Slashdot Mirror


Hacking Team and Boeing Subsidiary Envisioned Drones Deploying Spyware

Advocatus Diaboli writes: Email conversations posted on WikiLeaks reveal that Boeing and Hacking Team want drones to carry devices that inject spyware into target computers through WiFi networks. The Intercept reports: "The plan is described in internal emails from the Italian company Hacking Team, which makes off-the-shelf software that can remotely infect a suspect's computer or smartphone, accessing files and recording calls, chats, emails and more. A hacker attacked the Milan-based firm earlier this month and released hundreds of gigabytes of company information online. Among the emails is a recap of a meeting in June of this year, which gives a "roadmap" of projects that Hacking Team's engineers have underway. On the list: Develop a way to infect computers via drone. One engineer is assigned the task of developing a "mini" infection device, which could be "ruggedized" and "transportable by drone (!)" the write-up notes enthusiastically in Italian. The request appears to have originated with a query from the Washington-based Insitu, which makes a range of unmanned systems, including the small ScanEagle surveillance drone, which has long been used by the militaries of the U.S. and other countries. Insitu also markets its drones for law enforcement."

79 comments

  1. Re:Great, the Republicans are now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    going to root even more systems. We'll never be able to disinfect our systems.

    The Republicans? Are you kidding?

  2. Re:Great, the Republicans are now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Get used to saying this: PRESIDENT TRUMP

  3. Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is sad that such a brilliant and innovative company was destroyed by a bunch of envious losers.

    1. Re:Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is sad that such a brilliant and innovative company was destroyed by a bunch of envious losers.

      They were in the business of exploiting. Then someone exploited them.

      If I'm ethically consistent I shouldn't smirk at smart people getting out smarted...

      grin

    2. Re: Sad... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Would you care to go into more detail about what brilliant innovations we are missing out on? The market in remote access Trojans and spyware remains open, the Boing subsidiary with the drone(who were the ones proposing a drone-mounted malicious wifi device) remains open, suppliers of ever smaller computers and wifi systems remain open. 'Hacking Team' may have been reasonably competent crackers, if not so hot on defense; but their(hopeful) demise would be a "and nothing of value was lost and we were all slightly more secure for it" situation if I've ever seen one.

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

      It is sad that such a brilliant and innovative company was destroyed by a bunch of envious losers.

      "the Italian company Hacking Team, which makes off-the-shelf software that can remotely infect a suspect's computer or smartphone, accessing files and recording calls, chats, emails and more."

      Why wasn't this company shutdown by law enforcement given the nature of their business? Why do corporations get away with illegal activity but a lone person gets a life sentence in federal penitentiary?

    4. Re: Sad... by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      Because they sold to governments. Clever, really.

  4. Re:Great, the Republicans are now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get used to saying this: PRESIDENT TRUMP

    Thanks, I needed that laugh.

  5. Re:Great, the Republicans are now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's already making millions off of malware. I wouldn't be surprised to see him expand his infection methods like this.

  6. Do not want by fnj · · Score: 1

    And what's more, do not want any psychos who would be associated with this shit to be outside of solitary confinement either.

  7. Re:Great, the Republicans are now... by Dracos · · Score: 1

    It would be pronounced "President Rump" on SNL, and played by a roast in a wig.

  8. Tell me again... by Dracos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who benefits from government-mandated backdoors?

    1. Re:Tell me again... by jazzis · · Score: 1

      Damn! Now I have to clean coffee off the screen....

    2. Re:Tell me again... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We all can! All it takes is the invisible hand taking bribes to hand out the keys.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who controls the British crown?
      Who keeps the metric system down?
      We do!

  9. And here I was.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... thinking that they were protecting me.

    They were! I have it here black on white (or green on black depending on your settings (magenta on midnightblue is just... wrong)).
    Amongst normal people, disclosing security issues without giving the companies a chance to fix them is considered a faux pas.

    But hang on, using flying robots to break the security of the common people is called: defense?
    I agree that the government should have more power than ordinary citizens and even have the authority kill. But there's a caveat hanging on to that. That caveat is the very complex question: Why?

    I can jump on one foot burping the national anthem and offend people at the same time, but what would it accomplish? Nothing.

    Unless I get to see real results from hacking our phones, wanting to total access to our data, preventing terror plots which are imaginary and they lied in parliament to... I'll say no.

    1. Re:And here I was.. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Wanting total access to our data IS a terror plot. By the very definition of terrorism. Using fear, violence or threat thereof, blackmail or other threats to change a political system or use the aforementioned methods to keep the current one in effect is basically what terrorism is about.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I imagine that, when it happened to them, they laid a complaint with the police or the FBI. It seems to me that it's almost a case of "It's funny because it's not me," since they do it to others.

    I wonder how many people have been killed or tortured because of these people. Fuck them.

  11. Better drone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    never flies... injects malware traditionally via Internet and the ubiquitous pebkac custom of clicking "scan your harddrive for virus" javascript ads and "install flash now" offers.

  12. How are these CEOs not in jail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What they do is illegal anywhere on the planet. How are they not in jail? How can they still travel without getting arrested the minute they step onto foreign soil? We know who they are, where they are, what they do! ARREST THE BASTARDS!

    1. Re: How are these CEOs not in jail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait.

    2. Re: How are these CEOs not in jail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait.

      Wait for what, the military/government contract?

      Let's not be naive here. There are customers who hold the power to not give a shit about legalities.

    3. Re:How are these CEOs not in jail? by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      So, please detail what's illegal about anything being discussed. The article doesn't talk about them going after you or your network. This is about providing tools to those that need tools. Your complaint, if it becomes legitimate, is only meaningful when someone who's not armed with a warrant or in the middle of conducting operations against (for example) a group like ISIS decides to use the technology outside of a legal context.

      Your silly rhetorical question is like asking why the people who make very nice chef's knives aren't in jail for murder, because someone decided to use one illegally in order to kill somebody else.

      Whatever philosophical point you hope to make is lost in the dust you kick up when you shout half-baked things in such a shrill manner. Should the people who run Glock be in jail because police are armed with their weapons and, despite using them every day to protect themselves and other people, one of them mis-uses a Glock-made weapon? Are you really listening to yourself?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:How are these CEOs not in jail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing isn't the fact that something flying overhead is trying to get into Wi-Fi networks. That is done all the time by wardrivers or some vandweller who parks in a side street and who is looking to bum a connection for the night.

      The big issue is that publicity on these technologies are going to make it harder for existing police to do their jobs. Spook the crooks enough, they will turn their cell phones off, ride their bikes, pay cash for bus fare, and go back to moving data and items via couriers and dead drops. Enough fear happens, someone will write another PGP/TOR/TrueCrypt utility which will be advanced enough that the only thing that can be done is to outright ban it... and then the Streisand effect will make that utility commonly used by everyone, just how BitCoin became popular because governments started banning its use.

    5. Re:How are these CEOs not in jail? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Because they sell to government agencies and police.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  13. That makes sense by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Boeing is a military contractor. When considering providing a service to the military or one of their contractors the first step is to ask "How much?".
    "Can we deliver?" comes later.

    There are exceptional companies, but Hacking Team is not one of them - a personal opinion based on reading much of the leaked data (without questioning it's authenticity).

    "You want the moon? Didn't you see page 27 of our latest brochure [sound of keyboard, then printer] I'll send you another copy in a minute".

    1. Re:That makes sense by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Boeing is a military contractor. When considering providing a service to the military or one of their contractors the first step is to ask "How much?". "Can we deliver?" comes later.

      There are exceptional companies, but Hacking Team is not one of them - a personal opinion based on reading much of the leaked data (without questioning it's authenticity).

      "You want the moon? Didn't you see page 27 of our latest brochure [sound of keyboard, then printer] I'll send you another copy in a minute".

      Addendum - a re-read of the referenced article says nothing about Boeing, though it may be the parent company. The actual leaked documents say nothing about attacking the networks of ordinary people.

  14. It's all fine by me: by Zanadou · · Score: 2

    [obvious sarcasm] Well, it's absolutely fine by me; after all, they're on our side, right? It's not like it couldn't be used against us, huh? Anyway, I've done nothing wrong, so I've got nothing to fear!! {insert happy emoji} [/obvious sarcasm]

  15. Re:What I envisioned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, is that what those are. I thought she was trying to use the toohpick to get out an errant chia seed. Those were your tiny, minuscule nuts.

  16. Close-flying drones by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My wifi is near unusable at the extremes of my own house. When I go outside, I can't usefully hitch to it more than a few feet from the house. Any drone that wants to inject something would have fly really close.

    From what I can dig up, where I live in the US I own the air over my house up to at least 80 feet from the ground (possibly as much as 500). So I'd be well within my rights to shoot down any drone that could come close enough to hook to my wifi. Unless of course they have a subpenoa, but those have to be served, at which point I already know so the drone is kinda pointless.

    I'm wondering how tough it would be to develop anti-drone devices that are smart enough to not kill birds and bats.

    In fact, you'd think a better and cheaper idea would be to just send someone with said injection device in their pocket to the person's front door posing as a magazine salesman or Jehova's Witness or something. Or better yet, just mail the injection device to the victim. If its small enough to put in a drone, you can probably find a way to slip it into a piece of cardboard or in the packing material for a package or something.

    1. Re:Close-flying drones by fpoling · · Score: 2

      In fact, you'd think a better and cheaper idea

      The last thing a military contractor want to hear is about cheaper alternatives to their expensive toys.

    2. Re:Close-flying drones by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      Right now, every case of drone destruction has ended with the shooter loosing in court. The FAA still regulates drones as unmanned aerial vehicles, per their rules it's just like shooting at a manned vehicle.

    3. Re:Close-flying drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So I'd be well within my rights to shoot down any drone that could come close enough to hook to my wifi."

      I'm glad I don't live near you. Are you a fucking moron?

    4. Re:Close-flying drones by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      The last thing a military contractor want to hear is about cheaper alternatives to their expensive toys.

      "The first rule of government spending: Why build one when you can build two at twice the price?"

      My favorite line from Contact

    5. Re:Close-flying drones by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      The FAA still regulates drones as unmanned aerial vehicles, per their rules it's just like shooting at a manned vehicle.

      Hmm. Yes, that does appear to be the case.

    6. Re:Close-flying drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My wifi is near unusable at the extremes of my own house. When I go outside, I can't usefully hitch to it more than a few feet from the house. Any drone that wants to inject something would have fly really close.

      Unless the drone has the ability to transmit at much higher power than your average access point would.

    7. Re:Close-flying drones by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes but if your WiFi enabled device had a much larger antenna you could use at much greater distances from the transmitter. Of course if you have a few trees about then that's plenty of water to stop the signal dead so that drone does need something close to line of sight.
      They probably plan to land these things on rooftops near the desired transmitter and hope nobody sees them coming in.

    8. Re:Close-flying drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are talking about military surveillance equipment here - I doubt they pan to be following the FCC imposed limitations on transmission power.

    9. Re:Close-flying drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now, every case of drone destruction has ended with the shooter loosing in court.

      Prosecutor: Defendant at the ready!
      Prosecutor: Pull!!
      *BLAM! BLAM!*
      Judge: Two points to the prosecution.
      Defendant: Damn.

    10. Re:Close-flying drones by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      If you were building/refitting a house, would there be any major disadvantages to installing a Faraday cage in the walls to block RF? You would lose the ability to listen to portable radios or TVs without plugging in to a wall socket. Your mobile phone wouldn't be able to make calls unless your provider supported calling over wifi or you bought a femotocell. Radio controlled clocks wouldn't work.

      There would be a number of advantages. Much less congestion in the 2.4GHz band. Privacy. Protection from government mind-rays.

      I'm wondering if it's a worthwhile trade-off.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Close-flying drones by Solandri · · Score: 1

      My wifi is near unusable at the extremes of my own house. When I go outside, I can't usefully hitch to it more than a few feet from the house. Any drone that wants to inject something would have fly really close.

      The point of doing this from a drone is that it'll have unhindered line of sight to the target wifi network. Once you have line of sight, it's just a matter of cranking up the signal (both transmit and received) with a directional antenna until you can hear and be heard by the wifi router. With a good enough antenna, distance is irrelevant. You might have heard in the news that we're picking up signals from a robot spacecraft that's currently 3 billion miles away. It's done by using a really big directional antenna here on Earth. The transmitter on the spacecraft itself only uses about 20-30x more power than your home router.

    12. Re:Close-flying drones by Agripa · · Score: 2

      My wifi is near unusable at the extremes of my own house. When I go outside, I can't usefully hitch to it more than a few feet from the house. Any drone that wants to inject something would have fly really close.

      Unless the drone has the ability to transmit at much higher power than your average access point would.

      High power is not useful for maintaining a connection unless both stations have it. The drone may use high power to overcome interference or low signal levels but without corresponding high power on the other end, it will not be able to maintain a connection; it will only be able to send packets in the blind.

    13. Re:Close-flying drones by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The disadvantage is that it is difficult to do and adds cost. Not only do surfaces need to be shielded but this has to be done with no seams because they will act as slot antennas compromising whatever shielding is used.

    14. Re:Close-flying drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The return trip is managed through having a high-gain antenna, depending on the noise levels.

    15. Re:Close-flying drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless of course they have a subpenoa, but those have to be served, at which point I already know so the drone is kinda pointless.

      Don't confuse subpoena with warrant, the latter of which can be granted without your knowledge in order to spy on you.

    16. Re:Close-flying drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering how tough it would be to develop anti-drone devices that are smart enough to not kill birds and bats.

      Its called a shotgun.

  17. Google Password Backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And of course you gave the NSA your Wifi password making it all so much easier when you (or anyone you permitted on your wifi network) clicked 'yes' to the "do you want Google to backup your account".

    And with Microsoft also adding this spyware features to Windows, it just becomes doubly easy to hand over your passwords.

  18. Re:Time for a haiku by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such depth! You write a great haiku, sir!

  19. Which is why no secure system uses wifi by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    Wired or GTFO. the only thing I permit on the wifi network is facebooking. I encourage them to do it on the wifi. Do all your personal crap on it. But the company servers, etc... not connected to the wifi. You want to talk to those... plug yourself in with an eithernet cable.

    Where the NSA will start creeping me out again is when they get little robots that can scurry between my walls and link into the ethernet using a little rodent sized drone.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Which is why no secure system uses wifi by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Another handy advantage to moving away from 10base5 and 10base2! Much trickier to open and tap a bunch of twisted pairs; and the system will not be happy with having two devices on the same cable unless your spybot is quite unobtrusive in any sniffing and spoofing it does. Vampire tapping coax would be much easier to automate with reasonable simplicity and reliability and the system is intended to work with multiple devices on the same wire.

    2. Re:Which is why no secure system uses wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, Intel is prepared for "Wireless Everything" and Windows 10 is ready for it.

      Soon you won't even see video cables.

      Have fun being hacked.

  20. Spyware for Spyware by geekmux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is it just me, or did anyone else get a chuckle over the irony that spyware is being considered to deploy spyware.

    Unfortunately regardless of stated end-use, damn near every drone deployed in the future will be gathering intel of some kind that offers far more benefit to the organization deploying it than the target. It's merely the world we live in, and people gladly give up that privacy in exchange for convenience or "security".

    It will be interesting walking down to the corner of Liability Ave and Lawsuit St where all the action will be when more and more data mines are created while security around those data mines takes a backseat with predictable results. You thought your credit card number getting hacked was inconvenient..

  21. Re:What I envisioned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, a chia seed would have the potential to be fertile.

  22. de haxx0rz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    r in ur droanz nao

  23. Listening to ground transmitter by dbIII · · Score: 1

    FCC imposed limitations on transmission power

    The topic is drones listening in to transmitters and then connecting so they are limited by the weakest signal. Having a high powered transmitter on the drone is not going to make any difference at all since they are interested in what they get back.

    1. Re:Listening to ground transmitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In normal (i.e. legal) Wifi applications, increasing the usable distance requires directional antennas on both sides, because output power is limited to a maximum EIRP. Any antenna gain has to be offset by a lower transmitter power to stay within legal limits. This means that high gain antennas enable you to listen farther, but you can't legally transmit farther. If you don't care about power limits, you can increase the range of Wifi a lot by only making changes to one side of the connection (listen farther, transmit farther).

  24. Re: What I envisioned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what else is fertile?
    Your mum.

  25. 2014 Documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember seeing that 2014 interactive documentary about the current world. "Watch Dogs" it was called, I think.

  26. Criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sounds more and more to me like these "Hacking Team" criminals need to spend a few years in prison for violations of the European privacy laws. Does not the European Union also have laws about companies who's products and practices have no legal uses and only facilitate criminal behavior?

  27. it's been done before by ei4anb · · Score: 1

    and the paper was presented at DEFCON https://www.defcon.org/images/...

  28. Listening by dbIII · · Score: 2

    With respect AC that has nothing at all to do with the topic discussed. The size of the listening antenna is the thing that matters and wattage of the transmitter is not under the control of the receiver.
    I'm not sure how you manged to get things precisely backwards, but I'll assume it's an innocent mistake and not a joke.

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

      The point is that the drone doesn't need to get close. It can use a high gain antenna to listen from afar, and it can transmit at full power plus antenna gain over the same distance, if the operator is willing and/or entitled to violate the maximum EIRP limits. The victim's access point can be completely normal. It needs neither a high gain antenna to receive (because the drone is sending strong enough) nor does it need to send stronger than usual (because the drone receives with a high gain antenna). You only need to do something out of the ordinary at both ends of the connection if you must keep the transmitters within EIRP limits.

    2. Re:Listening by dbIII · · Score: 1

      AC look above to the line "but if your WiFi enabled device had a much larger antenna you could use at much greater distances from the transmitter" - that tells the entire story. Your posts have done nothing other than show you didn't read (or understand maybe) that line. It appears that even when I dumb things down as far as using "larger antenna" instead of high gain it's still not dumbed down enough.

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

      You also wrote "they probably plan to land these things on rooftops near the desired transmitter", and that's obviously not how close they need to get. And you also wrote "the topic is drones listening in to transmitters and then connecting", so obviously transmitter power isn't entirely irrelevant, because you do need to transmit to connect. Instead of working so hard on dumbing things down, maybe you should try being consistent.

      Fact is, the drone could be so high in the sky that you wouldn't see or hear it, and it would still be able to listen and connect to wifi that the owner can't even use in the yard.

    4. Re:Listening by dbIII · · Score: 1

      so obviously transmitter power isn't entirely irrelevant

      With the high gain antenna you need to listen a high transmitter power IS entirely irrelevant, since you are using that SAME HIGH GAIN ANTENNA to transmit and thus DON'T NEED MUCH POWER to do so.
      Are you sure you are not deliberately acting dumb time after time to wind me up?

  29. Sounds pricey by lhowaf · · Score: 1

    Not a fan of Hacking Team but the story seems more heavy breathing than actual threat. It would, no doubt, be bad if our law enforcement agencies were to deploy spy drones. The sad thing is, despite the innuendo of "Insitu also markets its drones for law enforcement," they don't need to use such an expensive attack vector when they can just send out a van (Stingray) with a couple minimally-trained police officers and do the same thing. This device seems more suitable for environments where they mutilate, hang and burn spy agency operatives.

  30. Skynet is aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th.

  31. Re:Great, the Republicans are now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Republicans? Are you kidding?

    Your lack of patriotism has been duly noted. Per the PATRIOT ACT, please report to the nearest FEMA camp for replacement.

  32. Already Exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meet "The Deck" - The Deck.

  33. Neuromancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me know how "Operation Screaming Fist" works out for you guys.

  34. Sounds like Screaming Fist to me... by kgb1001001 · · Score: 1

    Real hackers don't use drones - they use ultralights flying in over the Russian facilities to inject in intrusion software - oh, no... not an EMP! Ahhhhhhhh!!! The lasers! Ahhhggghggghh!!!!!!!

    1. Re:Sounds like Screaming Fist to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I enjoyed the reference. Not sure if nobody else did, or if they just didn't catch it.

  35. Listening and attention span by dbIII · · Score: 1

    You also wrote "they probably plan to land these things on rooftops near the desired transmitter", and that's obviously not how close they need to get

    Obviously a visability thing - the "hope nobody sees them coming in" was an enormous clue.
    Now why don't you go back and read the entire (short) post this time and try again.