The Computer Security Threat From Ultrasonic Networks

KentuckyFC (1144503) writes Security researchers in Germany have demonstrated an entirely new way to attack computer networks and steal information without anybody knowing. The new medium of attack is ultrasonic sound. It relies on software that uses the built-in speakers on a laptop to broadcast at ultrasonic frequencies while nearby laptops listen out for the transmissions and pass them on, a set up known as a mesh network. The team has tested this kind of attack on a set of Lenovo T400 laptops infected with key-logging software. They say it is possible to transmit ultrasonic signals covertly at data rates of 20 bits per second at distances of up to 20 metres in an office environment. Interestingly, the team created the covert system by adapting a protocol designed for underwater acoustic communication. They've also tested various strategies for defeating this kind of attack. An obvious option is to disable all speakers and microphones but this also prevents ordinary activities such as VOIP communication. Instead, they suggest filtering the audio signals to prevent ultrasonic transmissions or converting them into an audible frequency. This may be newer than most attack vectors, but it's not the first time that ultrasonic transmission has been demonstrated as a vulnerability; in November of last year we mentioned malware operating along the same lines, as investigated byPwn2Own creator Dragos Ruiu.

Comments

Hardware sampling rates

[nctritech]

The easiest way to eliminate this threat is to lock down hardware sampling rates such that ultrasonic frequencies cannot be reliably reproduced (e.g. in the BIOS), and allow the user to flip the switch for higher rate support. At least, that's the first idea that came to mind. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's better than "kill all audio!"

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The easiest way to eliminate this threat is to lock down hardware sampling rates such that ultrasonic frequencies cannot be reliably reproduced (e.g. in the BIOS), and allow the user to flip the switch for higher rate support. At least, that's the first idea that came to mind. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's better than "kill all audio!"

Obviously anything that is vulnerable to software tampering is less secure than some elegant hardware based solution; but surely one could apply ACLs to the audio device, to at least ensure that only suitably blessed applications can interact with it? Doesn't stop a root/kernel level exploit, or a blessed application being subverted; but right now, the default is that any program that can run can make noises, which is certainly easier to slip malice through.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better would be to install an analog filter on the speakers that limited frequencies to below 20kHz or so. Component cost less than ten cents.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The easiest way to eliminate this threat is to lock down hardware sampling rates such that ultrasonic frequencies cannot be reliably reproduced

Nope. The easiest way to eliminate this threat is to keep a pet bat next to your computer to scramble any ultrasonic transmission.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[Bengie]

I was under the impression that while humans mostly cannot hear ultrasonic sounds, the existence of them can be perceived as a kind of "texture" to other sounds that we can hear. Removing these frequencies all together from all sounds sources can make stuff sounds more artificial.

I have not researched the subject a lot, but these are what I have read across the many years of the discussion reemerging.

Personally, if I listen to an 256kbit MP3, then switch back to FLAC, I hear a slight difference, but it's hard to pinpoint. But if I have one ear listening to the MP3 and the other ear listening to the FLAC, the distinction is HUGE. A lot of the difference is in the highs, and that's with my crappy integrated sound card and semi-decent headphones.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[ColdWetDog]

Ah, but you're missing an entire other defensive mechanism. One that, I will point out, did not escape the genius of Apple. Recall the recent angst about Apple's acquisition of Beats Audio. The two theories judged most likely centered around either gratuitously spending money to annoy the Slashdot hive mind or strategically buying up an inconsequential streaming audio business. Of course, careful consideration (yes, I understand that contradiction here) would lead one to realize that neither is very likely, so I offer a more technically sound rationale:

If you've ever listened to a set of Beats headphones, the second thing you notice (the first is that they are ugly and cheap) is that it is engineered to be unable to pass frequencies higher than 4000 Hz. You're not going to hear a set of cymbals or a piccolo to save your life.

So, these nefarious persons can attempt to stuff whatever data they'd like into the higher registers - it will do them no good at all. You don't need complex software rules, you don't need specially constructed DACs. You just need bass. Furthermore, if all you are going to do is to listen to DC to 4 kHz noise, you don't need a particularly robust audio platform to do it (like an iPhone). And, as an added bonus, this limited bandwidth will save on your precious monthly allotment of data.

Apple has you covered, folks.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[TeknoHog]

I was under the impression that while humans mostly cannot hear ultrasonic sounds, the existence of them can be perceived as a kind of "texture" to other sounds that we can hear. Removing these frequencies all together from all sounds sources can make stuff sounds more artificial.

The timbre of any sound is due to harmonics -- frequencies higher than the fundamental. MP3 and other lossy compression schemes do indeed remove some of the quieter harmonics. However, if the harmonics are outside the hearing range, well, then you can't hear them.

However, there may be nonlinear effects which convert some of the ultrasound to lower frequencies. Also, when a frequency exceeds the Nyquist limit (half the sampling rate), it is aliased to a frequency within the sampling range. (Hence "anti-aliasing", which is simply filtering out too high frequencies to prevent this effect.)

Re: Hardware sampling rates

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Monster Cables can transmit this audio texture more accurately due to the unicorn poop mixed in with their enchanted copper.

Also, no, you're wrong.

Re: Hardware sampling rates

[Anonymous Coward]

20 bits per second.

I type 80wpm. 5 characters per word. 400 chars per minute, or 6.7 chars per second, or about 53 bits per second.

Therefore I type almost three times faster than this channel's data rate.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[Applehu Akbar]

OR...issue whistles to everyone in your office, to be used at random intervals.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[sexconker]

I was under the impression that while humans mostly cannot hear ultrasonic sounds, the existence of them can be perceived as a kind of "texture" to other sounds that we can hear. Removing these frequencies all together from all sounds sources can make stuff sounds more artificial.

Nope, it's 100% bullshit. Audiophiles cling to it as justification for spending money on 96 or 192 kHz shit.
When recording a physical sound, the sum total of all frequency components interfering with each other will be recorded by the microphone. A microphone does not record individual frequency components, it records a physical pressure wave. Your ear picks up the effects of frequency components outside of its range interfering with frequency components inside its range. A microphone does the exact same thing.

Re: Hardware sampling rates

[sexconker]

20 bits per second.

I type 80wpm. 5 characters per word. 400 chars per minute, or 6.7 chars per second, or about 53 bits per second.

Therefore I type almost three times faster than this channel's data rate.

Log keystrokes.
Optionally, filter (look for the @ symbol for email addresses, a known bank in a browser window's title, symbols / cAPs near eachother for passwords, whatever).
Compress.
Send.

Unless you type > 20 bps after compression (and filtering), the entire time your computer is on, it will keep up.
Even if you do outpace it by a factor of infinity, it will still be transmitting at 20 bps, so it'll still be getting your shit. As hits something interesting (login credentials, your Harry Potter fanfic, whatever) you're fucked, regardless of how far ahead you are.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[evilviper]

The easiest way to eliminate this threat is to lock down hardware sampling rates such that ultrasonic frequencies cannot be reliably reproduced

That's very short-sighted. The ultrasonics are only a matter of making the communications stealthier. Systems unable to produce ultrasonics could still communicate with each other, using audible ranges.

Doing so, undetected, just requires a little intelligence. It could wait until late at night, when all the systems have been idle for some time. The malware could even set a wake-up time in the BIOS to ensure they all start up some time after everyone has left, and communicate.

Or, you could modulate the data inside some sounds that wouldn't be out-of-place in an office. For computers, the obvious option is to play the sound of fan noises, with a little data modulated in with the audio.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[Captain Splendid]

he two theories judged most likely centered around either gratuitously spending money to annoy the Slashdot hive mind

Yes, it's amazing what money tech companies will spend to piss off the average slashdotter. We truly are special.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[ColdWetDog]

I presume you mean as in 'short bus' special.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[Captain Splendid]

Yup. Spend enough time here and you'd swear the tech industry orbits Slashdot, and not the other way around.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[diamondmagic]

48kHz (98kHz sample rate) is only one octave higher than 24kHz (48kHz sample rate). I most certainly can hear that difference.

And even if we couldn't hear it, audio engineers still need it. Even one octave below the Nyquist limit, you can still lose up to 30% of your original signal.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[klui]

An easier way is just cheap speakers doing what they do best.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[Midnight_Falcon]

Hardware sampling rate is actually a kind of roundabout way to do it. More easily, one can place an analog high-pass filter set at 20KHZ or so before the speakers in the sound driver hardware etc. These are very cheap for low-power applications like laptops.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[Archfeld]

I swear on some late night upgrades I've heard the machines talking to me, but NOW I know it was true...

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[Midnight_Falcon]

You use profanity to refer to audiophiles and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. 96 or 192kHZ sampling rate doesn't have much to do with frequency response , which is what we are takling about.

Most music these days is not produced via an analog signal to a microphone. Rather, a digital process creates an analog waveform in software like Ableton Live, Cubase, etc. If an overtone or other sonic artifacts are applied, you can definitely hear the effects on the music even though these are at high frequencies..

Speakers are graded for quality using the "Klippel" test, which measures amount of distortion and how clean the signal comes out at various frequencies. With good speakers, you should be able to have a conversation right in front of them at loud volume, and not have to speak loudly or bring up your voice to clearly understand the person. That is because the audio waveform will be clean and not distort other frequencies.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[sexconker]

You can't hear a difference. You can't hear 24 kHz, let alone 48 kHz. Human hearing stops at around 20 kHz. Twice that is 40 kHz, so both 44.1 and 48 kHz are sufficient to cover everything audible completely transparently.

You're a moron for saying "only one octave higher" when the definition of an octave is the doubling (or halving) of frequency between two tones.
800 Hz is only one octave higher than 400 Hz. 800 GHz is "only" one octave higher than 400 GHz.

Audio engineers don't need it because none of that "lost signal" ever influences the human-audible range of the end result. Everything potentially influencing human-audible range is baked into the 44.1 or 48 kHz sample and will be reproduced transparently to humans since we're capped at less than half that.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[sexconker]

You use profanity to refer to audiophiles and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. 96 or 192kHZ sampling rate doesn't have much to do with frequency response , which is what we are takling about.

Of course I use profanity. Audiophiles are fucking morons. They're dumber than people who wage political campaigns against vaccines. People who are afraid of vaccines at least have minor blips of correlation to base their fears off of, while the science simply shows no connection. Audiophiles have hard science and experimental data that actually proves they're wrong.

I'm not talking about frequency response, I'm talking about sample rate because the person I was replying to was talking about sample rate in relation to FLAC, MP3, etc., and the discussion thread is about limiting the sample rate of the sound card. Please read before you post.

Most music these days is not produced via an analog signal to a microphone. Rather, a digital process creates an analog waveform in software like Ableton Live, Cubase, etc. If an overtone or other sonic artifacts are applied, you can definitely hear the effects on the music even though these are at high frequencies..

You're wrong about music production as well. People play instruments and they're recorded. There's a lot of digital manipulation, and lots of canned or digitally-generated samples are used, with some bands/artists using more than others, but the vast majority is still sourced from people playing instruments and singing into microphones. Regardless, none of this has anything to do with music - it simply has to do with sound and the reproduction thereof. You CANNOT hear any frequencies higher than 20 kHz. If there is a 99 kHz tone in the room interfering with things, you hear the interference pattern's effects in the human-audible range. You do not heat the 99 kHz tone. Everything you hear is within the human-audible range, and double that is enough to transparently reproduce any sound a human could ever hear.

Speakers are graded for quality using the "Klippel" test, which measures amount of distortion and how clean the signal comes out at various frequencies. With good speakers, you should be able to have a conversation right in front of them at loud volume, and not have to speak loudly or bring up your voice to clearly understand the person. That is because the audio waveform will be clean and not distort other frequencies.

Now this is just complete bullshit. If you can hear the speaker it is producing a pressure wave. If one speaker is a box and one speaker is a human they're still both producing pressure waves. When two pressure wavefronts collide, such as at your ear when you're hearing them, they interfere. A speaker's quality is measured by its ability to reproduce the input signal. For all speakers humans listen to, the highest frequency that matters in 20 kHz. You cannot hear anything higher than that. You are not special. Any audible interference from higher frequency sources is already baked into the signal, and a doubled sampling rate covers any aliasing. A speaker's quality has nothing to do with your ability to engage in conversation in front of the speaker. If I output the inverse of what you're saying people wouldn't be able to hear you, by design. If I output exactly what you were saying people would be able to hear you more loudly. If I output X people's ability to hear you depends entirely on the interference between X and what you're saying and their own brain being able to concentrate and fill in gaps. The speaker's quality has to do with how well X matches the input. There is no connection between your conversation and the speaker's quality.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[diamondmagic]

A good pair of headphones and analog signal generator says I can hear a difference.

The Nyquist limit, if you weren't familiar, takes energy out of waveforms, canceling it out if you're lucky, but usually turning it into a lower frequency. Try it yourself, generate a sine wave sweep from 1kHz to 22kHz and take a listen to all the noise that appears even at two octaves below the limit.

Two octaves below the Nyquist limit of a CD is about 5.5kHz, as you very kindly point out, which I would call rather audible.

The process of making a high-quality recording involves adding an analog low-pass filter before ADC, or making a high-quality recording (192kHz sample rate) and applying a low-pass filter before downsampling, so as to make sure the high-band signals don't show up as lower-frequency noise (though still rather high pitched, commonly like someone forgot to disable their snare drum). It is audible, and it does make a difference.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[Midnight_Falcon]

Of course I use profanity. Audiophiles are fucking morons. They're dumber than people who wage political campaigns against vaccines. People who are afraid of vaccines at least have minor blips of correlation to base their fears off of, while the science simply shows no connection. Audiophiles have hard science and experimental data that actually proves they're wrong.

Sometimes, there is scientific data about audiophiles being wrong (like FLAC vs 320k MP3), but no..any idiot can tell the difference between a Cerwin-Vega PA and a Funktion One. Klippel tests can provide scientific data to analyze why this is the case. So, your argument is far too broad to be true. Also, inserting profanity rather than logic or anything to backup your claims shows you're making emotional arguments rather than scientific ones.

I'm not talking about frequency response, I'm talking about sample rate because the person I was replying to was talking about sample rate in relation to FLAC, MP3, etc., and the discussion thread is about limiting the sample rate of the sound card. Please read before you post.

FLAC vs MP3 is largely a result of the cutoff at 16khz of MP3 sound, and attentuation of treble frequencies. While someone might have talked about sampling rate (which does matter), the vast majority of the perceived difference in quality is due to the attentuion of treble frequencies. Thus, my comment was completely germane to the subject matter.

You're wrong about music production as well. People play instruments and they're recorded. There's a lot of digital manipulation, and lots of canned or digitally-generated samples are used, with some bands/artists using more than others, but the vast majority is still sourced from people playing instruments and singing into microphones. Regardless, none of this has anything to do with music - it simply has to do with sound and the reproduction thereof. You CANNOT hear any frequencies higher than 20 kHz. If there is a 99 kHz tone in the room interfering with things, you hear the interference pattern's effects in the human-audible range. You do not heat the 99 kHz tone. Everything you hear is within the human-audible range, and double that is enough to transparently reproduce any sound a human could ever hear.

I am not wrong about music production. Perhaps in the 90s when you acquired this knowledge it was true, but now this is not the case. Yes, people sing into microphones. That's where it ends. Hip hop music, pop music, electronica all use totally digital sources these days for the basslines, synth lines, and pretty much all the music besides vocals. Vocals themselves are manipulated to hell and back with vocoders, chorus, flanger etc. The second part of your statement is somewhat true but misleading. Yes, you do not hear the 99KHZ tone. However, if you have a 16khz audio signal with a 22khz overtone, many would describe the sound as being "warm" due to the interference of the higher-frequency overtone with the lower frequency signal.

Now this is just complete bullshit. If you can hear the speaker it is producing a pressure wave. If one speaker is a box and one speaker is a human they're still both producing pressure waves. When two pressure wavefronts collide, such as at your ear when you're hearing them, they interfere. A speaker's quality is measured by its ability to reproduce the input signal. For all speakers humans listen to, the highest frequency that matters in 20 kHz. You cannot hear anything higher than that. You are not special. Any audible interference from higher frequency sources is already baked into the signal, and a doubled sampling rate covers any aliasing. A speaker's quality has nothing to do with your ability to engage in conversation in front of the speaker. If I output the inverse of what you're saying people wouldn't be able to hear you, by design. If I output exactly what you were saying people would be

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[petermgreen]

Simple analog filters (that you coudl build with 10 cents worth of components) have a slow rolloff. You can't just say "pass everything up to 20KHz, reject everything above that" or even "pass everything up to 15KHZ reject everything over 25KHz" and design a simple analog circuit to do it.

This is one of the big reasons we use high sample rates and filter digitally nowadays. You can get arbiterally close to an ideal "brick wall" filter digitally (though you do pay a price in time delay and computing power) whereas in the analog world high order filters tend to have problems with stability and sensitivity to component tolerance.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[metaforest]

I was under the impression that while humans mostly cannot hear ultrasonic sounds, the existence of them can be perceived as a kind of "texture" to other sounds that we can hear. Removing these frequencies all together from all sounds sources can make stuff sounds more artificial.

Nope, it's 100% bullshit. Audiophiles cling to it as justification for spending money on 96 or 192 kHz shit.
When recording a physical sound, the sum total of all frequency components interfering with each other will be recorded by the microphone. A microphone does not record individual frequency components, it records a physical pressure wave. Your ear picks up the effects of frequency components outside of its range interfering with frequency components inside its range. A microphone does the exact same thing.

96K and 192K sample rates with 24 or even 32 bit float sample widths have nothing to do with audiophile gear. It has to do with digital audio processing. Processing at higher sample rates during mixing and editing reduces losses and aliasing errors that creep into the audible portion of the signal from effects, filters, and summing. During final mastering the sample rate is down converted back to 44.1Khz 16 bit as the last step. If you do all the post-processing at 44.1Khz, 16 bit your effective SNR goes to hell in a bucket even with just a few of digital filters in the signal chain. Sure, you can start with a 44.1kHz source and up convert it using interpolation, but that is not as accurate as sampling the live source at 96 or 192kHz. Starting with really clean high resolution sources means that the final result has much better SNR than is possible otherwise.

Re:Hardware sampling rates

[RockDoctor]

Why are you wasting time talking about music?

Every couple of years when I get my hearing test, the frequency response plot stops at 20kHz and the actual test signals stop at 18hKz. Because people can't hear higher than that.

Just a technology arms race

[rmdingler]

You patch this hole in your defenses.

Another exploit undermines a heretofore unknown weakness.

Exploitation that doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

A (hidden) communication channel is not an attack

[thospel]

WTF ? That's a covert communication channel, not an attack.
At least the original source gets that right. But what idiot writes the slashdot version of the article?

useful in some very interesting ways

[nimbius]

While impractical at scale, this is a very clever way to defeat things like DoD secured air-gap networks, and 20bps is easily capable of say, keylogging :)

Not that new

[T.E.D.]

I worked on a COMSEC job back in the '90s, and both our device and our building (particularly the windows) had countermeasures for this kind of attack.

Perhaps this is a new thing for garage hackers, but intelligence agencies have known about it for decades.

Re:Not that new

[Ryanrule]

Yeah you could read old punch cipher locks if you listed closely.

Re:Not that new

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yup, more effective to point a laser at the window and measure the vibrations from the noises within the building.

Laser microphones are not that precise.

Re:Not that new

[slew]

FWIW, Back in the 90's people were also worried about tempest-like stuff (e.g., EM emissions), but simply disabling the speakers isn't enough to inhibit the sonic transmission path. Electronics can "hum" at ultra-sonic frequencies (and fans can transmit audible frequencies), so by running of a suitable thermal virus actions, it is possible to leak information from a previously compromised machine that was not network connected.

However, disabling the microphone would certain make it harder to control such a compromised, air-gapped machine...

Re:Not that new

[T.E.D.]

Back in the 90's people were also worried about tempest-like stuff (e.g., EM emissions),

TEMPEST was one of a set of code-words that were themselves unclassified, but their exact meaning was classified. This allowed people like myself to put them on their resume without the resume becoming classified.

It looks like folks (or at least Wikipedia editors) may have pieced together a meaning for this particular one.

Re:Not that new

[laitcg]

Back in the 80's, basically, we used O'scopes to record what people typed on their keyboard from way outside the building and wrote up reports on the info that were always classified. You always want a COMSEC mission report to be Un-Classified. There are so many ways to gain intel when the target is not TEMPEST hardened. Most security minded computer operators and/or security personnel have basic COMSEC imbedded in their mentality. The thing is to pass that on...

Re:Not that new

[slew]

No it wouldn't. Your speakers transmit the signal and the microphone on the agents laptop recieves it. Disabling your microphone would not help.

Disabling your microphone on an already air-gapped most certainly makes it much harder to clandestinely *control* your machine. Maybe you could send a signal in through the grounding and pick it up somehow in a harmonic of the voltage regulator (amplifying it with a thermal virus so it is detectible), but that's much harder to do (which means the bandwidth will be much-much lower)...

Of course simply disabling a microphone obviously doesn't do much to eliminate *emanations* from your already compromised machine to an agent's laptop, duh?

Ultrasonic reception?

[Megane]

Does this mean I can get a lirc driver that works with an old Zenith clicker remote?

Re:Ultrasonic reception?

[jones_supa]

I doubt there is a ready-made LIRC driver, but in theory it might be possible to get it working with a computer. Try recording some button presses with a sound recording program using the mic input and see if anything shows up in the waveform. Then write some software which bridges the sound driver to the remote controller API.

Does it really matter?

[mrspoonsi]

For this to work, the computers must already be 'owned', the fact the computers can communicate 20 meters with another infected machine is the least of the worries if you ask me.

Re:Does it really matter?

[evilviper]

For this to work, the computers must already be 'owned',

Computer viruses spread long before there was networking... One infected file on a CD, DVD, USB Flash drive, etc. Or it could be even more covert, like a USB mouse/keyboard modified with data storage.

the fact the computers can communicate 20 meters with another infected machine is the least of the worries if you ask me.

It's still significant. It may offer the only method of getting information in/out of an otherwise isolated network.

While fully autonomous malware can do some serious damage, it doesn't approach the level of damage possible by leaking sensitive information out to the world, or using some human intelligence to guide some very finely-grained data manipulation / corruption.

Re:Does it really matter?

[mrspoonsi]

Normally Desktops do not have inbuilt speakers, so they can be ruled out, that leaves laptops, which do have wifi. An owned laptop could self enable the wifi, create its self as a hot spot and allow other computers elsewhere in the building to connect to it (through walls and what not).

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[Hognoxious]

But what idiot writes the slashdot version of the article?

Probably the same one who wrote a similar article about a year back.

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[burisch_research]

This. It is NOT an attack. And let's face it, very very few people have an air gap on their computers. Since that's the case, it's so much easier to just use the existing wired network or wireless network to ferret data out. 20 bits per second is hardly practical anyway, even for small amounts of data (which, today, would be classified as megabytes.)

A simple defense

[Marginal Coward]

The folks who designed my desktop computer were really thinking ahead on this one: it was built without a speaker. Besides enhancing security, an auxiliary benefit of their clever "no-speaker defense" is that saved the manufacturer cost and space.

Re:A simple defense

[drinkypoo]

The folks who designed my desktop computer were really thinking ahead on this one: it was built without a speaker. Besides enhancing security, an auxiliary benefit of their clever "no-speaker defense" is that saved the manufacturer cost and space.

Virtually no PC desktops have internal speakers connected to the sound card, and even fewer of them have a microphone. Many PCs no longer even have a speaker connector for POST code beeps, and depend solely on a flush-mount piezo buzzer. But virtually all laptops today have both speakers and mic...

Re:A simple defense

[triffid_98]

Actually...for ultrasonics piezoelectric speakers are far better than conventional cone drivers...just not the 2 cent variety you're referring to here.

Fix

[Bazman]

Headphones. Or dummy jack-plugs.

In what way is this a "vulnerabilty"?

[REggert]

Given that the machines have to have the acoustic networking software installed on them (requiring already having root access), this is at worst a covert communications channel that could be used to bypass network security controls in order to exfiltrate information from an otherwise secure network. It has no impact on whether machines can be hacked to begin with.

Re:Much simpler method

[hotcut]

I do not believe there is anything preventing malicius software from using the speaker and mic in the computer, disregarding the headset. So leaving your headset in, just gives you a false sense of security. Not relevant in your setup (unless they want to covertly send your dog on a murder spree), but still :)

stupid

[slashmydots]

So one infected computer talks to another via this method and the other computer is infected with code that interprets it. How about just use the malicious code on the 2nd computer to do whatever you were going to do with it? For network transmission, obviously just use encryption or a web server in the middle or something.

Re:stupid

[by (1706743)]

Seems silly, yeah. Though there are certain very peculiar setups where this might be desirable, for example: computer 1 has network access, computer 2 does not, but gets the occasional USB thumbdrive from computer 1. If you can manage to infect computer 1, transmit it to computer 2, then you can gain get keylogging data from computer 2 in real-time (as opposed to waiting until someone plugs in a thumbdrive to computer 2 and then back into computer 1, where you can send over the network again).

Of course, if the whole reason computer 2 isn't connected to the network is security, you'd hope they have better security on their USB drives...

Re:stupid

[slashmydots]

That make sense but here's what the failed to consider. People with higher IQs and better functioning nervous systems can hear 45KHz + frequencies. I'm one of them. So your IT dept would probably catch it pretty darn quick.

Re:stupid

[Lord Lemur]

Better yet, you can remotely execute pre-installed code. Think less of information gathering and more of weaponizing.

If I may be really long winded, let's imagine a system where there is a secure machine that is air gapped by say 30" from a non secured machine. The secure machine has privilleged access to $Doomsday_weapon_001, let's say a missle or better yet the control surface of a critical peice of infrastructure. Once infection has occured, and a payload delivered the two machines can lay in wait. At a particular time, like superbowl, the unsecure machine tells the secure machine to execute a preplanned attack using $Doomsday_weapon_001. The conversation can be really short less then a second or so, and boom goes the dynamite.

Leaking information onto secure systems is alot less complex then leaking information off. Why keylog when you can actully use the asset directly.

Re:stupid

[by (1706743)]

Although I find the claim that you can hear 45KHz+ frequencies dubious, even assuming you can hear that, it doesn't necessarily mean the technique is useless; there's a difference between hearing a frequency and filtering it from noise. I'm guessing you don't have a very good nervous bandpass filter at that frequency, for instance -- so hiding a signal in nearby noise could be possible for a such a system.

There are plenty of noise sources around us -- fluorescent lamp ballasts are in the 10s of KHz, CRT scanning is likewise in 10s of KHz, switching power supplies can be in the 10s of KHz, etc. It would be relatively easy for this system to operate nearby a noisy part of the spectrum, which would likely render it very difficult (especially at such high frequencies) for humans to tell anything was going on.

Re:stupid

[slashmydots]

You're way off. I can hear CRT monitors and large TVs humming away at ultrasonic frequencies but it's a steady tone. Things changing tones like Nvidia 6xx series GPU cores are so unbelievably annoying and hard to ignore because they constantly change frequencies. So the same goes for sneaky speakers.

As others have pointed out...

[sonamchauhan]

... Its a covert transmission channel, not an attack...

A camera pointed at a computer monitor slowly shifts its average hue (a la 'f.lux') is another such example.

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[Anonymous Coward]

IKR... I read the article summary and was double face palming.

You can't install malware via the microphone inputs lol. You can only receive inputs from a preconfigured machine and the attacks still have to happen in other ways.

My computer talks to me

[Required Snark]

When I'm near the computer I hear these voices that no one else can hear.

It tells me things that no one else knows. Things that I'm not supposed to hear.

Sometime it tells me to do things. It told me not to tell you what they are.

Computers only talk to very special people. You wouldn't understand.

It told me to shut up now. Bye.

"Threat" from last year???

[LordLimecat]

Dragos Ruiu's findings from last year were never able to be reproduced by an outsider, and were highly suspect. Sometimes you can be a brilliant security guy, and also a delusional paranoid-- and I think the general consensus was that in that scenario, Dragos was being delusionally paranoid.

The idea that various laptop speakers (all of varying and generally poor quality) will be able to reliably form a wireless network is really far-fetched, no matter how you cut it. Every laptop's mic is different, the speakers are all in different locations, some mics are gonna be off, the acoustics of the room are unknown....

Theres just no way for this to reliably work.

Re:"Threat" from last year???

[Anonymous Coward]

> Every laptop's mic is different, the speakers are all in different locations, some mics are gonna be off, the acoustics of the room are unknown....

Says the guy demonstrating his utter lack of knowledge about DSP. All of those things can be compensated for with the right software, The price is simply reduced throughput. But when you've got days or weeks to run because no one even knows to look for you, even just 1bps can be sufficient.

Dragos being right or wrong says absolutely nothing about the viability of these techniques, only about his particular circumstances.

Linux not susceptible to attack

[by (1706743)]

You know, because the sound card probably isn't working right anyway (and forget about the mic).

(Joking, joking...built-in and USB soundcards work just fine on all my Linux computers.)

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[Anonymous Coward]

To be more specific it is this story - same exact paper from November of last year.

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[burisch_research]

That's absolutely true. If you're one of the 0.00002% who does own a car, well, then obviously you should be thinking about seatbelts. But car owners are so rare that I'll probably never meet one, ever. Seatbelts have zero effect on my life.

Solution: office dog

[RevWaldo]

What is it? What is it, girl? Someone running a covert mesh network? Where's it coming from?

.

Re:Much simpler method

[Phreakiture]

You will be disappointed to learn that the disablement of the speaker and mic are done in a fly-by-wire manner. I became aware of this firsthand when I discoverd that a bad audio driver was allowing the audio I was listening to to go both to my headphones and my speakers. I wasn't aware of it until a co-worker tapped me on the shoulder. Fixing the mixer settings caused the audio not to go to the speakers.

Further to that, BT is an even bigger fly-by-wire. With BT, you are essentially putting an additional sound card onto your machine, and choosing to use it (via software) instead of the built in one. The built-in one is still there, however, and still availble to any software that chooses to use it. There exists no mechanism through which BT presence can cause a not-software-overridable hard interrupt of audio to the speakers and from the mic.

I would advocate for there to be a switch installed on every laptop that, when flipped, interruptes, in a hardware-based, analogue manner, the connection of the speakers and mic to the sound hardware. Open the circuit in a way that no software can close it.

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[rhsanborn]

This is a good way to hide your snooping in sensitive environments that are running adaptive intrusion detection systems. It's also a way to get secure computers that aren't connected to the network, to talk to less secure computers that are. Think military. Jim falls prey to a USB based piece of malware and puts it on a DoD machine that is on their internal, secure network. It talks to an Internet-connected computer to move data from one to the other. The USB vector is exactly how the US/Israel got malware onto Iranian centrifuge controller systems, so it's a valid concern.

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[RevWaldo]

I was wondering how this speed compared to a telegraph operator sending Morse Code. Googling about, words per minute, based on the standard five characters per word plus spaces and punctuation, works out to about bps * 1.2.

http://superuser.com/questions...

So 20 bps is about 24 words per minute. Compare this to a skilled telegraph operator, who can manage 40 wpm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

So yeah, it's slow, BUT for keylogging it couldn't keep up only if users typed constantly, which they don't. Plenty of time in between to do some catch up.

.

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[gstoddart]

20 bits per second is hardly practical anyway, even for small amounts of data

Depends on the data, doesn't it?

If I've installed something which is designed to capture passwords, your 20 bits/sec means I can transmit your password in just a few seconds.

So if all it does it say "got it, user X has this password" ... that can be pretty valuable and is likely do-able in under 30 seconds.

This may not be an attack, but it is an attack vector.

Already filtered?

[morgauxo]

I thought most soundcards had a capacitor on the inputs that already filters out the higher frequencies. I read this when reading about using sound cards directly as software defined radios for receiving VLF signals. To receive higer frequencies some people have shorted the input capacitor out.

Re:Already filtered?

[petermgreen]

A quick googling found

http://www.clarisonus.com/Rese...

It seems to vary but even if the filtering is present there is likely to be a range just above 20KHz where human hearing is poor but the filters in the soundcard are still passing enough signal to be useful.

Re: A (hidden) communication channel is not an att

[garompeta]

The password was GOD

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[Anne Thwacks]

YOU cant install malware this way, but people who have machines which are already 99% malware can (but probably never will).

You are correct - this is utter and complete nonsense. No uninfected computer is going to consider what comes into the mic channel as potentially sensible to execute, or, indeed do anything other than save it as audio data.

If your computer is in the habit of executing WAV of MP3 files, or saving audio as .exe files, you are already more than truely and completely stuffed.

Re:No audio filters on the DACs?

[bugs2squash]

the senior engineers that tested the system consider it undetectable. The intern just smiled and said nothing...

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[killkillkill]

The amount of serious discussions of how to mitigate this "attack" above this comment saddens me. If you have rouge software on your computer, severing one of the least efficient communication channels I've heard of is not going to be helpful.

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[sexconker]

Over 5 million people in the US hold secret-level or higher security clearances. Nearly all of them have work that involves classified computer systems, ALL of which are air-gapped. And that doesn't even count commercial applications where the company is concerned about industrial espionage.

Your objections here only display your ignorance, not your wisdom.

BTW, you've met at least one now.

I will take the 5 million number at face value.
I laugh at the idea that nearly all of those people access classified computer systems.
And the idea that they're all air gapped? That's just complete bullshit, as recent history has shown.

20 bits per second

[ichthus]

Wow! So, after 4 days, 17 hours, 46 minutes and 40 seconds, you could transfer a whopping... 1 whole MEGABYTE.

Simple defence

[twazzock]

A simple defence would be to have ultrasonic noise generators emitting enough interference to effectively jam any transmissions. It should be no more audible than the transmissions.

Of course, the average user wouldn't need or probably want this (unless they're security paranoid/enthusiasts), but it might be useful in environments where information security is essential. Maybe even 'hardened' secure devices could have built in noise generators that can't be software disabled as an extra defence feature.

It might seem simpler to just limit the frequency ranges of the built in speakers/microphones, but it doesn't eliminate the threat completely as it is still possible there could be a headset, USB sound interface or devices in the microphone and earphone jacks in use without these filters. This way, regardless of the kind of sound I/O, the surrounding area of the device is blacked out.

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[burisch_research]

Over 5 million people in the US hold secret-level or higher security clearances.

I'm not from the US; as a proportion of population, 5 million is a very high number indeed -- and I believe the proportion in the civilized world is much lower.

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[freeze128]

That scenario would require that there be some sort of keylogger already present and running on the compromised machine. If that's the case, then why bother with all this cloak and dagger shit? Hell, there are plenty of other routes that the data could take:

Store the data in a file on a local drive (hard drive or even USB flash drive)
Transmit it over Ethernet.
Transmit it over Wi-Fi.
Transmit it over bluetooth.
Transmit it over IRDA.

Or, my favorite, just have the machine use text to voice to shout out the user's password over the speakers. Then it's a race to see if you can login before the user can change the password. :)

Re:A (hidden) communication channel is not an atta

[gstoddart]

That scenario would require that there be some sort of keylogger already present and running on the compromised machine. If that's the case, then why bother with all this cloak and dagger shit?

Well, given the prevalence of things like spear phishing and the like, maybe it's not all that tough.

And the point of the cloak and dagger is, if they don't know you're listening, and you're using a channel they're not scanning for ... you can keep doing it with impunity.

So, say I worked for an agency which relied on secrecy ... call them the Notional Security Assholes for sake of argument ... wouldn't it be in my interest to want to gather as much data as possible without you knowing I'm doing it?

If the value of what you're spying on is high value enough, and you want to conceal your ways and means, it doesn't seem like there's an upper bound on how much trouble something is worth.

Because you extract the passwords one way, and exploit them via another, and it's impossible to identify how you got the password, and maybe you can conceal that it was ever used at all.

Sure, it's right out of Tom Clancy or Hollywood, but some of the cold war stuff was pretty wacky by today's standards. Think "Remote Sensing" and some of the other stuff that we more or less consider pretty loony.

Is this a troll article?

[dsoodak]

As one person commented when the last version of this went around, the sound card hardware or driver would have to have something like a TCP/IP stack built in to the microphone input. In other words, the only way a computer would be vulnerable is if it already has an ultrasonic communication feature installed. The only way I can see this happening is possibly at the behest of a certain agency which has a history of covertly installing security vulnerabilities, but they would probably just put it in the WiFi.

Re:Much simpler method

[Phreakiture]

Sucks to be you.