Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Chrome Extension Uses Sound To Share URLs Between Devices

Posted by samzenpus on from the sound-of-malware dept.

itwbennett writes: Google Tone is an experimental feature that could be used to easily and instantly share browser pages, search results, videos and other pages among devices, according to Google Research. "The initial prototype used an efficient audio transmission scheme that sounded terrible, so we played it beyond the range of human hearing," researcher Alex Kauffmann and software engineer Boris Smus wrote in a post on the Google Research blog.

77 comments

  1. Sounds Hackable by pubwvj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like a way to hack a computer with audio. Even the isolated can be gotten.

    1. Re:Sounds Hackable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      soundhax : getting unsigned code execution through sound (DS)
      https://twitter.com/smealum/status/550026470488174592

    2. Re:Sounds Hackable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like a way to get more people to give Chrome permission to access their microphones. It's just more data for the NS...er...Google to harvest.

    3. Re:Sounds Hackable by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Users have to be logged into their Google account, and their profile names and photos are displayed alongside the URL in incoming Tone notifications.

      Its right there in the article....

    4. Re:Sounds Hackable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what the fuck does that have to do with anything OP said?

  2. OMG... by qtp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They've invented the acoustic coupler!

    --
    Read, L
    1. Re:OMG... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the word 'invented' gives too much credit as is.

      They merely released an app that does what others have done before;
      http://rnd.azoft.com/mobile-ap...
      http://petapixel.com/2013/09/1...
      http://dspace.ucalgary.ca/bits...
      http://circlewithme.tumblr.com...

      But it's Google, so it gets eyeballs anew.

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

      nothing new, chinese hdmi sticks had same pairing mechanism 4 years ago

    3. Re:OMG... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh!

    4. Re:OMG... by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

      Ok, maybe repurposed is a better way of saying it.

    5. Re:OMG... by cdxta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here is what it sounds like when the plugin establishes a connection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    6. Re:OMG... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it sounded more like a "modulator/demodulator" from the summary... the sending device changes digital bits to analog audio; the receiving device changes the analog audio back to digital bits.
      +++ATM0

    7. Re:OMG... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could probably invent some kind of cradle to keep your smartphone and then use those audio signals to send data between the phones.

    8. Re:OMG... by shentino · · Score: 0

      bullshit, that's a dialup modem.

    9. Re:OMG... by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      You know, that was a joke.

    10. Re:OMG... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think the word 'invented' gives too much credit as is.

      The fact that he used the term "acoustic coupler" should indicate that he was referring to them having "invented" something which was actually invented in the early 1960s.

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

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:OMG... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone have the real sound, e.g. as a .wav?

    12. Re:OMG... by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      My Palm T3 does this with IR. But then, few phones/tablets have an IR receiver - even if they have an IR transmitter (which can be used for remote controlling TVs).

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    13. Re:OMG... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      My ancient Windows Mobile one had IR - could receive/send, control TVs (learn remotes via some software aka 'app'), IR lighting, and even print to a printer with an IR port without any in-between server or AirPrint silliness.

      In some ways, smart phones have really gone technologically backwards for the sake of user experience claims. On the other hand.. accurate capacitive displays, accelerometers, built-in GPS.. I wouldn't go back, exactly :)

    14. Re:OMG... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be an "It was a Joke, Aspie!" mod option...

    15. Re:OMG... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, they should actually make it sound something like a dial-up modem. It would be so cool! Not to mention, it would subtly teach the post-dial-up kids something about how a modem works, which would fit quite nicely with Google's propensity for promoting education about computers.

      If people are annoyed by the noise, then why can't they just use QR codes?

  3. "we played it beyond the range of human hearing" by Nutria · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And dogs? Heck, cats hear even higher pitches.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  4. Goatse, now in tone by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm going to create a goatse tone-code emitter and leave it running on the library computer.

    it used to be on the internet no one could tell if you are a dog. now they will know.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  5. What about the dogs? by Bruce66423 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given they've got hearing at a higher frequency, the operating frequency will have to be VERY high to avoid upsetting our best friends...

    1. Re:What about the dogs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our best friends? Speak for yourself, mongrel! Besides, cats can hear higher frequencies anyway.

    2. Re:What about the dogs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Which just doesn't matter in this case, because I've never seen a smart person with one of those things. No technical person would have one. They don't make logical sense. Of course normal people don't own things that can just hurt them any time at random. So many children are killed or maimed by dogs per year. That is why smart people stay the hell away from those things. So, no. The target audience for high-tech stuff is not affected by this problem.

    3. Re:What about the dogs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they wont tell you about these higher frequencies because cat are ass holes.

    4. Re:What about the dogs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only Muslims are afraid of dogs.

    5. Re:What about the dogs? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Which just doesn't matter in this case, because I've never seen a smart person with one of those things. No technical person would have one. They don't make logical sense. Of course normal people don't own things that can just hurt them any time at random. So many children are killed or maimed by dogs per year. That is why smart people stay the hell away from those things.

      Are you that much of a psychopath that you even treat animals so cruelly they can turn on you in an instant? Or just so introverted that you can't handle any interaction with another social creature? And I guess smart people don't drive cars, go swimming, or hell, even make their kids take a bath because so many children are killed by them every year. Why even have kids, since so many die in childbirth every year. Remember, dogs evolved and were bred to live alongside humans. To most people, the companionship of dogs far outweighs the miniscule risk that the dogs will cause any kind of bodily harm. Either you just hate dogs or you have an overly inflated sense of risk, but I am pretty sure I know which one it is.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  6. three words by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    air gap exploit

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:three words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is pretty safe to say that a device isn't going to run a chrome extension without being able to connect to internet by other means.
      This doesn't bridge more air gaps than the ability to play sound and record it already does unless you configure it to.

    2. Re:three words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dat gap tho!

  7. ham radio digi modes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just use MT63 or maybe PSKR. There's tons of "open" modes and modems that have forward error correction. I routinely use MT63-2000 to send text too big to fit in a QR code.

  8. Took a cue from BadBIOS? by adndgamer · · Score: 2

    Remember when there were rumors of BadBIOS circulation which used this exact technique to span airgaps?

    1. Re:Took a cue from BadBIOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.reddit.com/r/badbi...

      there you are

  9. Great! There goes the air gap. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    So we could spread viruses worms and browser helper objects from internet connected network to the safe air gapped internal networks. And, since these internal networks assume they are safe, they are much less lax in security. Good! Great help you are Google for the malware developers.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Great! There goes the air gap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For this to work arbitrary software has to be installed on the internal network (In this case the chrome extension.)
      If that already is possible then there isn't much point to your airgapped network, is it?

  10. Android/ChromeCast already uses ultrasonic by BoogieChile · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To send data to a nearby chromecast without needing to connect to the network that the ChromeCast is on, an Android device will link to the ChromeCast with an ultrasonic signal.

    1. Re:Android/ChromeCast already uses ultrasonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it wont, goof

    2. Re:Android/ChromeCast already uses ultrasonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Running a simple google search before replying sometimes makes sense:
      http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2473520,00.asp

  11. So... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

    How does this deal with loud interrupting noises? Classrooms or offices tend to have bursts of loud noises (dropped items, phones ringing, etc.), is there any way it can figure out lost information?

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    1. Re:So... by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Presumably if it works on a narrow frequency band it only has to listen on that frequency, so extraneous noise won't be an issue. And I imagine they will have remembered to include error correction.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:So... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It works really well with Chromecasts so far, so I guess they have thought this through quite a bit.

  12. Welcome back, analog networking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dialup, how I missed you!

  13. great way for more malware and trojan! by Mishotaki · · Score: 1

    great! now the best way to have even more computer on a botnet! just make an ad with sound that will send people on a compromised website to send malware to anyone with the app!

  14. Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had sort of the idea to command robots slaves with sound (there's an "app" for that, as much as I hate so-called apps. let's say there is a program). Little I knowed that if I had $10000K or whatever lying around I could have filed a shit patent in the US and beaten google.

    1. Re:Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't tell if joking or stupid...

  15. Google, pissing off more than just homo sapiens by b1ng0 · · Score: 1

    "beyond the range of human hearing"
    Great, now you're going to piss off my dog, too? Thanks Google!

  16. Been Done by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    Sounds like a way to hack a computer with audio. Even the isolated can be gotten.

    I have a vague recollection of reading about an acoustic attack to get around airgapping, but don't remember if it was theoretical at the time.

    In college a friend of mine implemented "TCP Over Voice" for a project in his operating systems course. Another friend who had perfect pitch sang a dollar sign to the computer...

    1. Re:Been Done by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Best i recall was someone claimed their BIOS had been infected with something that would use speakers and mic to get around being airgapped from any net connection.

      Not sure if it was ever verified by any security experts or not.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    2. Re:Been Done by Talderas · · Score: 1

      I have a recollection of an article discussing hackers keylogging an airgapped PC by reading the EM signals generated by the keyboard impulses.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    3. Re:Been Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been able to whistle 300 baud connection many times and once even managed to fool UsRobotics modem into thinking i was connecting at 1200 baud - but that was just cheer luck =)

    4. Re:Been Done by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      There's no way to initially cross an airgap with sound, you'd have to first infect the computer with the software needed to communicate with sound via some other means, and then you could use sound to establish a connection to a computer that's believed to be airgapped.

      If technology like this is included with an OS by default, and it doesn't require user action to allow data to be received and approved before taking any action with it (I'm looking at you, phones with NFC), that could change.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Been Done by Lennie · · Score: 1

      If you read on WIkipedia it says it wouldn't be impossible:

      "In December 2013 computer scientists Michael Hanspach and Michael Goetz released a paper to the Journal of Communication demonstrating the possibility of an acoustic mesh networking at a slow 20 bits per second using a set of speakers and microphones for ultrasonic communication in a fashion similar to BadBIOS's described abilities."

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

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  17. Re:"we played it beyond the range of human hearing by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

    So it not only transmits URLs, it also annoys the nearby dogs and cats. I'm not seeing a downside here.

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  18. READY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOAD
    PRESS PLAY ON TAPE

    1. Re:READY by AgentElrond · · Score: 1

      ... minutes pass ...
      R Tape loading error

  19. Remember the clicker tv? by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1
    We had to get up and change the channel when I was a teenager. But my best friend didn't they could afford a new-fangled clicker tv. I swear this is true, one day I smoked up, got creative and learned to imitate the clicker sound perfectly and change the channel. I got so good at it when we did the keep up with the Jones' routine that I drove my parents nuts to the point of distraction by throwing the sound and changing the channel on the Electrohome or turning it on or off but that one was really tricky to do. I can see that in the future there are more interesting challenges ahead for those of use who love to mess with the works just for fun.

    Thank you Google! I will go out and practice my dog whistle techniques. Like some I am not from this planet I think some of us were put here just for the purpose of shit and giggles.

    --
    This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    1. Re:Remember the clicker tv? by BennyX · · Score: 1

      I have actually read about this.. it was way before my time,though. One of the first remote-based devices for TV's was entirely mechanical and based on higher-than-human hearing sound. You'd press a button on the remote, a knocker would hit one of several 'bells' (probably tuning forks?) and the TV would 'hear' this sound and change the channel. Apparently it wasn't quite silent, and it did annoy pets.

  20. Advertisers are going to love this by naranek · · Score: 1

    Just wait until advertisers start adding these to their radio and streaming ads. Also - I'm changing my phone's notification sound right now :D

    --
    Only dumb birds land downwind.
    1. Re:Advertisers are going to love this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always advertise your dating page to the nearby chicks on the bus...

  21. But why??? by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

    If I want to send you a link to a webpage, then it is safe to assume that we're both connected to the internet. So why not send the link that way?

    1. Re:But why??? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let me send you this link on Skype. Oh wait, you don't have Skype. No, I don't have WhatsApp. Facebook? No. Okay, I'll email it to you. Wait, what's your address? Okay, I'll just type that in. Damn you, autocorrect! Okay, sent.

      Not got it yet? Did you check your spam folder? Okay, there you go. Haha, what a funny kitty. Totally worth all that screwing around working out how to send the link to you when we could have just each pressed one or two buttons in Chrome*.

      ~~~

      That's not to say that Google Chrome isn't a solution looking for a problem.

      *And of course, it could then easily continue with "Wait, do you have Chrome?" and so on.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:But why??? by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

      Let me send you this link on Skype. Oh wait, you don't have Skype. No, I don't have WhatsApp. Facebook? No. Okay, I'll email it to you.

      So, you're saying the problem is that there are currently too many messaging apps, and no agreed upon standard? And the solution to that problem is to create yet another messaging app?

      As for communicating with someone who is nearby without having to type an email address or user name: Apps like Bump have been around for years. Oh wait, you don't have bump? No I don't have Google Tone. How about OkCupid?
       

    3. Re:But why??? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      I'm picturing someone using this in a lecture hall where they can have the room's sound system broadcast the tones.

    4. Re:But why??? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying the problem is that there are currently too many messaging apps, and no agreed upon standard?

      I'm saying it's a problem, sometimes, but nothing that keeps me awake at night.

      And the solution to that problem is to create yet another messaging app?

      It's not a messaging app. There's no login, no authentication, no friend requests. It's for sharing generic data, not authenticated messages, with someone in your physical vicinity. It fulfils a pretty different purpose which, when attempted over the various messaging channels out there, leads to issues such as I outlined.

      As a Chrome extension, or even integrated into Chrome, I'm not sure it'll make many waves, and possibly more useful between one person's multiple devices (phone to laptop etc) than between people. Built in to Android? That might be useful. Not too convinced really.

      Apps like Bump have been around for years.

      Bump is no more. It required centralised servers, which Tone doesn't.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  22. Re:"we played it beyond the range of human hearing by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Annoying your wife/GF's pet annoys her. Annoying her puts you in the -- no pun intended -- doghouse.

    Thus, don't annoy your wife/GF's pet.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  23. chirp.io by hughbar · · Score: 1

    http://chirp.io/ and, as previous poster remarked, acoustic coupler. This is a pretty bad idea, generally.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  24. Re:"we played it beyond the range of human hearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I met a girl with cats or specially dogs I run away as fast as I can.

  25. ::Cue::Cat STRIKES BACK! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Digital Convergence, the company that brought us our beloved ::Cue::Cats, also had a technology that could capture an audio-encoded link from your computer's microphone port.

    Man I miss the oughts... I lived in a house back then...

    --

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

    1. Re:::Cue::Cat STRIKES BACK! by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

      I was going to essentially say this earlier but /. was having problems and wouldn't let me log in. Cue Cat redux.

  26. Yesssss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wooo! I knew holding onto all these US Robotics and Hayes modems would pay off!!

    Now I just need to find a computer with 25-pin serial ports...

  27. a modem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    am I missing something or is this an old technology?

  28. Handshake tones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really missed the old modem dial up handshake tones!

  29. Standards by DrYak · · Score: 1

    So, you're saying the problem is that there are currently too many messaging apps, and no agreed upon standard? And the solution to that problem is to create yet another messaging app?

    Well technically there is one agreed upon standard: XMPP/Jabber.

    But beside Google (who - although helped pushing it forward back then - would rather like that you forgot they support it) and Facebook (who was more or less forced to slap a gateway as an after though to their proprietary system and would like to discontinue it and force you to install their app) no other big major player use it.

    Still, it's very popular among lots of small-scale services (which are usually federated among them), and also popular in the corporate world (Cisco, as a random example, provides solution for communication inside a company, that under the hood uses jabber)

    But for current big players in the consumer fields (WhatsApp, Skype), there's no such standards.
    (And WhatsApp is very active at trying to shut un authorized users out)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Standards by DrYak · · Score: 1

      And WhatsApp is very active at trying to shut un authorized users out

      Sorry, I meant:
      un-authorized implementations

      --
      "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]