencies, somebody actually bringing in their dog, interference with other signals played, etc.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  45. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Misspellings, grammatical errors. Yet more evidence of NSA shills swarming this thread. fnord.

  46. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, why did you "sic" up there? Do you know what sic means and when to use it? I know what it means and I'm confused right now.

    [sic]: someone is confused, spanglish is confusing, stupidity is contagious, santa is coming, sarah is cumming, sublimely in coitus, she is cool, sinsemilla is cooler, state is corrupt (sic semper tyrannis), sic em fido, and the ever popular "thus was it written" and I'm not shittin'.

  47. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by jrumney · · Score: 1

    the majority of laptops are using RealTek

    Did you sample your office full of identical models from the same manufacturer to come up with that statistic?

    Dell laptop here (so not an unusual brand), using an audio codec from IDT.

  48. 'ok google load malware" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we start to have always-on phones listening to "OK Google" all the time, then direct infection over sound becomes very well possible!
    This could either new abused in public (just make a manual announcement over PA) or play some audio from another device automatically.
    What about a backdoor in the audio DSP running extra code for this kind of detection?

  49. The tech is real. Get over it. by knsomething · · Score: 1

    Working with this tech is *literally* my job. The speakers in a common laptop or smartphone can reliably create signals up to 21kHz. Likewise, the microphones found on these devices can hear frequencies in this range. The modulation schemes for inaudible data over audio hardware are limited, but they exist and work pretty damn well.

  50. Re: Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually "sic" means "thus" or "so", as it is an adverb and not a pronoun or a determiner.

    The common usage of sic is as an abbreviated form of "sic erat scriptum" ("thus it was written" / "it was written in that way") so your point about not being the right way to use it is still valid.

  51. This is an urban myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You watch, this will be proved to be nonsense.
    You can't INFECT a machine via an alleged 'ultrasonic' signal which its microphone picks up, because there is no software running on the uninfected machine which will DO anything with the incoming signal. Hence it's impossible, and this story is pure fiction.

    1. Re:This is an urban myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe that anybody here is even giving this nonsense the time of day. There is no need to test or prove whether there is an 'ultrasonic' (LOL) sound coming OUT of the speaker of the 'infected' machine, all we need to know is that the UNinfected machine isn't looking at its microphone for the 'ultrasonic' signals, or ANY particular signals, as DATA, and therefore cannot and will not act on anything that is picked up by the microphone.
      The whole thing is ludicrous from the get go, why would anybody give this any credence whatsoever?

    2. Re:This is an urban myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, call yourself a geek, and you don't run a TCPstack on your audio card embedded in your BIOS? Resign!

  52. 80's again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they need now is electronics engineer with scope to see how that "voice"-coms is working. Just suprised we havent seen this sooner... After all it was analog modems that used sounds as carrier in 80's... Nice to see someone able to duplicate that functionality in modern hadrware, even if its for bad things...

  53. No points atm sorry by burni2 · · Score: 1

    ..

  54. 90s Dutch tossers in Beatles wigs to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's even an official "dupe" song that you can sing along with. It's very repetitive... just like a real dupe!

    I propose we link to this every time we need to celebrate a dupe. :-)

    #Dupe dupe, dupe dupe, dupe dupe dupe... Dupey dupe dupe dupe, dupe dupe dupe#..... Ah, they don't write them like that any more.

  55. Following this announcement.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sudden surge in sales for security manufacturer Sonicwall.

  56. Re:Dupe: PAY Attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This dupe is caused by the need to pay attention. Scoff, if you like. Bluster. Detract. But argue the effing point and so make sure you explore the topic properly.
    Yes, it's duped.
    Butt fucking why?

  57. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    could benefit from LISTENING to others and maybe LEARN something instead of looking like a complete JACKASS.

    RTFA -- that is now known to be a source of malware! In order to prevent future infections, I have decided to stop listening to others!

  58. Why do these things need microphones anyway? by jonwil · · Score: 0

    Why would a machine that is designed to be air-gapped and kept so secure need a microphone or other audio inputs?

  59. Not unique by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall some anecdote from at least 10 years ago in which an artificial life program, running/evolving on a desktop machine 'learned' to use the power hardware in the computer to signal externally using emf to an adjacent system (I think the neighboring system was a monitoring system that was empowered to 'dump' "food" into the primary when it hit certain breakpoints, and the AI was triggering that faster or something).

    That could be apocryphal, though, as I've never seen anything more about it and can't find anything on the web about it (well, it could be buried under other web hits as anything relating to artificial life/intelligence gets buried in educational hits).

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Not unique by hawk · · Score: 1

      Search works Dan Ashman on article life. That particular one may be apocryphal (given how AL is designed, it probably is, as most are run in artificial environments, and not on the machine themselves).

      Anyway, it's well known that the experiments *do* evolve to take advantage of flaws in the environment. I had a sign error in an economic model, and it found an equilibrium at a negative price.

      Dan had a bad random number generator, and the things evolved to take advantage of its sequence! (I assume he's written about this at length, as much as he talked about it . . .).

      In another case where someone in that same group was evolving programs, they instituted a random choice after a certain number of program steps as a penalty for taking too long. Turns out that the critters evolved to use that as a synchronization device . . .

      Either of these could be the source of your tale after being relayed a couple of times.

      A second system would be unlikely for most of these--even on a 486, complex experiments were done on single computers.

      hawk

  60. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just so everyone doesn't have to read it 15 times:

    "Because you couldn't hear me clear my throat when I typed the word adult in reference to the /. community. "

    Proper spelling really helps communication....

  61. dear morons, you have been suckered again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i know the clincher was to put the apple prodduct in there. Anyone that was scratching their head, caved at that point. Very nice touch.
    For those of you relying on physics to justify how it is possible, you need more engineering experience.
    For you engineers that think you can do it, you need to take a few more physics classes, ok maybe ONE more.
    Then hand it over to a programmer, haha yeah, maybe an H1-B.
    You fuckin morons.

  62. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh my $deity... thank you for the correction. I could not figure out what "thought" was.

  63. Re:solution by cdrudge · · Score: 1

    Anyone who identifies a dupe can be moderated +6 awesome for 7 days.

    Great. So then we'll have a race to be more annoying than "Frist P0st!".

  64. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or did it go below his knees?

  65. BadBios and Airgap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still .....: Considering the formal aspects of the content above and below, this threat already has a speculative quality of almost e p i c proportion .......

  66. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Um, why did you "sic" up there?

    Because there should be punctuation between "NSA" and "we're" and there was none, perhaps?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  67. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Hartree · · Score: 1

    What? You didn't know that the NSA was really a front for the Albanian State Washing Machine Company?

    They've been running the world all along.

  68. Mind blowing by koan · · Score: 1

    That someone used audio to spread malware is impressive, that they were able to gain control of the machines is even more impressive.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Mind blowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of an ex gf, when she came around I had a headache, when she left I felt great. Found out by trial and error it was her high-pitch voice. Tried using ear phones with loud music, it helped but it was only when I changed fg's that that audio caused headache went away. Now... as for the new headache... that's another story !
       

  69. I can't believe anyone is falling for this by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    What a stupid prank article. Oh yeah, my uninfected computer interpreted ultrasonic sounds and saved them as an executable file on the root drive on its own. Ah huh. I can't believe anyone is stupid enough to believe this. The BIOS chip can't even send data directly to the speakers. This is such complete sci-fi nonsense, how are any of you taking this seriously?

  70. ghost by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    It's not a dupe, it's a ghost. whooooo whoooo BOOO!

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  71. 3G Cellular with SandyBridge... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's using Microcode in the CPU that is received over 3G cellular.

    Remember SandyBridge advertised this capability for supposedly stopping theft....

    But it's really just a backdoor so they always have a network connection to your box. They can run compiler trust attacks or just read arbitrary data from memory after scanning application fingerprints.

    I've been saying for awhile now that this is the next attack vector but the last few times I've mentioned it, you trolls downmodded me to infinity.

    So please listen again. It's not the sound card.... they use that to detect when people are close to avoid transmitting if I were to guess. His tinkering proved they should stop before being detected.

  72. Squeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about trying to continuously run a program that puts a high frequency tone into the speakers.

  73. I call BS... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    If it's using some sort of communications ("ultrasonic networking") it's **NOT** airgapped in any way, shape, or form.

    "Airgapped" means no remote automated communications of ANY kind would be possible. You can't interact with it by remote, period- you have to have a human being log into a local console to do things with it. This is a failure of the airgapping measures being exploited is all- or it was never really airgapped to begin with.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  74. Re:Gpu based paravirtualization rootkit, all os vu by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    Dude...lay down the crack pipe. It's making you post bullshit- and Anonymously at that.

    Any OS? Really? This would mean you're using OpenCL or OpenGL/OpenGLES to do things- just for starters. But, in truth, there's no inbound/outbound pathway from or to the GPU (The GPU generally doesn't have I/O access to things and for good reasons...) without an additional OpenGL/OpenCL application as a front-end. Which would be VERY OS specific.

    Sorry, but the person in question that claimed that it was possible hasn't the foggiest about what he was talking about. But...nice try.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  75. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You also have to get the target machines to successfully RECEIVE and IMPLEMENT the payload.

  76. Evidence needed by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Ultrasonic communications should be possible, but remote exploits with them is complete BS...It shouldn't be too hard to capture these signals if regular computer mics are picking them up.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  77. Simple Fix by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    This problem will solve itself just as soon as the RIAA lawyers decide the malware is transmitting copyrighted works.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  78. Another Leaker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this infection be a way for someone in the NSA to leak NSA methods? Why else infect someone like Dan?

  79. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

    You've discounted the most obvious option - an attention whore who isn't adverse to making shit up.

    Says a random person on a random site. Let's see your fantastic work that makes Ruiu's body of work nothing more than that of a small-fry amateur who has to resort to lying to make a name for himself. Oh wait, Ruiu is actually a seasoned security researcher, running multiple well-known cons and contests? Who already gets more attention than anything but a handful of other security researchers?

    I think the only thing your post does is demonstrate your own thinking: that the only way to make waves in the world is to be an attention whore.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  80. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "Did you sample your office full of identical models from the same manufacturer to come up with that statistic?"

    I build every computer myself. What identical model? What fucking manufacturer? This is slashdot, if you aren't building your own system, you should be shutting the fuck up.

    Did you bother to ensure your brain was functioning this morning before making such a smart-ass and obviously wrong question?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  81. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    A real secure air gapped room allows NOTHING in or out without permission. This includes sound.

    I know someone who will never obtain a security clearance.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  82. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Unordained · · Score: 1

    Fact-check: the "star trek set thing" concerned Keith Alexander's time at the Army's Intelligence and Security Command. Alexander is now head of the NSA, yes. And it was intelligence-related. It was not, however, the NSA.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/15/nsa-mind-keith-alexander-star-trek

  83. We've know about this one for years by Minwee · · Score: 1
  84. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    implement a sonic network protocol

    A.K.A. "call the modem library," A.K.A. "done in 30 seconds with a quick Google search."

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  85. shades of Sony by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    When he said the main indication of infection was being unable to read a CD-Rom, I immediately thought of SONY Corporation. They had a pretty good rootkit for DRM (digital rights management) last century that they were trying to get installed everyplace possible (just to ensure profits so we know it was legal).
    They would have a vested interest in not reading CDs and having Bulgarians or Disney over-write Sony's DRM.

    When they finally had to let it go, their engineers probably contracted for some security work with another shell company owned by the Chinese or the NSA.

  86. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Ruiu is actually a seasoned security researcher, running multiple well-known cons and contests...

    whut?

  87. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? You didn't know that the NSA was really a front for the Albanian State Washing Machine Company?

    They've been running the world all along.

    I for one welcome our spin-cycle overlords!

  88. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    We're either looking at someone who has a LOT of free time and hardware on his hands, or a 1st or 2nd world military-level dev team with LOTS of cash to spend, IMO.

    Or a corporation like Sony looking to really fix DRM or like Apple looking at easier ways to update bad software without letting any of its customers know there actually was a problem. There was never a problem because it's not happening now and all the comments about the problem were removed. It's a Chinese way of doing things, like yin-yank, I mean yin-yang.

  89. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    What? You didn't know that the NSA was really a front for the Albanian State Washing Machine Company?

    They've been running the world all along.

    Well thank God someone's in charge. Sometimes it seems as if everything is just running on its own with no planning or forethought, just everybody trying to grab as much sex and money as possible ;-)

  90. Re:solution by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Anyone who identifies a dupe can be moderated +6 awesome for 7 days.
    Anyone who submits a dupe is automatically modded -1 for 7 days.

    So, I submit a story and you submit a story. Mine is accepted in five minutes, yours in two hours and they're both the same story. Why should you be penalized for submitting a story? However, I've tagged dupes in the firehose before, how about of you spot a dupe you get mod points (to moderate others) as a reward?

  91. Peer Review RE:It's definitely possible... by ripvlan · · Score: 1

    I agree that this may be possible. But after reading the article there are several things that don't pass the sniff test. Hopefully this will get the peer review it needs.

    My first thought was the website for this story was infected with a browser virus, and the incredible story was there as candy to draw us in.

    Infecting multiple OS, using some common hidden/unknown USB feature seems difficult to believe. What is the commonality in chipsets? The virus would have to run at the BIOS level.. right? Under the OS? Injecting itself up into OS' that it supports? Sure, there are few motherboards. and I've also heard of viruses that live in RAM/GPU and survive reboots. I'll also forgive people for possible misusing "ultrasonic" when they might mean - higher/lower frequencies than humans can hear but the PC can generate. Also don't forget - video cards and other electronics make noises too - I had a video card that when drawing at high FPS made a very high pitch sound that could be manipulated (I'm one of those weirdos who can "hear" CRTs). Maybe the fan is sending Morse-code.

    This is also an interesting network driver. I assume he was doing packet sniffing from within the OS. I can see the following - the OS sends data packets to the network card (which go nowhere because the cable is pulled out) - but the infected BIOS sees those and copies them out the speaker. However, he pulled the network card... so I would expect the OS to shutdown all connectivity features - so what was the sniffer attaching to? (or rather - what was he sniffing? - no pun) Either that or a software driver had to be installed (or hook the virtual loopback). All possible. Although on my laptop only the wifi/bluetooth can come out - the Ethernet is on the mainboard.

    All of it may be hypothetically possible. I can't wait for an update and see the results. Need to think simple - those kinds of attacks tend to work.

  92. Extraordinary claims? extraordinary evidence plz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

    A story about a laptop having it's bios and os remotely compromised using only a portable audio player would be almost as amazing as news about someone having BSD installed on a laptop outside of a research facility.

  93. Typo by boldi · · Score: 1

    The author on Ars is Dan Goodin, not Goodwin.

  94. Re:Extraordinary claims? extraordinary evidence pl by esampson · · Score: 1

    Except that's not what the article is saying. The article doesn't claim that the system's bios was remotely compromised using audio. What it is saying is that a system that _has been compromised_ is using its sound equipment to communicate with other systems that have likewise been compromised, allowing infected systems to maintain communication with one another despite an airgap.

    This could be viewed as 'extraordinary' in the sense of 'something that does not ordinarily happen', but it is not 'extraordinary' in the sense of 'something that defies conventional belief'. As many people have pointed out this is the same basic principle that modems use, merely in a somewhat different 'packaging'.

    In that sense it is no more extraordinary than claiming that someone has painted an elephant blue. It is not something which commonly happens yet the possibility of its existence hardly defy belief.

  95. 80s Tank Games by PincushionMan · · Score: 1

    Just curious, was assembly tank game Tank Wars or Scorched Earth?

    Everyone swears by Scorched Earth - there's even a Scorched Earth 3D version now, but I always preferred Tank Wars.

    1. Re:80s Tank Games by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      I just called it "tanks", modeled it from games I'd played in arcades. There's a Windows tanks game from a decade ago that's very similar, except it's in color (the computer I wrote it for was black and white only). The Windows tanks game weighed in at over 4 megabytes, mine was probably less than 400 bytes including timing loops to slow it down enough to be playable. This was 1983 on a really primitive TS-1000, 1 mHz Z-80 CPU and 4k of memory.

      As to favorite tanks games, I haven't really played many in the last ten years, but there was a first person shooter tanks game in the arcade at Disney World in the early '80s that was awesome (I worked at Disney then, spent a lot of time in that arcade). It steered with two sticks like a real tank.

    2. Re:80s Tank Games by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      As to favorite tanks games, I haven't really played many in the last ten years, but there was a first person shooter tanks game in the arcade at Disney World in the early '80s that was awesome (I worked at Disney then, spent a lot of time in that arcade). It steered with two sticks like a real tank.

      I believe you are talking about Battlezone. It was one of my favourites in the eighties.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    3. Re:80s Tank Games by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's the one. I put a lot of quarters in that thing!

  96. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanksgiving is going to involve a lot of eating crow for most of you guys. Good luck with that!

  97. schitzophrenia by whois · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is the new "hearing voices"

  98. That one's an oldie but goodie. by dschnur · · Score: 1

    Some minor problems:
    In general: laptop speakers and microphones are optimized for recording and producing sounds the human ear can detect. Lousy for networking.
    Laptop speakers and microphones are also not calibrated with a high degree of precision.
    You would need access to the boot loader which would have to come from a different "virus" or at the factory -- in which case, you already "own" the computer.

    Recommendations:
    Decent anti-virus software and a reasonable security policy.
    Tin Foil lined Laptop Bag.

      -Dan

  99. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Well, he didn't explicitly consider it, but I doubt he would deny the possibility. I wouldn't.

    OTOH...if, as reported, many different people have already examined the case that's probably not the most likely alternative.

    Still, I don't think the evidence I've heard supports some of the more extreme suppositions. Personally, I'd start looking for a Java, Javascript, or Mono/NET application. One that can demonize itself. I think that infection from a USB stick sound highly plausible, but that's not a sufficient explanation of the mechanism. After that, there's nothing particularly unreasonable about ultrasonic communications, just unexpected.

    P.S.: As for those who say you wouldn't expect to find OpenBSD on a system outside of a laboratory, I believe that that's where he's working. He *was* reported as a security researcher.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  100. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by HiThere · · Score: 1

    That can be done, but that's a lot more extreme than a simple air gap. An air gap just means there's no electrical or radio connection, i.e., the signal has to go over air. Isolated is what I would call what you're referring to, and I have no reason to believe that that was meant.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  101. doubtful by almechist · · Score: 2

    It's using Microcode in the CPU that is received over 3G cellular.

    Remember SandyBridge advertised this capability for supposedly stopping theft....

    But it's really just a backdoor so they always have a network connection to your box. They can run compiler trust attacks or just read arbitrary data from memory after scanning application fingerprints.

    I've been saying for awhile now that this is the next attack vector but the last few times I've mentioned it, you trolls downmodded me to infinity.

    So please listen again. It's not the sound card.... they use that to detect when people are close to avoid transmitting if I were to guess. His tinkering proved they should stop before being detected.

    Yeah, I thought of this, too. Here's some background info on the tech involved. It seems to fit, the article doesn't specifically say only certain newer intel processors are at risk, but it doesn't give any counterexamples that would rule it out, either. This is an obscure deliberately OOB data transmission channel that seems like it could well be the hidden vector, only... Surely a security specialist would be aware of this as a possible mechanism? Also, why would disconnecting the mic/speakers stop a transmission if it's really using 3G? Could be wrong, but I've reluctantly concluded that this line of investigation is probably a red herring in regards to the case at hand, although it's certainly alarming enough in its own right.

  102. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To my mind, airgapping is not severe enoough. The proper term should be "vacuum gapping" There is nothing but air between your system and any other. Having a microphone and/or speakers breaks that rule! After all, they can use the air to make a connection between two systems! One of my old friends did a lot of work on Tempest-qualified computer terminals in the 1980's. CRTs, and especially standard keyboards (even when well shielded for EM) put out enough radiation to spy on them. The keyboard (actually, the cable between the keyboard and system unit) was the worst. His solution? Using led's in the keyboard, and light pipes to transmit optical pulses (the keys simply broke the light flow) to photo-optic detectors inside the main system unit, which could be well shielded from EM spying. Problem solved! His terminal design (and prototype) was the first to pass all the Tempest testing requirements on the first pass!

  103. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Oh - so you mean the place is OK because it's only the guy at the top that's a complete loony?
    OK, you have a point, I've seen a few places where the new CEO was a complete loony and it took a while for everything to go bad, however this is just one thing out of many that happens to sum up that shambolic web of subcontractors who should have been a tight knit group of professionals.

  104. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were talking about laptops, dumbass.

  105. Interesting Concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting concept, but I call bullshit. In order to be re-programmed through sound the program to do that has to be built into the receiving software to receive code through audio devices. While these technologies do exist to translate voice into text or commands this feature has to be activated to be functional. It would also be writing to the hard drive not the bios and since each bios is different to re-write the bios code it would have to copy the existing bios and then have a sentient cognitive ability to re-write code on the fly so that it could inject itself into an unfamiliar bios in a way that would not brick the computer. A virus that already contained scripting for every bios out there would be so large that it would not fit into a single bios and to transmit it through ultrasound would take months. So if this rootkit does exist we are talking about one of the first living computer programs. Furthermore most servers don't have a microphone or speakers and I doubt these sounds could permeate the white noise generated by a typical server. For this to be possible I would say there would have to be an infection of some other form on the computer through a typical means first that would allow it to receive/transmit this audio code. The audio would not have been the initial source of infection.

    Another problem is that all sound cards are software driven with drivers and have no hardware to directly interact with, nor have they for over a decade. The virus would also have to contain in itself the audio drivers for hundreds of models of sound cards to allow it to use the audio hardware from a bios level. This would further increase it's size making it's existence even more impossible.

  106. IP over DHCPOptions by marxmarv · · Score: 2

    makes a fine covert channel to get data to or from a compromised router, and NSA has shown interest in mass-pwning routers.

    --
    /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
  107. Re:Complexity, Resources and Skill. Could it be... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen that apostrophe in two decades or more

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  108. tele-metrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the speakers and microphone might simply have been utilized by an additional device which was targeting the computer, something like a directional antennae or tower resource could be used to deliver or generate packet traffic, audible or high frequencies could also be utilized, as were mentioned, to potentially initiate as a logic-bomb or an abort..

  109. Raspberry Pi Has No BIOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Load thumb drive on a Raspberry Pi and watch what it tries to do.

    it has no BIOS.