Slashdot Mirror


NYT: NSA Put 100,000 Radio Pathway "Backdoors" In PCs

retroworks writes "The New York Times has an interesting story on how NSA put transmitters into the USB input devices of PCs, allowing computers unplugged from the Internet to still be monitored, via radio, from up to 8 miles away. The article mainly reports NSA's use of the technology to monitor Chinese military, and minor headline reads 'No Domestic Use Seen.' The source of the data was evidently the leak from Edward J. Snowden."

220 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Where are they? by RMH101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Genuine question - where are these devices? Has any physical evidence of them been detected? Has anyone found one? I'm not sceptical that they did it, I think it's entirely possible. I'm just curious if there's any physical evidence that's been found yet...?

    1. Re:Where are they? by L3sT4T · · Score: 2

      And to this I'd like to add: Pics or it didn't happen /endsarcasm

      --
      Wer war der Thor, wer Weiser, Bettler oder Kaiser? Ob Arm, ob Reich, im Tode gleich
    2. Re:Where are they? by aeranvar · · Score: 1

      This is speculation, but I bet this is some variant on the Cottonmouth model bug we saw a couple of weeks ago. How many people - even organizations like the Chinese military - are going to disassemble their USB cables and ports? If you're going to go to that far, you might as well build the device yourself out of off the shelf parts.

    3. Re:Where are they? by sking · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to TFA, a tiny transceiver can be built into the plastic plug base of a USB cord. Of course, one has not been spotted in the wild, but it sounds theoretically possible.

      --
      The AntiJoey
    4. Re:Where are they? by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree - however, there is the question of "who did they use them on?" and also that they were basically DESIGNED not to be detected.

      Most people who they targeted probably were arrested or they never even thought they were a target. In that case they can recover their hardware.

      The number of devices compromised is likely to be very small as a percentage of the devices out there. Almost certainly neither you or I have one of these devices in our kit. If we did have, how often have you popped open every keyboard/mouse/usb stick you own to make sure there's not something else in there that wasn't supposed to be?

      And if they are in collusion with even a single manufacturer to produce a compromised device, then you may never know about the devices hidden functions until you do a chip-analysis of everything inside the device (probably involving decapping and analysing the whole thing which can take years and decades of expertise).

      As such, it's unlikely you will ever see one, even with everyone on the Internet looking. That's also what I would expect if they were doing their job properly (or else these things would be discovered quickly and be useless to them).

      Much more importantly - if this is true, and we even if we start to use only trusted hardware, this is just more reason to have more "open" machines.

      Who knows what's inside a chip on your particular computer, even if it looks very similar to a mass-market item, if they could have got their hands on it and/or been the ones supplying it to you?

    5. Re:Where are they? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      . . . not in mine! My laptop is wrapped in tinfoil, so they can't radio transmit a device into it!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:Where are they? by TWX · · Score: 1
      We were discussing this last night on boingboing, and I shared an equal skepticism.

      The basic conclusions were:
      • A collaborator would be needed to install the device.
      • An antenna could masquerade in the form of a USB cable.
      • Municipal distances would be a problem, but eight miles is achievable with consumer-grade ham radio hardware.
      • There are means to avoid such devices working, if an IT department is security-conscious and takes steps to disable USB ports and plug-n-play services.

      I'm still skeptical, mainly because a simple frequency scanner would allow one to detect the presence of transmissions by the device, and because concealing an antenna, even in the form of a USB cable, would be difficult. If the cable is cut-off, then it would be massively obvious with a simple look underneath, and it would be difficult to manufacture a functioning USB cable that contained a radio and antenna.

      There was talk of manufacturer collaboration, especially against organizations that develop security (tampering with new-manufacture to replace components on the motherboards essentially) but that seems like it would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve without employees of the manufacturers questioning why they're going through so much effort to do this.

      We'll just have to see what comes of it. I'm genuinely curious if we'll ever see any actual evidence or not.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Where are they? by aeranvar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If an official from Russian, China, or Iran were to step forward saying that they had found one of the devices inserted into their machine... would anyone believe them? There's incentives for both the NSA and likely targets of the NSA to lie about this issue.

    8. Re:Where are they? by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      That's kind of my thinking - that they would have to replace a discrete part within the laptop - possibly a motherboard, more likely a daughterboard or mini PCI device like a wifi card. If you replace the motherboard you'd have to deal with BIOS serial numbers etc which would be a PITA. The only way I can see this working is if it were done at a component level. Presumably the device would need to be connected to a data bus, e.g. USB/SATA? Or memory?

    9. Re:Where are they? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

      " mainly because a simple frequency scanner would allow one to detect the presence of transmissions by the device"

      Burst transmission. Buffer data for days, then send it all in a burst of under a minute. Nothing to detect unless the counterintelligence people are monitoring continually or get very lucky. It's old tech, dating back to the pre-IC days. Bugs back then did it by recording onto a magnetic tape. When the tape reached the end it turned on the transmitter and re-wound at high speed. The listeners then just had to play it back slowed-down and backwards to recover the original audio.

    10. Re:Where are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Subtle shill is subtle. We're told, by a respectable news source (whether you disagree or not) that they're using these devices, then subtle shill begins to attack them, suggesting it's not possible on technical ground (or dubious at best), while we have a report that they're out there! Furthermore, what good does disabling USB ports do when your firmware (on various levels) is compromised? Instead of vague, inspecific FUD, how about some actual comments on the physical parameters of it? How much ERP on a given frequency would be necessary for this to have 8 mile range? What would be the actual design constraints on the antenna and transmitter/receiver? Not everyone is a ham, so what actual measures could be taken by an IT dept or individual? (Rather than vague hand waving that there is a good solution.)

    11. Re:Where are they? by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 2

      We were discussing this last night on boingboing, and I shared an equal skepticism. The basic conclusions were:

      • A collaborator would be needed to install the device.
      • An antenna could masquerade in the form of a USB cable.
      • Municipal distances would be a problem, but eight miles is achievable with consumer-grade ham radio hardware.
      • There are means to avoid such devices working, if an IT department is security-conscious and takes steps to disable USB ports and plug-n-play services.

      I'm still skeptical, mainly because a simple frequency scanner would allow one to detect the presence of transmissions by the device, and because concealing an antenna, even in the form of a USB cable, would be difficult. If the cable is cut-off, then it would be massively obvious with a simple look underneath, and it would be difficult to manufacture a functioning USB cable that contained a radio and antenna. There was talk of manufacturer collaboration, especially against organizations that develop security (tampering with new-manufacture to replace components on the motherboards essentially) but that seems like it would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve without employees of the manufacturers questioning why they're going through so much effort to do this. We'll just have to see what comes of it. I'm genuinely curious if we'll ever see any actual evidence or not.

      1. 1. Build a minature radio transmitter powered by 5V
      2. 2. Insert transmitter into USB keyboard or mouse
      3. 3. Find some incredibly complicated and unlikely means of attaching keyboard or mouse to computer
      4. 4. Discover boing boing isn't populated by brain surgeons, electronic engineers and rocket scientist?

      Not in the catalogue, but extremely do-able, develop a small device that'll run off a USB power supply and will create a secret channel using DC over the AC supply, embed device in mouse or keyboard... That's all I've got, for the life of me I can't figure out how to attach it to a computer without someone noticing.

      Of course I'm joking - if it was likely it would have been in some game, or a movie.

    12. Re:Where are they? by L3sT4T · · Score: 2

      To be honest, after reading the whole article, I just find it odd that it comes out like a week or so after the report of bugged USB devices from China.

      --
      Wer war der Thor, wer Weiser, Bettler oder Kaiser? Ob Arm, ob Reich, im Tode gleich
    13. Re:Where are they? by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Informative

      The device as a layer of physical hardware in a USB device has been posted as a pic as part of the COTTONMOUTH I and II effort.
      http://www.dailytech.com/Tax+and+Spy+How+the+NSA+Can+Hack+Any+American+Stores+Data+15+Years/article34010.htm (scroll down for the slide)
      What it sends out to?
      The usual new spy "rocks" or some other "network"
      http://rt.com/usa/spy-rocks-lockheed-usa-771/
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/19/fake-rock-plot-spy-russians

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    14. Re:Where are they? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re A collaborator would be needed to install the device.
      That could just be a shipment of normal looking computer parts, spares, upgrades that spent a few extra hours at a 'regional' hub during postage.
      Re There are means to avoid such devices working, if an IT department is security-conscious and takes steps to disable USB ports and plug-n-play services.
      You can close up the port so no usb device can be plugged in but the port will still 'send' via radio.
      Re simple frequency scanner.. mb the NSA ensures the device is "off' for the first weeks, months and only updates for short bursts at unique times much later.
      The payload might be adjusted after the first few messages in/out depending on the system encountered and data wanted.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    15. Re:Where are they? by rvw · · Score: 1

      Genuine question - where are these devices? Has any physical evidence of them been detected? Has anyone found one? I'm not sceptical that they did it, I think it's entirely possible. I'm just curious if there's any physical evidence that's been found yet...?

      Intel Core vPro with anti theft capability? I read a while ago that these processors have a complete OS on board, with working GPRS, but I can't find that article anymore.

    16. Re:Where are they? by mdragan · · Score: 5, Informative

      This devices are listed in the leaked "NSA Toolbox Catalog" document, that was reported in this Spiegel article:
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/catalog-reveals-nsa-has-back-doors-for-numerous-devices-a-940994.html

      Some pictures:
      Cottonmouth-I, USB spying device
      http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/USB/S3223_COTTONMOUTH-I.jpg
      Cottonmouth-II, USB spying device
      http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/USB/S3223_COTTONMOUTH-II.jpg
      Cottonmouth-III, USB spying device
      http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/USB/S3223_COTTONMOUTH-III.jpg
      Firewalk, ethernet spying device
      http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/USB/S3223_FIREWALK.jpg
      Ragemaster, monitor cable spying device
      http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/Bildschirm/S3224_RAGEMASTER.jpg

      There's many more in that cataloge, including software and hardware tools and devices.

    17. Re:Where are they? by aeranvar · · Score: 4, Informative
      From TFA:

      1. Tiny transceivers are built into USB plugs and inserted into target computers. Small circuit boards may be placed in the computers themselves.

    18. Re:Where are they? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Maybe some of them were bought online and then intercepted by NSA to install that hardware. There is plenty of evidence that they are doing that kind of things, including a catalog, but not a lot of reports that show how they are actually doing it.

      Now, that the actual number of devices with those radios is around 100000 could be an outdated number (50k in 2008 and 85k in 2012 according to Snowden documents, and maybe 100k by now according to other sources), and anyway, seems that be considered by them an obsolete technology, and targetting mainly offline computers and closed networks. Probably the kind of installations that won't disclose that they were intruded even if they found what happened. Landline phones and faraday cages could become very popular in some installations.

      Probably there aren't used in US because may have other ways to get in, even in offline networks (maybe embedded 3g radios?) without needing to have that kind of reach.

    19. Re:Where are they? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You're right to be skeptical; the headline is nonsense.

      Article indicates that the NSA has used "some quantity" of these radio devices, and has in addition planted 100,000 software bugs on computers across the world. Run it through the slashdot submission process, and that becomes "NSA plants 100,000 radio spy kits in your kitchen computer"

      Im at the point where I assume any article about the NSA was written by someone who doesnt understand or care about the actual issues, and is just looking to fan the flames as much as possible.

    20. Re:Where are they? by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      They licensed the technology and had it all assembled in Malaysia.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    21. Re:Where are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://gizmodo.com/a-peek-inside-the-nsas-spy-gear-catalog-1491827763

    22. Re:Where are they? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      I would fail to find that relevant at all. 100% sidetrack.

      You have both the fairly significant difficulty of having to find them in the first place, and the fact that most people are simply not going to go through that effort as well. The problem is you can't simply quantify or guarantee that you *do* have them, but you also cannot guarantee that you do not. The fact that the NSA has explicit documentation showing that they use these tactics however, guarantees that security is compromised by the NSA - and while they think it's "For" themselves, it benefits anyone who can figure out their exploits.

      The real question is, how can we prevent this to ensure that we don't have security compromised by the NSA?

    23. Re:Where are they? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      If they were really careful, it was packaged with an acid capsule, corrodes beyond analysis when opened, and can be remotely triggered to open the capsule with a hot-wire - obscuring the nefarious bits while preserving the expected functions. Might look like water damage or poor cleaning at the factory if it were ever opened.

    24. Re:Where are they? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Funny

      It (the tinfoil) is supposed to go around your head too... the bit that most people fail to do is close the faraday cage - it needs to be a complete enclosure to work.

    25. Re:Where are they? by bug1 · · Score: 1

      You better be careful that tinfoil isnt shaped like an antenna.

      To fix that you just need to make sure the tinfoil is eathed properly, but then you also need to make sure they arent doign anything tricky wit hthe earth leakage current.

      Also, the NSA might be monitoring EM radiation from your external power supply.

      I suggest you make tinfoil glasses and earplugs, ignorance is bliss.

    26. Re:Where are they? by RMH101 · · Score: 2

      Great post. Thanks. Somehow seeing the internal advertising for these devices and unit costs etc makes it even scarier. The radar-illuminated VGA reading device is astonishing.

    27. Re:Where are they? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It looks like we're past whistleblowing and on to the compromise of intelligence methods.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    28. Re:Where are they? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Yes the power use needed for the VGA reading device is interesting too.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    29. Re:Where are they? by bug1 · · Score: 1

      A lot of mobiles come with Radio receivers, so in theory the NSA could use the backdoors they have in phones that are known to be nearby (from GPS) to syncronise receiving with the burst transmission.

      Use the phones bandwidth to send the data home.

    30. Re:Where are they? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You seem to be suggesting that intelligence agencies are wrong to engage in spying. I like the bit about "disinfect with sunlight" as a touch of irony. Spy agencies work in the shadows. Apparently you don't want them to work at all. You may be missing some other pieces as well.

      George Washington, Spymaster

      Benjamin Franklin

      The Second Continental Congress created the Committee of Secret Correspondence in 1775, which was charged with gathering intelligence and "corresponding with our friends in Great Britain and other parts of the world" to gain information that would be helpful to the American cause and to forge alliances with foreign countries. Benjamin Franklin was one of the original members of this committee, which was the forerunner of the CIA.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    31. Re:Where are they? by Krojack · · Score: 1

      I swear I've seen these tactics somewhere once..... OH.. Was various X-Files episodes!

    32. Re:Where are they? by atheos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      agreed, it sound theoretically possible minus the 8 mile claim.

    33. Re:Where are they? by happy_place · · Score: 1

      Everything Snowden reveals is absolute truth... Why just the other day Iran reported that Snowden revealed the true force behind the US government. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/01/13/iranian-news-agency-says-the-u-s-is-secretly-run-by-nazi-space-aliens-really/

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    34. Re:Where are they? by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pics or it didn't happen

      I got a laugh this morning watching NBC's morning show. Some reporter was talking about how some of these devices were embedded in USB cables. "Like these," he said, as he held up a RJ-45 ethernet cable. :-)

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    35. Re:Where are they? by Touvan · · Score: 1

      "use open hardware/software" - folks make the same claim about voting machines. But I'm never clear on how exactly that would make the machine more trustworthy. You still have to trust your vender, and every single person along the way from the manufacturing plant to your house/office, to not have tampered with anything. It's the same with e-voting machines. How exactly do you know there isn't a modified binary (or even hardware) running inside the black box? It's not like you can open the cover and look inside to see what's running in there - regardless of whether the design or programming was done in the open.

      It all boils down to trust. That's much harder to figure out, so I guess I can see why folks choose to believe in unicorn solutions, like open hardware and open software.

    36. Re:Where are they? by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      As for myself, I prefer a Faraday cage over tinfoil. But to each his own.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    37. Re:Where are they? by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      I had attended a training session several years ago at REI, a company that produces counter surveillance equipment. Aside from strongly pushing their products, the classes were extremely informative and demonstrated techniques to detect just these sorts of things.

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    38. Re:Where are they? by aeranvar · · Score: 1

      It's inserted during shipping. There was a big deal about the NSA intercepted packages being mailed a while ago. I'm not sure how they actually insert the bugs into the USB jacks, but this is all done as the device is on the way to the customer.

    39. Re:Where are they? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      According to TFA, a tiny transceiver can be built into the plastic plug base of a USB cord. Of course, one has not been spotted in the wild, but it sounds theoretically possible.

      Have you looked at some of the USB WiFi and Bluetooth dongles lately? They are a LOT smaller than most thumb drives. Since most of what they are is enough packaging to extend the antenna out and give you something to actually grip on when removing the device, I am fully confident that you could slap one in alongside the regular wiring of a mouse or memory stick and no one the wiser.

      In fact, the only place where it might show up is if it reguired a driver installation on the PC.

    40. Re:Where are they? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      agreed, it sound theoretically possible minus the 8 mile claim.

      Industrial-grade Pringles can.

    41. Re:Where are they? by VVelox · · Score: 1

      > Municipal distances would be a problem, but eight miles is achievable with consumer-grade ham radio hardware.

      Uhm. It has to be small and unnoticable. This excludes any sort of powerful transmitter. Further complicating this is the device being indoors, having a crappy antenna, being powered by USB(providing a notable limit on signal power). The claim of miles I put at in the realm of pure horse shit with out proof to back it up. Similar range as a WAP in a similar environment is much more likely.

    42. Re:Where are they? by xaxa · · Score: 2

      Further examples:

      Eye-fi cards are SD cards containing a WiFi module, which can be a quick way to get photos off a camera.

      Intel Edison is an SD-sized computer with WiFi and Bluetooth: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/do-it-yourself/edison.html

      USB storage drives can be tiny too: http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/10/worlds-smallest-usb-stick-squeezes-64gb-into-a-tiny-silvery-peanut/

    43. Re:Where are they? by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 1

      Besides, thermite would be more fun.

    44. Re:Where are they? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The only way to detect them is continuous monitoring. It's just awkward and very expensive - a few advanced bug detectors on every floor are more expensive than having one man with one detector tour the building every evening.

    45. Re:Where are they? by bob_super · · Score: 1

      And it works better with two grounds, one at each end.
      So run the tinfoil from your ears down your pants and spread your legs while you walk.

      You will know it is working if the clueless people still affected by the mind-control waves look at you like you're an alien.

    46. Re:Where are they? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      Who thumbs up bullshit like this. These are electronic components, you don't need acid capsules to destroy them in situ. And that would be very suspicious.

      "I looked to see if NSA had installed covert hardware on my computer, but when I opened it up all I found was a mess of parts melted by some sort of acid. Now there's no way to tell if there's been an intrusion!"

    47. Re:Where are they? by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-941262.html
      Pics of the devices from the NSA catalog.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    48. Re:Where are they? by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      And you're an anonymous coward! Jees, now I remember why I've not logged in here for a while. Did I say that it would be plugged in? Did I say I was sceptical it was true? No. I just asked if any physical evidence had been seen in the wild. Better men than you posted some great links from Spiegel with the details. Grow up.

    49. Re:Where are they? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But they are not stepping forward. No one is. A transmitter with an eight mile range would be extremely easy to detect. Yet no one has found even one of the 100,000 supposedly installed. Maybe we should ask William of Ockham why they are not being detected.

    50. Re:Where are they? by danomac · · Score: 1

      That's all I've got, for the life of me I can't figure out how to attach it to a computer without someone noticing.

      <telephone rings>

      "Hi, this is Microsoft Tech Support. We've noticed you have a problem with your computer. We are sending someone over to fix it."

    51. Re:Where are they? by cfulton · · Score: 1
      To answer your question:

      There are ways to make sure (or pretty damn sure) that the compiled binary came from the source. Since it is "open source" everyone could examine the source to verify that it was trustworthy. That would then make the machine more trustworthy.

      However I tend to agree that we have to actually trust our government. We cannot live in a society that claims to be free and democratic and still have an adversarial relationship with those in power. We are coming to the point where there is an active movement against those in power, but because of intrenched interest and the two party system we cannot remove them through the "democratic" process. This is a bad thing.

      --
      No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
    52. Re:Where are they? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It (the tinfoil) is supposed to go around your head too... the bit that most people fail to do is close the faraday cage - it needs to be a complete enclosure to work.

      Basically a tinfoil mummy. Hey! I think I've got the name for my new band....

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    53. Re:Where are they? by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      There is even more incentive for Snowden, Russia and China to lie about it, because it hurts the US.

    54. Re:Where are they? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Shipping... from China, to China?

      --

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

    55. Re:Where are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because judicious and artful targeted espionage to achieve a defined military or political goal equates well with slurping up, processing and indefinitely storing minutiae of most every US citizen's lives, under a banner saying "To save The United States of America, we must destroy everything it represents!"

      No. No, it doesn't.

      May a horde of AIDS infected dicks set upon you, COINTELPRO operator.

    56. Re:Where are they? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Might look like water damage or poor cleaning at the factory if it were ever opened.

      Or maybe if they wanted to be really sneaky it would look like capacitor failure...

      --

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

    57. Re:Where are they? by Goaway · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is not a transmitter. It is a radar reflector. You illuminate them with a strong radar, and detect the signal they create in turn. That allows them to be small and have long range.

    58. Re:Where are they? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      They probably intercept the packages from the distributer and substitute the bugged cable in an identical looking blister pac; it even has the optional "RFID" chip installed so that IT can easily tell if the end-user substitutes an unauthorized cable for the bugged one that slipped through the security inspection.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    59. Re:Where are they? by greenbird · · Score: 1

      Further examples:

      WiFi and Bluetooth. I'd be very surprised if either could be read at 8 miles in any kind of real world environment (lots of radio noise). Transmitting distance requires energy.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    60. Re:Where are they? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      At that point, wouldn't it be easier to just design the building as a Faraday cage (which would not be much more complicated than constructing a "normal" stucco/metal roof building)?

      --

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

    61. Re:Where are they? by default+luser · · Score: 1

      A transmitter with an eight mile range would be extremely easy to detect.

      I have to disagree with this. You could hide in the noise if you used Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum. It's not perfect at preventing direction finding, but it's very hard for your average enthusiast to track.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    62. Re:Where are they? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The real question is, how can we prevent this to ensure that we don't have security compromised by the NSA?

      Well you never have security, the best you can hope for is to have the cost of being survailed higher than the value of any intel gathered. I don't worry about the NSA spying on me because I'm not narcisitic enough to think I'm anything but boring to the USG.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    63. Re:Where are they? by aeranvar · · Score: 1

      Possibly. The scandal surrounding the interception of packages did mention the NSA partnering with the CIA. How difficult would it be to get a CIA operative inside of a mailing facility? I wouldn't imagine post offices would do detailed background checks on those involved in mail sorting or monitor their back accounts for bribes.

    64. Re:Where are they? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Doubling the distance at which the signal can be distinguished over noise requires quadrupling the power. Alternately, the bandwidth can be divided by 4. Bandwidth is proportional to data rate. At, say, 10 bits per second, 1 milliwatt can do over 10 miles, as far as the thermal noise floor is concerned. (Note, this is a mental approximation and the actual distance might be much higher.)

      Others above have suggested high data rate burst transmission, which requires high instantaneous power but lower average power. This brings a different set of problems. The transmission frequency will have to be high and also the bandwidth; that means the radiation pattern will be uneven and vary throughout the transmitted bandwidth. Getting the whole signal intact is difficult at the fringe reception distance.

      Problems do show up. Manmade interference can be much larger than thermal noise. The biggest problem is that no matter what scheme is used for transmission, something has to intelligently determine what data is worthwhile and get that data to the transmitter. Not everything that routinely goes through a USB port is useful, or even intelligible (consider mouse clicks.) Thus, the computer itself has to be compromised - perhaps we can assume the USB plug masquerades as a boot disk to infect the computer?

      I suppose it's possible, but I think the difficulties involved in monitoring and sorting through the heaps of received garbage make the idea impractical

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    65. Re:Where are they? by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      Because judicious and artful targeted espionage to achieve a defined military or political goal equates well with slurping up, processing and indefinitely storing minutiae of most every US citizen's lives, under a banner saying "To save The United States of America, we must destroy everything it represents!"

      No. No, it doesn't.

      May a horde of AIDS infected dicks set upon you, COINTELPRO operator.

      These countries are doing the same to the US. They just don't have complete idiots like Snowden telling the world thinking they are fulfilling a worthy cause.

    66. Re:Where are they? by Badooleoo · · Score: 1

      New USB standard to be made of cables and plugs with clear insulation as a requirement?

    67. Re:Where are they? by Badooleoo · · Score: 1

      When you use headphones in a phone the cable is used as an antenna so you can receive FM radio.

      I don't think a separate conductor in the USB cable would need to be present.

    68. Re:Where are they? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Have you ever used a directional antenna?

      I made one using a coke can and a USB wifi adapter and was rather surprised by the large number of additional number of hotspots I was able to see by slowly turning the can in my suburbia 2nd-floor bedroom. I wouldn't be surprised if my recycled-from-the-trashcan directional antenna increased range by 200% or more.

      Since the normal range of wifi hits 500 feet outside, and wifi hackers have achieved as much as 30 miles (50 km) with directional antennas, it wouldn't seem untoward to hit a few miles with an expensive, pole-mounted directional antenna and relatively few obstructions.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    69. Re:Where are they? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't discount the 8 mile claim too quickly either. These devices don't have to deal with the usual set of constraints such as the transceiver on the other side needing to be small or inexpensive or that the system would need to work with large numbers deployed in arbitrary locations.

      They don't even have to meet non-interference requirements so long as the interference they create isn't traced back to them too quickly.

    70. Re:Where are they? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Ultra Wide Band would be extremely difficult to detect with a frequency scanner.

    71. Re:Where are they? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Faraday cages leak at high frequencies. Imperfections in construction, materials that never match the zero-resistance ideal of the model, essential openings for power/water/air. Something always gets out.

    72. Re:Where are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The constitutional purpose of the US military is the defense of this nation against foreign invaders. We have not been invaded by sovereign foreign powers. We do need to gather intelligence, but we should not compromise on our beliefs that it is a natural human right for individuals to be secure in their property, effects or papers (be them physical or digital -- on their own hardware or others). Being a nation of the people, for the people, by the people means that it is imperative for the people to be engaged in meaningful discourse about what is and is not acceptable behavior of our intelligence agencies; and that conversation can only happen if our congress, senate and populace at large know what the conversation needs to be about.

      The Second Continental Congress was a group of traitors to the British thrown. There was no Articles of Confederation, Constitution, Bill of Rights or United States of which to speak. The people being spied on were the British, who they were in the process of declaring war on. The 1775 congress was where the "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech was given.

      The US is not a rag tag group of colonists in revolt. We are now a nation of laws and principles, which those in power ignore all to often. We are not at declared war with any nation; though we have bases in 107 nations, have active combat with troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and have assassinating "terrorists" in various nations (and the occasional teens at a barbecue, news reporter holding a camera that looks a bit too much like a mortar launcher or wedding party that looks a bit too much like a terrorist caravan) without meaningful oversight.

    73. Re:Where are they? by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      As my old professor used to say, "The only difference is how much force must be applied to make it fit." ;-)

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    74. Re:Where are they? by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      No force at all; try it. It's a perfect fit and has even fooled me when I'm trying to blindly plug in a USB cable on a machine with two NICs where the USB and NICs are inline.

    75. Re:Where are they? by ltwally · · Score: 3, Informative

      I got a laugh this morning watching NBC's morning show. Some reporter was talking about how some of these devices were embedded in USB cables. "Like these," he said, as he held up a RJ-45 ethernet cable. :-)

      I got a laugh this morning reading /.. Some nerd was talking about how some reporter couldn't tell an ethernet cable from a USB cable, and mistakenly called it "RJ-45".

      It's ok. You're just not nerd enough to know: RJ-45 is for phone. It is a similar (and physically compatible) form factor to the 8P8C plug commonly used for ethernet cabling.

      For further reading:
      RJ-45
      8P8C

      --



      /dev/random
    76. Re:Where are they? by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful
      When you find how a person is spying on you you never remove it or allow the spy to think that you may know about it.

      You use this device to feed disinformation to your enemy.

      You would make an incredibly bad intelligence agent.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    77. Re:Where are they? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      How much ERP on a given frequency would be necessary for this to have 8 mile range?

      What is the unit for ERP? Wyatts?

      --

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

    78. Re:Where are they? by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      What's more amusing is the dates on those documents. This is 5 year old tech.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    79. Re:Where are they? by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      These countries are doing the same to the US.

      Wow! That's a great excuse.

      I thank Snowden for letting us know what the government that we pay to 'represent' us is doing, or at least filling us in on the specifics.

    80. Re:Where are they? by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      That's all I've got, for the life of me I can't figure out how to attach it to a computer without someone noticing.

      <telephone rings>

      "Hi, this is Microsoft Tech Support. We've noticed you have a problem with your computer. We are sending someone over to fix it."

      That'd be it!

      And there I was naively "thinking" the NSA would be exercising some sort of change control to control exposure of secret intelligence gathering technology by carefully evaluating the exposure risk to intelligence gains and doing slick shit like, um, intercepting hardware shipments and swapping in doctored keyboards or mice. And maybe even adding a doctored PSU with modified DC filtering to match the USB keyboard (those PS2 units don't have much of a power supply) they'd doctored to send DC signals along the AC mains - which'd be good for a few kilometres of signaling.

      Sometimes my mind comes up with the most unlikely crap when I don't take my meds.

    81. Re:Where are they? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      No force at all; try it. It's a perfect fit and has even fooled me when I'm trying to blindly plug in a USB cable on a machine with two NICs where the USB and NICs are inline.

      Been there too many times.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    82. Re:Where are they? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, a tiny transceiver can be built into the plastic plug base of a USB cord. Of course, one has not been spotted in the wild, but it sounds theoretically possible.

      This is possible: http://bgr.com/2014/01/07/intel-edison-sd-card-computer/

      So logically, something a little bit less complicated, but using the similar small chips can easily be hidden. Put it in the right place, no one would notice.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    83. Re: Where are they? by robot5x · · Score: 1

      Oh for mod points.

      all this talk of how to circumvent or dodge our own govts abuses of power are totally wrong. If we have lost faith we need to use democracy to change things - this can be done, even in Americas narrow 2 party system. Anyone who sneers at this should think about how - for example - big business would fail overnight if we all stopped buying stuff. People really do have power! Use it!!

      --
      Hej! Nasi tu byli!
    84. Re:Where are they? by Xolotl · · Score: 1

      If it's a straight cable it's probably a communications cable for a UPS. (really just USB at both ends)

      If it has a box in the middle it's most likeley a USB-to-serial cable to connect to a switch, like this one.

    85. Re:Where are they? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      The equivalent to "you don't have anything to hide" response is 100% incorrect. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131126/01352025373/if-you-dont-care-about-nsa-because-you-havent-done-anything-wrong-youre-wrong.shtml That's simply stating that you feel you are not a target at the moment, but that's not to say you can't be completely screwed the second you are the target. So not only is that also a sidetrack, it's wrong.

    86. Re:Where are they? by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      The NYT wants is to believe that:

      A radio transmitter hidden in a USB cable can collect all kinds of data from a user's PC and they can read this data up to eight miles away.

      Let's apply some basic Physics here, OK? The antenna would be very small, no more than a microstrip. It would be resonant at a very high frequency, somewhere in the five to six Ghz range. At this wavelength, propagation would be line of sight at best, and would be affected by raindrops, snowflakes, dust in the air, etc.. The transmitter output would be in the millionths of a watt range at best. There are major heat dissipation issues, at those frequencies, a temperature change would affect the length of the microstrip antenna, changing its resonant frequency. You need a very stable power source at these frequencies, and a very stable oscillator (e.g. the power frequency has to be regulated). This is basic RF physics, it can't be changed by legislation or ideology.

      Detection would involve a $300 frequency counter. Anyone with the basic electronic knowledge would know this. There's no "secret" to hide RF emission.

      Prevention would be a six cent piece of aluminum foil wrapped around the connector body. This would give near 90% attenuation.

      Data collected would be limited to the data passed through the cable, unless the driver was compromised, requiring the cooperation of every operating system manufacturer, a very big secret to be kept across the world.

      So we should look at the SOURCE here. This is the same Newspaper that published a propaganda piece about Benghazi, that was condemned as fantasy at multiple levels of government, and has since been shown to be a complete fabrication. The real story here is the death of American Journalism, the NYT used to be a great newspaper, trustworthy, and working in all of our interests, uncovering malfeasance and holding politicians accountable. The real question to debate here is who is behind this, what are their names, what the motivation is, and who is paying them. The NYT is clearly for sale to the highest bidder, it is very, very sad.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    87. Re:Where are they? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      agreed, it sound theoretically possible minus the 8 mile claim.

      Looking at the Spiegel article at least one of the USB options also includes a separate module for long-term communications. It sounds like the USB does the exploit and interface into the PC, and a separate module acts as a relay for longer range. Makes sense - it seems like they are targeting a variety of exploits like USB, PCI, etc - which gives you more options as to how to tap any particular target. There was an article a way back about people messing with fuzz attacks over the USB bus and that OSes were surprisingly vulnerable to hostile USB hardware. In theory that mouse you just bought could be used to hack into your PC.

    88. Re:Where are they? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I had attended a training session several years ago at REI, a company that produces counter surveillance equipment. Aside from strongly pushing their products, the classes were extremely informative and demonstrated techniques to detect just these sorts of things.

      This is a cat and mouse came - I'm sure somebody like the NSA/CIA could easily stay a step ahead of anything commonly available. If the transmission is spread-spectrum it could be really hard to detect. Heck, they could point a laser at a window and have it trigger once every few days in the middle of the night - good luck spotting that.

    89. Re:Where are they? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      ...You use this device to feed disinformation to your enemy.

      Think again.

      You're better off destroying it and getting rid of it.

    90. Re:Where are they? by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      You are absolutely wrong on this.

      So wrong in fact that I am sure that once it was pointed out 99% of those that did not know this before know it to be true now.

      Everyone but you that is.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    91. Re:Where are they? by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      No doubt. The class certainly didn't make me an expert by any means. It was definitely interesting learning about surveillance techniques and methods to detect them. The class had a hands-on portion where they had mock hotel rooms and we had to set up the equipment to try to detect and locate the various bugs through out the room. I only found about half of them of which the burst transmitter was not one. I learned two things, one you really have to know what you are doing, and two, you have to be lucky enough to be watching when it happens.

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    92. Re:Where are they? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 2

      You are absolutely wrong on this.

      So wrong in fact that I am sure that once it was pointed out 99% of those that did not know this before know it to be true now.

      Everyone but you that is.

      Don't delude yourself. Unless it's your mom or sister doing it and you know it's them. It's clear to me that you have absolutely no clue about this. You'd be a sitting duck. He's going to know you've found it. They know what to look for in your behaviour, it's taught in school. They also know how to put your disinformation together into something useful. Possibly useful enough to get you. This isn't new. They used to do it all the time in WWII with captured personnel. Get smart, you only help them.

      Go ahead if you want if it happens to you. Maybe you'll get lucky and get a new guy. Don't count on it and don't advise other people to do it.

  2. Skeptical about the 8 miles by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

    I'd like to know how they did that. Especially with a transmitter *inside* the computer...

    1. Re:Skeptical about the 8 miles by TWX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, if a computer is poorly shielded that might not be all that hard. Handheld 5W ham radios can go much more than that distance on 2m, and lower frequencies can go much further. When the weather allows it, a 5W 2m transmission can go dozens or even a hundred miles, and in especially unusual weather conditions a friend of mine in California managed to talk with someone in Hawaii, once.

      So, while inside a case it might not go 20 miles to cover a whole city, I could see being able to reach 8 miles, depending on how intelligently the system was designed in order to reduce the chances of being discovered. The other downside is that strong radio transmissions can interfere with things including speakers, which might make them obvious if not handled correctly.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Skeptical about the 8 miles by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the signal will go that distance, the trick is having a receiver sensitive enough to pick it up

    3. Re:Skeptical about the 8 miles by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Lower frequencies require large antennas, and even on 2m, the device is sort of obvious. Ditto for 5W of extra power draw. If your supposedly EM-compatible PC or a similar device is emitting multiple watts in the VHF spectrum and you don't notice that, you fully deserve what you got.

      Honestly, I think the most efficient way of having the machine communicate with the attacker (especially if the attacker is NSA) is through some sort of TCP/IP based side channel. Low bandwidth, perhaps, but much less obvious.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Skeptical about the 8 miles by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised there's even a limit. Think about it for a while... the USB device only has to receive. Their transmitter can be as powerful as they want, so that's not a problem. To send data back, either the USB can store what it needs and be picked up later... or, it can infect the computer and use it to transmit. If it has ANY wifi capability, they can use that to transmit, and even if it doesn't I'd imagine there's all sorts of nifty tricks they could do like varying current draw in pulses to send a signal... or maybe the NSA can see the computer through a window and they can flicker the power light.

      Keep in mind they are saying "Up to" 8 miles away and the NYT has redacted info at the NSA's request. So it may be that if they're within 100 yards of it they can have direct coms with the device but beyond that they have lots of tricks and such to still be able to connect. Given an unlimited budget and resources this doesn't seem all that impossible.

    5. Re:Skeptical about the 8 miles by TWX · · Score: 1

      I think the point of using radio is for air-gapped PCs that are air-gapped for security. This would preclude using regular computer networking methods.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Skeptical about the 8 miles by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      8 miles over the air would set off any self-respecting bug sweeper in the building.

      I wonder if this was more of an operational spec, 8 miles total, but with relays between computer and data extraction point...

    7. Re:Skeptical about the 8 miles by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      If the transmitter is on the ISS, the signal will go much more than that distance, and receiver sensitivity is not the big trick - discrimination from other signals and noise is.

    8. Re:Skeptical about the 8 miles by fostware · · Score: 1

      The other downside is that strong radio transmissions can interfere with things including speakers, which might make them obvious if not handled correctly.

      And people complain about the CirrusLogic and RealTek on-board audio buzzing because of bad grounding... Maybe the buzz isn't grounding at all...

      --
      "We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
    9. Re:Skeptical about the 8 miles by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      If you look at the Cottonmouth-III picture, I think it says UWB next to the RF section. That means it uses Ultra-wideband to communicate, which is very difficult to detect and has enormous bandwidth. As for an antenna, if you interpose the RF signal on both wires of a twisted pair, you've got a decent longwire antenna. With a decent directional antenna at the receiver (easy to do given the multi-GHz freqs involved), I don't doubt an 8 mile range.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    10. Re:Skeptical about the 8 miles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a very oldschool technique, actually.

      Directed Wave Radar - a strong highly directional microwave carrier, at high wattage (I've seen 2KW, or higher!). You bounce that off it and the device's circuit modulates the reflection based on what passes through it - the transceiver at the NIGHTSTAND end of the connection uses an SDR to demodulate what comes back. 8 miles is no problem as long as there are no buildings in the way.

      The Russians infamously used it first - old embassy bug. The modern techniques are just a twist on that. Think of it sort of like RFID tags, only... more so.

    11. Re:Skeptical about the 8 miles by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      How is this modded insightful? For many years, it's been easy to build receivers that are within a fraction of a dB of the thermal noise floor through hundreds of megahertz. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise describes thermal noise.) Below about 100 MHz, sky noise is even worse than thermal noise.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:Skeptical about the 8 miles by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Just flip over one of the satelites used to talk to Mars Rovers or Voyagers or something for a few minutes. Look for an ID signal thru the noise. Shouldn't be hard if there is a known ID to scan for to determine what signal to grab.

  3. wait a second.... by datapharmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, so I get the whole whistle blower thing but isn't this what the NSA is supposed to be doing? Spying on Americans is ok to get fussy about but why was this leaked and why doesn't the NYT realize that this actually does set back U.S. intelligence? Are they also going to release a story detailing what the Chinese are doing to spy on US from leaked Chinese intelligence?

    --
    Get a web developer
    1. Re:wait a second.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think this "leak" is necessarily from Snowden, despite what the summary says, that remains to be seen,

    2. Re:wait a second.... by neoform · · Score: 1

      Does it not seem strange to you that you're ok with spying on others, but you're not ok with spying on you?

      So spying on China is ok, what about other countries? Can we spy on Canadians? They're not American, so I guess that's a yes?

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    3. Re:wait a second.... by Above · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      More importantly, if it's ok for the US to spy on China, then it's A-Ok for China to spy on the US. Right? Good thing none of our electrics are made in a country that might want to spy on us and controls industry so they can hide spy tech inside of it easily. Wait, uh, oops.

    4. Re:wait a second.... by c0lo · · Score: 2

      Ok, so I get the whole whistle blower thing but isn't this what the NSA is supposed to be doing? Spying on Americans is ok to get fussy about but why was this leaked and why doesn't the NYT realize that this actually does set back U.S. intelligence? Are they also going to release a story detailing what the Chinese are doing to spy on US from leaked Chinese intelligence?

      The problem with security by obscurity: one never knows when the adversary manages to shed a light into the obscure and start exploting the backdoor without your knowledge.

      The implication: how would you like ... (if you feel so strong to cast them into an adversary, be it)... the Chinese Intelligence to discover that backdoor by themselves and start spying on you from 8 miles away? Or spy on some computers in universities running some defense research? (you got the gist... I hope). How do you know it haven't already happened?
      Or... do you use to take your adversaries for the stupid?

      (BTW: nice nick, datapharmer)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:wait a second.... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      Spying on foreign citizens is completely constitutional.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    6. Re:wait a second.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the game of international intelligence, a foreign military asset is not "innocent." To presume it's so is to invite disaster. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and honesty can see and admit this. Which do you lack?

    7. Re:wait a second.... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      It says clearly int he article they are using these devices against the European Union, which we have treaties with that ban this sort of thing. Your argument is like the dude at the highschool party telling the cops "Well everyone else was drinking!" Just because we suspect our government was doing illegal/immoral things, and just because other government are doing illegal/immoral things, does not mean we should just roll over and say "Oh well, I guess that's how the world works" Instead we should use this opportunity to change how the world works. To make it clear that we do not find this acceptable and that it needs to end.

    8. Re:wait a second.... by datapharmer · · Score: 2

      Well that is their mandate, whether or not I am ok with spying on others is irrelevant. Theoretically if a majority of Americans determine that this isn't ok we can disband the NSA altogether, but the problem with Spying on Americans is that spying on Americans in direct contradiction to their mandate and therefore there is no working check or balance on their power thus circumventing the Republican Democracy (under the argument that "we the people" empowered elected representatives to establish the NSA but demand that their powers are limited to external entities to insure they follow the rules of the Constitution). In this case it is being reported that they are doing their job, which is totally different as it is currently an acceptable behavior within the confines of the U.S. culture's social contract (which could be changed in theory through the constructs of the nation's laws and systems of governance).

      --
      Get a web developer
    9. Re:wait a second.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      No one is innocent until deemed so by the government. Until then they are all potential terrorists or unwitting accomplices to terrorists.

      Which is also wrong.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:wait a second.... by Thud457 · · Score: 2

      Correct.

      Normal protocol is we spy on British citizens and then hand the data over to our allies, the British.
      Conversely, the British spy on Americans and hand the information over to us.

      perfectly Constitutional

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    11. Re:wait a second.... by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Allies have always spied on each other. You think that the UK, Israel and Russia don't spy on the US?

    12. Re:wait a second.... by neoform · · Score: 1

      If their job was killing children, would you be arguing semantics about the difference between following their mandate and whether their actions are permissible?

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    13. Re:wait a second.... by neoform · · Score: 1

      The old "they do it too, so it's ok" defense.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    14. Re:wait a second.... by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      As others have pointed out, this isn't "they do it too, so it's ok defense."

      Others in this thread have already explained the fallacy in your thinking.

    15. Re:wait a second.... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Spying on foreign citizens is completely constitutional.

      No. The US is a Natural Rights Republic. The Rights that the People have are not granted by a government, they are inherent in the nature of being a human. That's what the Constitution was trying to provide (but has obviously failed).

      If Privacy is one of those rights, then it applies equally to all humans. That's also why it's immoral.

      And yes, you'll find apologists for power finding otherwise. When in doubt, consult the Declaration of Independence which sets forth the moral framework that the Constitution attempted to implement.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:wait a second.... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      How charmingly naive. You think our allies aren't spying on us, and we shouldn't spy on our allies. Fool.

      The NSA shouldn't be spying on US citizens in the US without some good reason to believe they aren't innocent, and then not without a warrant, it's unconstitutional and evil. Outside the US, they shouldn't spy on people they don't have a reason to believe intend to damage the US, because it's ineffective. Anyone outside the US who can be reasonably expected to intend the US harm is fair game, and properly so.

      As a side issue, the ends cannot be separated from the means: the means are a part of the end.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    17. Re:wait a second.... by number11 · · Score: 1

      The NSA shouldn't be spying on US citizens in the US without some good reason to believe they aren't innocent, and then not without a warrant, it's unconstitutional and evil.

      And if they do, they should be prosecuted and sent to prison. Any of them who assists in that (because we're far beyond the "was only following orders" defense). And if the prosecutors don't do their job then they're a part of the problem.

      Unfortunately, the USG is part of the problem.

  4. Here's a silly question by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the USB driver have to be compromised as well?

    1. Re:Here's a silly question by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      No, if the device is a keyboard, it knows what keys you pressed, and can send that directly. Transmitting over 12 km is extremely impressive if true, and could be useful for civil purposes.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:Here's a silly question by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm dubious about the distance but remember that they are TARGETTING their devices.

      As such, they could be on a roof 12km away with a whole array of receivers pointed to within inches of the radio source, and so 12km isn't as insane as it sounds. But it doesn't mean they have a commercially viable tech that others don't.

      Pringles tins on wireless dongles - the range can be immense, and if you are good at antenna design, it can get insane. If you know to within-an-inch where you're supposed to be pointing at and/or can trigger it to do a one-off high-powered transmit to download information (by a similar one-off high-powered transmit from a distance), then it's not all that impossible.

      But you're not going to see another 802.11 wireless revision out of their work. It's a whole different ball game.

    3. Re:Here's a silly question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry for anonymous. But I'm too lazy to login.

      Here's the deal, 8 miles is a real stretch given the amount of power that can be gotten from a USB port. Additionally, they would have to be transmitting high in the microwave band, with a beam (like a yagi) for remote receive.

      The bigger problem is getting an inefficient antenna, fractal or not, to put out a signal readable 8 miles away at let's say 500mW. I'm not sure it can be done. I've used wave guides to send a 2.4Ghz data connection a few miles across the Ohio river at just under one watt (hacked Linksys firmware), but the data rates were not fabulous. However the gain on the antennas was fabulous in both directions.

      I'm an Amateur Extra license holder and build antennas all the time. At least on the frequencies I can legally play with- the claim is a real stretch.

    4. Re:Here's a silly question by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      It really depends on how the word distance is measured and presented. The distance covered by a few self networking, powered hidden devices near the complex, building of interest could get a weak signal out and then back to a friendly embassy roof over 12km via 'hops'.
      The tech has a range of "12km", the hops, boosting, re encoding, bursts, storage, time shifting via linked devices could be just as creative to ensure any signal is really tricky to find with most known scanners.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Here's a silly question by jatoo · · Score: 1

      The problem with their plan was that when you plugged the USB device in, Windows created a pop-up which said "Windows is installing device drivers for 'NSA spy transmitter...'"

  5. All these stories: the NSA continues to assure us by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    Even though they've already lied about the range of their activities, their scope and depth, their capabilities, their intent, and their mandate.

    Of course, this is spy stuff, you're supposed to lie about that.

    Which is exactly why no one believes your assurances NSA.

    You have too much power. No transparency, no oversight, no limits. You will destroy our country with Edward Snowdens who are not virtuous, but motivated by corruption and other agendas: political, mostly. You can't say that won't happen, it *always* happens, to every institution of your size and breadth, because you're made of fallible human beings. Proof: Edward Snowden. You think he is the last? You think the next one will be motivated by noble principles?

    That is why you must be decimated and pried into and monitored. Hopefully, legislatively and via execute order. And soon. For the sake of the legitimacy of our government, which your dealings cast into doubt.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  6. Censorship by bombman · · Score: 1

    And here I thought the Chinese net was slow because of the Chinese gov monitoring everything. Turns out it was the NSA.
    Leaking this info is not in the "public interest" (well the Chinese public, possibly).

    1. Re:Censorship by c0lo · · Score: 1

      And here I thought the Chinese net was slow because of the Chinese gov monitoring everything. Turns out it was the NSA.

      No, the net is still slow because of the chinese. What's slow because of the NSA it's your keyboard (and has nothing to do with Windows 8.1)
      (large grin)

      Leaking this info is not in the "public interest" (well the Chinese public, possibly).

      At least now that's in the open you can sacrifice a bit of tinfoil to make a cover for your computer and stop the RF leaks... what if the Chinese knew about and were already listening to your computer from 8 miles away?

      BTW, bombman, how do you know it's not actually the Chinese at the origin of the leak?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  7. Here's what I don't understand by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The NSA claims that it doesn't steal trade secrets from foreign companies in order to give US businesses a competitive edge. I suspect they are lying, given that it seems like they lie about everything, and that we already have reason to suspect they are lying about this in particular.

    However, the implication is that it would be wrong or immoral for them to do so (unlike the French or Chinese who have no such qualms). E.g., in the article, we read:

    At that session, Mr. Obama tried to differentiate between conducting surveillance for national security — which the United States argues is legitimate — and conducting it to steal intellectual property.

    It goes on to quote Peter Singer saying that for the Chinese, economic advantage is part of national security.

    Maybe the Chinese are right. And here's the thing - the U.S. already behaves as if securing economic advantages for our domestic industry is a critical interest. In trade negotiations, we ram our IP laws down the throats of every other country while dangling our domestic market in front of them, all the while never actually liberalizing agriculture at home. I don't understand why it's acceptable for us to promote our domestic businesses through trade diplomacy, but somehow it becomes unacceptable to do so through spying.

    In my mind, we are trying to accomplish the same thing as the Chinese, just via a different means (or probably, via both means). Yet we criticize them as if we are somehow morally superior in the way we do it.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    1. Re:Here's what I don't understand by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FTFA: Leaked documents show: "the program, code-named Quantum, has also been successful in inserting software into... trade institutions inside the European Union"

      NSA propaganda reply: "Vanee Vines, an agency spokeswoman, said in a statement. 'We do not use foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of — or give intelligence we collect to — U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line.' "

      The NSA really go out of their way to deny Industrial espionage, yet they have been caught targeting trade institutions in the EU. Yeah, I also suspect the NSA is lying as usual. From past marketing releases they really try to downplay Industrial Espionage as their motivation, which probably means it is their #1 bread and butter function.

    2. Re:Here's what I don't understand by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Woolsey references a document" "The European Parliament's recent report on Echelon, written by British journalist Duncan Campbell"

      So, get that document and see if what he says about it is correct.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Here's what I don't understand by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      Other countries are free to not accept US positions on trade and treaties, just as the US is in return.

      This is true in the same way that you are free to not accept your ISP's terms of services, just as the ISP is free to not accept you as a customer. In other word, it completely ignores the fact that some parties are far more powerful than others, and some parties need the relationship more than others.

      It also ignores the fact that frequently trade relationships are driven by other political interests. If your country wants to strike up or maintain a defense relationship with the U.S., it is going to look for other areas in which to develop partnerships with the U.S. This may mean signing on to a trade deal that is worthless or actually harmful, in the hope that it makes a defense relationship more likely.

      I have no problem with trade negotiations when they are actually negotiations. But to me it seems disingenuous to claim that negotiations are superior to industrial espionage when the "negotiations" are more akin to bullying. By the way, the U.S. has spied on negotiating partners during negotiations in order to give itself an upper hand. Is that better than directly stealing trade secrets? I'm not sure.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    4. Re:Here's what I don't understand by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

      I suspect they are lying, given that it seems like they lie about everything, and that we already have reason to suspect they are lying about this in particular. [bbc.co.uk]

      Haven't you heard? The NSA just admitted that they lie about everything.

      (Quick! Duck before his head explodes!)

    5. Re:Here's what I don't understand by jittles · · Score: 1

      The NSA claims that it doesn't steal trade secrets from foreign companies in order to give US businesses a competitive edge.

      Maybe I misread or am misremembering the quote I read this morning but the gist was this: "We (the NSA) do not use Foreign Intelligence Services to spy on Foreign Corporations and/or steal trade secrets.

      My interpretation is: "Of course we don't use foreign assets for that, we use US assets to spy for US companies"

    6. Re:Here's what I don't understand by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Business is war, business is inherently amoral (not moral or immoral), and "spin" to sell what nations do for advantage is perfectly logical.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Here's what I don't understand by rapjr · · Score: 1

      The article quotes the NSA as saying "We do not use foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of --- or give intelligence we collect to --- U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line." however the intelligence is requested by congresspeople and the congresspeople may be requesting the intelligence to help US companies. So the NSA has deniability to say they don't spy for US corporate interests, but those requesting the intelligence may be doing exactly that.

    8. Re:Here's what I don't understand by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they steal lots of information. The key is whether they sell that information for good use or just store it like everything else.

    9. Re:Here's what I don't understand by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      all the while never actually liberalizing agriculture at home.

      I've read all too many examples of tainted food and poisoned toys from China. Inspection isn't without cost, and should be paid for from import duties.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    10. Re:Here's what I don't understand by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      Isn't trade information publicly accessible? How does this information possibly help US companies?

    11. Re:Here's what I don't understand by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with inspections. I do have a problem with massive agricultural subsidies to wheat, cotton, and sugar industries, including subsidies that have been ruled illegal by the WTO.

      Note that when our cotton subsidies were found to violate the international laws that we agreed to, the U.S. decided that instead of changing our policy, we'd simply pay off the Brazilian cotton farmers who sued us in the first place.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    12. Re:Here's what I don't understand by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

      Darn, this one didn't get any attention but I thought it was my best one all day. As the saying goes, "time and chance happeneth to them all."

    13. Re:Here's what I don't understand by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      GCHQ recently posted a job offer for someone to provide technical support to their business customers, helping them make use of intelligence resources. They basically admitted industrial espionage. Since GCHQ is basically an NSA subsidiary it's probably safe to assume that the NSA does it too.

      In fact, we know it does, because it was used against Airbus when Boeing was about to lose a contract to them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. Reading comprehension by the_other_chewey · · Score: 5, Informative
    I don't doubt the existence of physical bugs, but the claimed scale
    of 100k devices in the field isn't supported by the article.

    They infected 100k machines with software, most of them remotely.
    (In that case, I consider the claimed number to be rather low even.)

    It's right there in the first two paragraphs of TFA:

    The National Security Agency has implanted software in nearly 100,000 computers around the world that allows the United States to conduct surveillance on those machines and can also create a digital highway for launching cyberattacks.

    While most of the software is inserted by gaining access to computer networks, the N.S.A. has increasingly made use of a secret technology that enables it to enter and alter data in computers even if they are not connected to the Internet

    1. Re:Reading comprehension by j35ter · · Score: 1

      What, you actually read TFA? You silly one, you....

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    2. Re:Reading comprehension by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      A company or gov buys a part for an air gapped network.
      The NSA sends hardware with a new tiny circuit boards or altered USB hardware via the post.
      Staff install and run the hardware, noting their system works as normal and no new changes to any of their OS.
      From that one infection the 'huge' hidden 'network' might get infected later and report back just like any time delayed malware expect its a hop via an unexpected radio network.
      Impress the US gov staff and oversight committees with impressive "software" and "computer networks" infected numbers vs a lower physical radio device shipped count.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. Manufacturers by Skiron · · Score: 1

    So the only way to do this is get some sort of intercept from the manufacturer->seller/reseller->mail/postman. It looks like everybody is in cahoots with them.

    1. Re:Manufacturers by Skiron · · Score: 1

      Enforced or not, if you are in a 'partnership' you are in cahoots

  10. VGA Ports are out now? by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

    Back a couple of decades ago, this was supposed to be possible remotely by monitoring RF output from those noisy, leaky VGA ports. Never saw a demonstration from 8 miles away, just across the street or from a van on the street. No special hardware in the computer, just the right gear to listen to the RF leaking all over the place.

    Sorry for no link, Google is full of connecting HDMI to VGA stuff these days.

    --
    Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    1. Re:VGA Ports are out now? by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

      By monitor I mean see what was on screen. I do not recall any demonstration of being to remotely manipulate input, data, etc.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    2. Re:VGA Ports are out now? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The link you're looking for.

      Most people know of this from having read Cryptonomicon.

    3. Re:VGA Ports are out now? by Whatsisname · · Score: 1

      I believe you are talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking

  11. How would it work? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    Okay, so you implant a small wireless device in the connector of a USB cable. No problem - it doesn't take a genius to realize that is a trivial engineering task in this day and age. So now you have a cable that still must work as a cable connecting the computer to whatever USB device is on the other end (printer?), because obviously if the device doesn't work as normal the cable will be replaced. So the secret interface in the cable can't be an actual USB network device. Nor can it even be a USB drive. In either case then the printer can't work.

    So that means the interface in the USB cable has to act like a USB hub, right? Thus the only information the interface has direct access to is whatever data is flowing to the real device on the other end (printer?) - the only thing they can access for sure is what is printed.

    The other option is for the secret interface to also include a USB drive which has spyware on it that is installed if the PC autoruns external drives. In that case the spyware could then forward whatever data they want to the secret wireless interface for remote capture. But that is still dependent on poor security on the PC.

    My point is that you can't plug a USB device into a computer and it somehow magically access to everything on the PC, unless you also have software on the PC as well. But as soon as you run software on the PC you vastly increase the odds of being discovered.

    Is that the only way something like this could work, or am I missing something?

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:How would it work? by sal_park · · Score: 1

      unless you also have software on the PC

      Agreed. How about ADVAPI.DLL ? ( http://www.whale.to/b/nsa3.html ) Now all you need to do is get hardware manufactures to include the necessary wireless hardware somewhere (say in a USB hub chip or wifi chip) and of course given that the drivers for these are binary blobs (it's the MOST secure way sir! (I'm joking)) who knows what code the NSA has asked them include in that driver ? (NSA talking to NEC (or some other chip fab): Include our binary blob in you binary blob or we will fuck you up m'kay ?) Now how do you feel about running your 'binary blob' driver in linux ?

    2. Re:How would it work? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Its the "bus" and way back into the computer hardware. Not all electronics is a one way 'push' of data down to a port, printer. Some of the end user "interfaces" are nice and complex and can really talk back up into the OS, CPU, wireless hardware.
      e.g. 'Hardening hardware and choosing a #goodBIOS" at 30c3
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VvR-vsdMlQ at ~ 29 mins in

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  12. The real important question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does the hardware have good Linux drivers?

    1. Re:The real important question: by jittles · · Score: 1

      Does the hardware have good Linux drivers?

      Don't worry! Driver support is baked right into SE Linux ;)

    2. Re:The real important question: by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      And SE Linux was developed in cooperation with whom?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  13. Could be misdirection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Query: what would be the best way for the US to get this whole Snowden leak business to die once and for all.
    Answer: Make the public doubt the veracity of the data.
    Query: What would be the best way to make people doubt the data?
    Answer: Create a false story saying something unbelievable and attribute it to the Snowden leak.

  14. Work on your handwriting by Akratist · · Score: 1

    How long is it going to be before paper and pen communication become most popular again?

    1. Re:Work on your handwriting by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Insert carbon paper here.....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Work on your handwriting by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      As soon as almost everybody has forgotten how to write cursive.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  15. And a bug detector...? by the_B0fh · · Score: 2

    The bigger question is - what's a good bug detector nowadays! The sub-$100 are worthless, and the over $1k models - who can really tell what's good and what's not?

    1. Re:And a bug detector...? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      All of them are useless. a "good" bug detector is a RF spectrum analyzer and a guy that has the experience to look for and see RF being transmitted across the board. Frequency hopping is very common and will never set off a "bug detector".

      You need a $25,000 piece of equipment and a guy you pay $150 an hour that knows what he is doing.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:And a bug detector...? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      You can do that but you cant mask signal strength. I find a printer that is blasting CDMA or noise I have you nabbed. that is the value of the Spectrum analyzer, I can use the worlds most powerful computer to see that I am seeing significant RF energy coming from things that are not supposed to be doing that. Stick a red sticker to it and move on. Later dis-assembly will discover the bug or verify it as clean.

      SMART spies will not broadcast all the time. My evil printer will never ever broadcast during the day. I would use a burst broadcast at night that did a lookup table of times and even dates to send the data. and honestly my "radio" would be a good old GSM or CDMA phone. you can get boards that are insanely tiny coupled with a raspberry pi in there and I can own the network at random times during the day and then store and forward at "random" times to avoid detection.

      In fact I dont believe the NSA is using old 1950's "briefcase" collection systems. Send the traffic over the cellular network. easier and nearly transparent.

      How I would look for what I just described is set up a multi point recording hardware setup. a PC based wideband analyzer and record for 30 days. with 5 antennas in the building on 5 analyzers. look at the data carefully looking for peaks of transmitters that are in the building. by using signal strength and position I can tell you the location of each transmission that is recorded. overlay this on the buildings floorplan and you have a map of what to watch closer. Yes you can do it with 4, but the 5th gives you greater accuracy for location.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:And a bug detector...? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      You can do that but you cant mask signal strength.

      You can easily hide the signal strength using spread spectrum or ultra-wideband transmissions. There need be no peaks above the noise floor, so unless you know the spreading code, you will see nothing at all on your analyzers.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    4. Re:And a bug detector...? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Sorry but that doesn't work. you have to have signal strength to get signal propagation. if you are not above the noise floor your transmission goes nowhere. You cant get around physics.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:And a bug detector...? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Here's a decent primer for you.

      The basic idea is to spread the signal from a single peak that contains all of the transmitted energy to a very broad series of peaks that each contain a fraction of the transmitted energy. On the receiving end, you recombine the peaks to get enough signal to interpret.

      The presence of noise may mask the signal, but it doesn't actually make it stop existing. Transmissions below the noise floor are absolutely possible (I work with them every day). In fact, you do too, since CDMA is a spread spectrum based technology (what do you think "code division" refers to?).

      [And to not mislead anyone, there are techniques to detect spread spectrum signals if you don't know the spreading code, but they are not particularly robust and can be designed around.]

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  16. TEMPEST by crow · · Score: 1

    Yes. Here's the link.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)

    In theory, there is still some signal from modern LCD monitors, but it's much harder to pick up than the old CRTs. The same technology could be used to determine what a CPU is doing or any other electronic component, but, again, it's very difficult to get a strong enough signal at a distance to make use of it.

    1. Re:TEMPEST by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

      The thing I was remembering was the RF coming from the port itself, no matter if anything was plugged in or not. Saw them do the sniffing of laptops with open VGA ports too.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    2. Re:TEMPEST by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      The CRT was a lot stronger source than just the VGA port but yes either of them (HDMI for that matter) are vulnerable to vanEck phreaking.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    3. Re:TEMPEST by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

      Yes, in some of those old reports, if memory serves, the big point was that your laptop is still vulnerable even if it is not connected to a CRT.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    4. Re:TEMPEST by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      One must wonder if the HDCP master key that was leaked was really a backdoor provision for spying on leaking signals.

  17. Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, so I get the whole whistle blower thing but isn't this what the NSA is supposed to be doing? Spying on Americans is ok to get fussy about

    As an European, I don't care if US authorities spy on US citizens, that would be their own internal business. But I find it quite offensive that US spies on Europeans, in order to protect US interests. EU should really stand up and announce that such spying is totally unacceptable, any person caught to be part of such will serve serious jail time, diplomatic immunity or not. And any country caught doing so shall loose all diplomatic privileges inside EU, and have their embassies searched for more evidence (with a proper search warrant, of course).

    I wouldn't mind if EU would also ground all flights and money transfers to/from the US for a few days. It would underline how seriously we view the matter, and make it clear for all Americans that we can no longer trust their government.

    1. Re:Americans by geoffrobinson · · Score: 5, Informative

      News flash: Europeans spy on American companies.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    2. Re:Americans by Njovich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm from the Netherlands. Are you saying my government is spying on IBM and Microsoft? This is like being caught robbing a bank with an assault rifle, and then saying it's alright, because everyone steals something sometimes, 'Danny from down the road stole a piece of chocolate too!' or such. Newsflash for you: Most intelligence agencies spy on things that they believe are actual threats to their security. They don't go mass-intercept Facebook traffic in foreign countries of innocent people.

      Now, I'm sure that intelligence agencies here do things they shouldn't do sometimes. And there are also a handful of other countries doing really shitty stuff from their intelligence agencies. I suggest we try to stop all of the wrongdoings, rather than just point and say 'they do it too!'

    3. Re:Americans by ewieling · · Score: 1

      Are you saying it is OK for Americans to spy on European companies because Europeans to spy on American companies? By that logic I am allowed kill someone because other people are doing it.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    4. Re:Americans by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      I'm questioning how this wrecks bilateral relations if America does it when the other side is doing the same thing.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    5. Re:Americans by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

      You realize of course what you are proposing is effectively a declaration of war against nearly every major power, essentially stating that diplomatic relations should be severed with the United States, China, Russia and even other EU member states.

    6. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I suggest we try to stop all of the wrongdoings, rather than just point and say 'they do it too!'

      Since when was spying on other nations wrong? This isn't "two wrongs make a right". This is how the world has always worked.

    7. Re:Americans by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact that is also against the NSA's mandate. They should be (according to their mandate) using this technology to detect and prevent military threats against the U.S. Whether that mandate is acceptable to the EU is a geopolitical question but falls within the construct of U.S. laws (protect your citizens from outside forces, don't go digging through their stuff unless there is a darn good and very specific reason) and thus if we are upsetting our neighbors in the EU we can "easily" change our laws and update their mandate to be something else like "help harden all electronic defenses to protect from foreign attack" but if they are ignoring the laws of their own country that means that there is no way to change their mandate as they just ignore it which undermines our system governing internally in the United States.

      --
      Get a web developer
    8. Re:Americans by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      EU should really stand up and announce that such spying is totally unacceptable, any person caught to be part of such will serve serious jail time, diplomatic immunity or not.

      Spying is already a capital offense in most countries and has been for thousands of years. Diplomatic immunity has never been a shield.

  18. Waste of time by cookYourDog · · Score: 2

    This cat wasn't going to stay in the bag very long.

    For all of the folks screaming on about this revelation being damaging to national security, I would recommend a 10 minute introductory read on RF. There really is no hiding RF transmissions, particularly when you're trying to transmit through buildings and over long distances. Even with FHSS, random burst, or other masking techniques, RF is easily detected with widely available equipment. Any foreign rival with a modicum of competence has already discovered this exploit.

    1. Re:Waste of time by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You hit the key phrase: masking techniques. Have the switching power supply generate 5 watts of sporadic, random, wideband noise; transmit data with 1 Hz deviation FSK at one milliwatt. You'll detect this how?

      A wise or suspicious security specialist would throw out the computer with the noisy power supply just to be safe, but would be quite unlikely to be able to prove that anything subversive was actually going on.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  19. Doesn't pass the smell test by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    To reach a distance of 8 miles one would have to be transmitting a significant amount of power - probably in the range of several watts. From that, a lot of heat would be generated, and it would be unlikely to go unnoticed.

    Assuming that the usb cables were used as antennae, it is also likely that the radiation pattern is for shit, so I find the claim of an 8 mile range to be highly suspect, absent an extremely high gain receiver antenna and a clear line of sight.

    Nevermind the 500mA USB limit on *most* laptops...

    1. Re:Doesn't pass the smell test by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The first hop might be low powered, e.g. out of the building, later local small devices might boost, store, use common background wireless methods to send the data on.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Doesn't pass the smell test by danlip · · Score: 1

      The article says the first hop is 8 miles. I find that hard to believe, but that is the claim.

    3. Re:Doesn't pass the smell test by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      A high gain antenna must be physically large. To a reasonable approximation, the area of the antenna times the power of the transmitter divided by the area of a sphere the radius of which is the distance in question must be greater than the thermal noise power at the specified bandwidth (greater by about 18 or 20 dB to get reliable data recovery, maybe a little less with good error correction). This means a few dozen femtowatts at the receiving antenna for 100 kHz bandwidth.

      The choices then become: the receiver is close to the source, or a distant directional antenna is hidden or camouflaged. In either case, that's fine if the computer stays in one place, but if it's portable then the receiver has to be relocated or the antenna re-aimed.

      Not impossible, just another difficulty operating inside a foreign land.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Doesn't pass the smell test by Error27 · · Score: 1

      The 8 mile thing was an NSA transmitter in a helicopter. It was used to hack someone's system through a bug in their wifi drivers.

  20. for slashdotters this comes as quite a surprise by nimbius · · Score: 2

    to date, while most slashdotters have been accustomed for some time to the governments radio pathways implanted in their teeth, the idea that somehow these same menacing devices may have found their way into the basement and, god forbid, into the VAX or Altair is truly terrifying.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  21. Spread Spectrum? by Gim+Tom · · Score: 1

    How do you make a radio signal hidden of covert? Yes, some spread spectrum techniques make it appear to be just noise, but even so if you sweep in the near field you should be able to detect that something is going on. This might work for soft targets, but for any really secure location it should be detectable pretty easily.

    Forty years ago I worked in a secure facility that was subject to random TEMPEST sweeps at frequent intervals. Even though I was never told what they were doing one look at the equipment they were using, especially the antennas, seemed to indicate that they were looking for any signals from D.C. to Daylight.

  22. Nothing to see here, Move along! by bobbied · · Score: 1

    So, this article is saying that the NSA has hardware that must be physically installed or connected to a computer that allows them to interact with said computer 8 miles away? What's the big deal with that? There is a whole host of things I can do if you let me have physical access to your computer.

    Seriously, I don't see an issue here, nor do I see anything ground breaking. Yes, wireless devices are getting smaller and smaller, I've seen extremely small blue tooth adapters, WiFi adapters and even key loggers which where capable of covertly being installed. WiFi and BlueTooth can go a LONG way using high gain antennas on one end or the other of the link. I have a 2.5 mile link using a cheap commercially available 26db gain antenna that uses only standard WiFi (WRT54) equipment that I run on my part 95 license. It has issues when it rains, but it works most of the time. Imagine what you can do with purpose built hardware, antennas, preamps and the like.

    If you are surprised by this, you must have your head in the sand or be extremely ignorant of how computers and RF work. That there is somebody who can plugin a USB device and then access your computer remotely is certainly NOT a surprise to most of us.

    So this "reporting" by the NY Times is just sensationalism designed to sell papers (or collect access fees to their website). This kind of thing has been possible for decades using off the shelf hardware. One would have to assume the NSA (or it's predecessors) has been creating purpose built custom hardware for years before that.

    Nothing new to see here folks. Move along!

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Nothing to see here, Move along! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Physical access can be subtle. Do you suffer carpal tunnel syndrome? Won't you try my new ergonomic mouse (with embedded spy hardware?)

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  23. Solution by freax · · Score: 3, Funny

    Translucent USB cables and connectors.

    1. Re:Solution by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It's possible to put a whole lot of sophistication into a cubic millimeter (At least several hundred Z80s with current technology, maybe thousands). Put such a device into even a transparent connector and it will never be noticed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  24. just hand them out by schlachter · · Score: 1

    The easy MO is to to just hand out the USB devices at mil trade shows in China or Iran and other places where enemy officials will be. if 1% get inserted into a gov computer or sensitive target, that would be a great return on investment. It's not like this has to be targeted in any way.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  25. More bad journalisim... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    "In most cases, the radio frequency hardware must be physically inserted by a spy, a manufacturer or an unwitting user."

    NO, in ALL cases this radio must be inserted. Honestly if you are a tech journalist and dont know crap about technology, please quit and go flip burgers. I am so tired of these "journalists" that colleges are pumping out.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  26. Re:Smell of BS in the Air by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    "First, show me *ANY* radio transmitter at *ANY* frequency that can convey a signal EIGHT MILES away with a footprint small enough to be hidden and completely unnoticeable. "

    Not a problem. Look up baofeng ham radio transcivers. far smaller than a pack of cigarettes and I can easily hide one inside of a computer with a tiny arduino controller so it hops frequencies and transmits digital data that is harvested. I can easily get the antenna outside of the case through the power cord (modified of course) with the antenna hidden inside the power cord. All of this hidden INSIDE the PC's power supply. I then need to access the PC so run the wires from the duino to one of the internal usb ports and BINGO.

    This is not hard at all to do and with off the shelf parts. if I had a $100,000,000 budget and a fab lab I can make something even smaller, or even make what looks like a PCI-E audio card that is actually my transmitter at 1-5 watts to easily cover 8 miles.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  27. This is the sort of the thing we pay the NSA to do by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    I don't really find myself getting upset learning that the NSA is spying on foreign nations.

  28. Sometimes... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    I think we want to start a war...

  29. And that is why... by redcat23 · · Score: 1

    ...I still use a IBM Model M PS/2 Keyboard to this day. That and it's clicky.

  30. Alright, I'll bite... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    I just completed the closing of my tinfoil helmet as you suggested, what is the next st. ^IR54d (9=NO CARRIER

  31. In Reference to Edward Snowden by mdielmann · · Score: 1

    When Edward left the NSA, all the computers, including cabling were removed. Someone thought this was just another example of government waste, which I disagreed with. Now we know why - they had a certainty that there were malicious cables available.

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  32. van eck phreaking by strstr · · Score: 1

    They do not even have to install hardware to do this. As Signals Intelligence has the most sophisticated remote sensors at their disposal, including 30+ radar and Electronic Intelligence satellites, they are able to remotely image electrons and emissions from long range. According to the classified TEMPEST standard page on Wikipedia, they can monitor even monitor and wired keyboard signals remotely with no physical access to the persons hardware, software, or cable connections. They can tap any electronic this way, even telephones. Brain wave emissions are another monitorable source of radiation, which a brain computer interface is used to decode thoughts, memory, and nerve impulses.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)

    What you are seeing in the medias coverage of this, is complete lack of coverage of the air wave monitoring systems. And yet, whistleblowers like Russell Tice have disclosed he used these capabilities to target Americans. But not a single mainstream source covered it, because they're all censoring shit and stuck covering what Tice reports is the low-tech side to the NSAs capabilities. There has been no coverage hardly of the remote sensing capabilities of the NSA, but that's where all the real technology is in use.

    Learn more on my website, with video of Russell Tice talking about it, and even patents and articles covering these capabilities. He apparently targeted Barack Obama before he was elected Senator, Senator Diane Feinstein, US Supreme Court Judge Alito, lawyers, journalists, financial institutions, and more during black operations, under Special Access Programs. All the NSA need do is point their technology at an area, and they are able to capture and recird all these signals, and see and hear you through even cover of buildings and objects. Nothing protects anyone from this, and they're still doing this today.

    http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html

  33. Re:This is the sort of the thing we pay the NSA to by Ozoner · · Score: 1

    > I don't really find myself getting upset learning that the NSA is spying on foreign nations.

    Only an American would say that.

    And if the Foreign Nations were spying on you, that would be alright?

    Stop and think. Should Americans respect the laws of Foreign Nations?
    Should Foreign Nations respect yours?

  34. i'm sure it's only on "foreigners" by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    so... how many US journalists do you think have one of these monitoring devices?

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  35. Unwise by ubermiester · · Score: 1

    I have been largely sympathetic to Snowden, especially given the scope of the NSA's domestic spying. But I have a real problem with this disclosure. Assuming it is true that none of these devices were meant for US machines (a dubious assumption, I agree, but the use of these tactics domestically is a separate issue anyway), then exposing NSA capabilities to our adversaries is quite simply "aiding and abetting".

    Is there any doubt that the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, etc are right now examining their equipment for the presence of this device? And when they do find something, what good does that do US citizens? None.

    If the net result of Snowden's leaks are that the NSA is hobbled in its actual job - acquiring foreign intelligence - then we should not be so quick to congratulate him. It is obvious that the domestic issues must be addressed, but the idea that the NSA is an unnecessary evil is stupid and dangerous. The new sport of trashing the intelligence services should be tempered with a sober look at the real threats we face. Whether it is guaranteed trips to heaven via high explosives or nation states with an agenda, we are not out of the woods yet. What if N. Korea or Iran now knows we're tapped into their nuclear infrastructure? What if Syria or the Taliban now knows we've been intercepting military communications? What if this was all about China and we lose an important window into their thinking?

    Yes, there can be legitimate doubts about the effectiveness of a given technique (and domestic use should be verboten), but does that make all of them worthless for all time? The world is still a very dangerous place, and while vigilance in the protection of our basic rights is essential, we must also remain realistic and pragmatic.

    1. Re:Unwise by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      Ok, so what good is the NSA without an enforcement mechanism? The armed services are only there to thwart a revolution by "Real Americans", so should be disarmed and dismissed. Oh, and we should dismantle our spy satellites because they might look into your backyard for the AR-15s you stockpiled under the rose garden. Obviously the national guard should be disbanded since they are only there to keep us in, not keep others out.

      You seem to believe all of the most extreme rhetoric one finds in a Tea Party/Libertarian pamphlet. Do you have any actual proof that the NSA's mission is to control US citizens? Paranoia is defined thusly: "A mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically elaborated into an organized system."

      In the world I live in, Elizabeth Warren is now a Senator, NYC elected a borderline socialist as mayor, President Obama just raised taxes on the "1%", and the problem of inequality is being discussed more and more. It does not sound like the NSA is doing a very good job of squelching debate. But perhaps we're just not as good as the Chinese seem to be.

      I understand your concern about the scale and power of the intelligence community. It is in fact the duty of all citizens to be vigilant in the defense of freedom. But I suppose if you believe the whole "drown the govt in a bathtub" thing, there's not much more you'll have to offer in this discussion. But we'll see. Unless of course the NSA gets a look at this and we both hear the black helicopters coming...

    2. Re:Unwise by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      By the way, Snowden did not disclose a "secret" this time - like the fact that we spied on the G8 or that they were housing phone data. This time he exposed a tactical capability. He basically told everyone the US is spying on how to find the microphones in their office.

  36. Re:Why is that funny? A cable is like a cable. by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

    You had to see it for yourself, I suppose. It was quite clear that he didn't mean just any cable. He was talking specifically about USB cables. It was obvious that he had no idea what he was actually holding. Someone on his crew probably just grabbed a random cable off the back of a nearby PC. And since standalone USB cables aren't as common on business PC's as are ethernet cables, guess what he grabbed.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  37. Re:Why is that funny? A cable is like a cable. by Anti-Social+Network · · Score: 1

    Probably because there's no power source to drive the device over a standard ethernet connection. A powered data cable that can capture keystrokes vs. a network cable that captures whole packets and must contain some kind of SOC that would need some kind of wireless power or a tiny lithium battery and frequent swapping isn't nearly the same level of feasibility or usefulness.

    --
    Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
  38. Re:NSA Toolbox Catalog by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    That catalog looks to be about 10 years out of date. The 802.11 injection tool is made to exploit win2k and win xp, so they probably have better stuff now.

  39. "Good evening Mr. Gates,I'll be your server today" by ntropia · · Score: 1
    It's clearly old stuff from few years ago, but it's insightful to see the different software requirements and specifications.
    For example, the NIGHTSTAND Wireless Exploitation/Injection Tool has a

    standalone tool currently runnuing on a x86 laptop loaded with Linux Fedora Core 3

    while exploitable targets include:

    Win2k, WinXP, WinXPSP1, WinXPSP2 running Internet Explorer versions 5.0-6.0

    The GINSU software application to control the hardware implant BULLDOZER or the software one KONGUR:

    supports any desktop PC system that contains at least one PCI connector (for BULLDOZER installation) and Microsoft Windows 9x, 2000, 2003, XP, or Vista.[...] If KONGUR is removed from the system as a result of an operating system upgrade or reinstall, GINSU can be set to trigger one the next reboot of the system to restore the software implant.

    So after all, Microsoft is not really helping them, if they have to protect themselves from system updates :)

  40. Re:All these stories: the NSA continues to assure by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    There aren't as many as ten men in the Supreme Court, the White House, and both houses of Congress, combined, honorable enough to do what you suggest. The remainder are split between those who are embarrassed by the publicity and those who don't control it currently but want to.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  41. might well be XP by hurfy · · Score: 1

    Looking at mine in XP noone would know if all 5 of those USB root hubs or the 5 USB host controllers belong there or even the USB mass storage device. I don't have anything plugged into USB.

    How many are mine and how many belong to someone else ;)

    Not that anyone ever looks in there on XP unless you were looking for something abnormal already.

  42. Re:Betrayal of The BIOS.... Who needs pix? by default+luser · · Score: 1

    It's intended to reduce EMI induced on other devices, not listen in on your conversations :D

    --

    Man is the animal that laughs.
    And occasionally whores for Karma.