4 ms·

1) Why is this not on the motherboard or chipset level? 2) Why is this not backed up with TCPDUMPs of the call-home? 3) Source? Receipt of the computer/manufa

by izak30 17y ago

1) Why is this not on the motherboard or chipset level? 2) Why is this not backed up with TCPDUMPs of the call-home? 3) Source? Receipt of the computer/manufacturer/model? New or used purchase? could just be a CEO gone-wrong, or a specific computer monitored (with a warrant) 4) Storing e-mails transmitted over the wire has nothing to do with keyloggers, just FUD. This is much too vague and unrealistic to be considered news.

rdtsc 17y ago
> 1) Why is this not on the motherboard or chipset level? It depends on the particular design. If ethernet is provided by a separate chip, then the motherboard manufacturer doesn't have to be "in" on the whole affair. During final assembly the keyboard output is spliced through this special board then plugged into the ethernet chip. However, if ethernet is completely integrated into the chipset, then this is probably already provided and we just haven't noticed it. > 2) Why is this not backed up with TCPDUMPs of the call-home? Because that would be a very bad design. It would completely blow the whole thing out of water. If someone designed it that way at the NSA, they should be fired immediately for incompetence. What should happen is that this capability should be turned on selectively upon receiving a specific "wake-surveillance-up" packet or even better a specific timed sequence of regular packets (sort of a secret knock code using ethernet frames). Even better they should be able to access this wirelessly as well and perhaps use some of the wires as antennas. > 3) Source? Receipt of the computer/manufacturer/model? New or used purchase? Now that would be interesting. Unless, of course, this story in an of itself is released by someone planning to integrate such devices and they just want to gauge public's response and see how this story spreads and who is concerned and who isn't. But I'm moving into 'tin foil hat area' here. > 4) Storing e-mails transmitted over the wire has nothing to do with keyloggers, just FUD. Agree.

by izak30 17y ago

rdtsc 17y ago

> 1) Why is this not on the motherboard or chipset level? It depends on the particular design. If ethernet is provided by a separate chip, then the motherboard manufacturer doesn't have to be "in" on the whole affair. During final assembly the keyboard output is spliced through this special board then plugged into the ethernet chip. However, if ethernet is completely integrated into the chipset, then this is probably already provided and we just haven't noticed it. > 2) Why is this not backed up with TCPDUMPs of the call-home? Because that would be a very bad design. It would completely blow the whole thing out of water. If someone designed it that way at the NSA, they should be fired immediately for incompetence. What should happen is that this capability should be turned on selectively upon receiving a specific "wake-surveillance-up" packet or even better a specific timed sequence of regular packets (sort of a secret knock code using ethernet frames). Even better they should be able to access this wirelessly as well and perhaps use some of the wires as antennas. > 3) Source? Receipt of the computer/manufacturer/model? New or used purchase? Now that would be interesting. Unless, of course, this story in an of itself is released by someone planning to integrate such devices and they just want to gauge public's response and see how this story spreads and who is concerned and who isn't. But I'm moving into 'tin foil hat area' here. > 4) Storing e-mails transmitted over the wire has nothing to do with keyloggers, just FUD. Agree.