Slashdot Mirror
How a MacBook Camera Can Spy Without Lighting Up
New submitter ttyler writes "It turns out a MacBook's built-in camera can be activated without turning on the green LED. An earlier report suggested the FBI could activate a device's camera without having the light turn on, and there was a case in the news where a woman had nude pictures taken of her without her knowledge. The new research out of Johns Hopkins University confirms both situations are possible. All it takes are a few tweaks to the camera's firmware."
Apple shills, ASSEMBLE! Quick, a story about Apple's hardware spying, divert attention to Microsoft!
that if you change the software that controls the light you can change the behavior! Shocking!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I put a backwards mirror over mine so they thought I was spying on them.
I put a backwards mirror over mine so they thought I was spying on them.
I make sure I'm naked any time I'm within range of the camera -- anyone that makes the mistake of spying on me will not do it again.
You wouldn't think so, but in fairness to Apple, these were pretty old machines, which means they had pretty old versions of OS-X. My guess is Apple closed this bug a long time ago, which is why the researchers had to use old Macs.
THIS IS WHAT APPLE USERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!
I put a backwards mirror over mine so they thought I was spying on them.
I make sure I'm naked any time I'm within range of the camera -- anyone that makes the mistake of spying on me will not do it again.
Don't be so hard on yourself. You have a lovely body.
Click here to view videos of cute kittens!!!!!!
OMG, where? You forgot your link!
Far simpler for the manufacturer to wake up to what is going on and provide a sliding lens cover and that means you, you big screen smart TV designers.
There are a ton of 3rd party sliding covers out there for under $10 a piece, google will find them for you no problem.
But what I haven't seen yet is one that doesn't just black out the camera, but instead puts a photo in front of the camera. Imagine a camera slide that forces anyone spying on you to see goatse.cx instead. Just deserts.
That's OK. You know that filling you had replaced last year?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If it doesn't involve Duck tape and tie-wraps, it's not geeky enough (trying to integrate popsicle sticks in it would be really cool :p
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Why not just modify the code to return goatsx instead of blocking the ability to turn on the camera?
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
A sliding cover to a camera does not adhere to KISS from a user's perspective. It's actually an annoying additional step to using the camera
I was going to say the same thing - that it makes the camera annoying to use and would probably confuse a lot of people if you ship it closed (and if you don't ship it closed, why even bother?)
There is one way you could make it covered and still not confuse users - have the sliding door activated by the computer when the camera is active. Then you could see when the camera was active, and the door could hard-wire an LED activation...
It would add cost and complexity though, and it does sound like a system that would be prone to failure rendering the camera useless. So there's still that issue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And any 2nd year engineering student could figure out that by putting a slot in the glass and a void behind it you're reducing the structural integrity of an already thin, brittle material. But before that happened a 3rd year industrial design student would slap it down because the little rubber nub would destroy the sleek minimalist look that Apple prizes so much.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.