3 ms·

I don't get this. If someone gets unauthorized access to your computer's camera, all this prevents is them seeing your face staring into your computer. This d

by capote 10y ago

I don't get this. If someone gets unauthorized access to your computer's camera, all this prevents is them seeing your face staring into your computer. This doesn't solve the underlying problem of someone getting unauthorized access to your computer. It just solves the problem of someone seeing your face, which is not such a terrible problem to have, at least if you're as handsome as I am. Just covering up the camera is like putting a bandaid on a small cut when you have internal bleeding.

zeta0134 10y ago
All sorts of people do all sorts of things in their bedrooms that have nothing to do with their face staring into their computers. There have been quite a few instances of livestreamers forgetting to turn off their streams, and accidentally broadcasting themselves naked, or having sex with their partners. I personally don't have any cameras in my room for this reason, but the risk of capturing something sensitive is quite real.
- capote 10y ago
  I suppose. The underlying problem is still greater, though, than someone seeing you having sex. Someone getting unauthorized access to your webcam, I'd imagine, has the ability and skill to do much worse than look at you naked (which, on the other hand, would be problematic to me because my body is flabby and unattractive). Wouldn't a better solution be software-based, or some more advanced hardware (like added network security)? But this picture is taken at an office, where presumably sex isn't happening, and anything confidential will likely not be in large font on a sheet of paper held up in front of a camera that is presumed inactive.
  - Jemmeh 10y ago
    That would cost money, as opposed to 1¢ of tape doing the same job.
    - capote 10y ago
      1¢ of tape solves the issue of someone gaining unauthorized access to the CEO of Facebook's laptop? I think not.
      - zeta0134 10y ago
        Unauthorized access to the laptop is a very different thing than the user (Mark Zuckerberg, in this case) browsing to a website that utilized a camera API, or accidentally clicking Allow, or being caught by some weakness in the Flash API without realizing it. He's probably also got all sorts of other protections on that laptop, but having an extra $0.01 bit of security never hurts. I think microphones are more dangerous actually; it's hard to glean much meaningful data from most webcam streams (besides perhaps some less than flattering pictures of the user) but a microphone can pick up all sorts of confidential conversations.
        capote 10y ago
        I always thought that problem was solved by the little light next to the camera turning on when the camera is on. And if the light doesn't turn on, it's likely something more problematic is happening.
        Jemmeh 10y ago
        If you can hack someone's camera, you can make it so the camera turns on without turning on the light and letting people know you're watching and listening.
        dogma1138 10y ago
        That's somewhat correct, on many cameras today that light is in line with the power to the sensor (IIRC this is the case on the new Macbooks) so as soon as it gets out of standby mode it is on so you can't hack that. The microphone is another story.
        capote 10y ago
  - Esau 10y ago
    It is a real issue and there are people out there looking to use people's webcams for spying: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet-the-men-who-spy-on-women-through-their-webcams/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet...
    - DanBC 10y ago
      Yes, but if they can make you install malware that gives them access to your webcam they can then go on to install software that gives them access to any online banking you do. Taping over the webcam stops access to the camera, but does nothing about the rootkits and keyloggers that are giving criminal gangs access to all your online accounts.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
davnn 10y ago
I think Zuck's case is pretty special and he might be worried that, in the worst case, his computer gets compromised and the attackers can additionally see or hear something top secret. I don't care to be honest.
dogma1138 10y ago
I have 2 laptops that are used for work and I physically removed the camera and microphone array from them, one of them also has had the wireless card removed because of onsite requirements. While It's true that someone who compromised a machine can get a lot of information limiting what they can do with it is not a bad idea at all. Those computers end up being in rooms where sensitive material can be discussed and if they are compromised the recording from the camera or the microphone can reveal a lot of information which cannot be accessed digitally. It's also important to note that not every compromise is utter and complete the microphone and the camera for example can potentially be accessed via applications that might not have privileged access to the system or any access to the local storage (your browser for example). If some one gets remote access to these machines there are a lot of secondary security controls that might prevent them from owning the box completely and even if they have privileged access, accessing the information itself is another challenge as it is stored on separate encrypted containers, the microphone or the camera however as mentioned before can be easily accessed without any special permissions. So while putting a sticker on your camera and disabling your microphone can be analogous to "putting a BAND-AID on it" like you have said there is nothing wrong with it, as more often than not you just get a cut and a BAND-AID is pretty damn good at preventing it from getting infected, this isn't about internal bleeding with BAND-AID's. Not to mention that while your hard drive is where it's easy to get "technical" information from the microphone and your camera are where it's easy to get personal information from, no one wants the recording of what goes in their bedroom to become public and probably way too many people have had to take their laptops to the bathroom on some occasions. All those sensitive personal moments from sexual activity to the fights you can have with your significant other, friends and family are really good material for blackmail considerably better in virtually every case than the material you have on your hard drive, and when you attack targets both high or low blackmail is usually the way to go because it's a pretty damn good way to ensure that you can get what you want in almost every case.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
It would be far more damaging for someone to access the webcam on my girlfriend's laptop vs. the data on it. She has no access to any useful financial information or accounts, but images captured in her hotel room during a work trip could easily be used to blackmail her. It would also be trivial for someone in her company's IT department to do so, and the same is true at many other companies (and schools). The software that many IT departments use to monitor company-owned computers + prevent theft allows them to access any aspect of the computer on demand, without the user's knowledge.

by capote 10y ago

zeta0134 10y ago

All sorts of people do all sorts of things in their bedrooms that have nothing to do with their face staring into their computers. There have been quite a few instances of livestreamers forgetting to turn off their streams, and accidentally broadcasting themselves naked, or having sex with their partners. I personally don't have any cameras in my room for this reason, but the risk of capturing something sensitive is quite real.

capote 10y ago
I suppose. The underlying problem is still greater, though, than someone seeing you having sex. Someone getting unauthorized access to your webcam, I'd imagine, has the ability and skill to do much worse than look at you naked (which, on the other hand, would be problematic to me because my body is flabby and unattractive). Wouldn't a better solution be software-based, or some more advanced hardware (like added network security)? But this picture is taken at an office, where presumably sex isn't happening, and anything confidential will likely not be in large font on a sheet of paper held up in front of a camera that is presumed inactive.
- Jemmeh 10y ago
  That would cost money, as opposed to 1¢ of tape doing the same job.
  - capote 10y ago
    1¢ of tape solves the issue of someone gaining unauthorized access to the CEO of Facebook's laptop? I think not.
    - zeta0134 10y ago
      Unauthorized access to the laptop is a very different thing than the user (Mark Zuckerberg, in this case) browsing to a website that utilized a camera API, or accidentally clicking Allow, or being caught by some weakness in the Flash API without realizing it. He's probably also got all sorts of other protections on that laptop, but having an extra $0.01 bit of security never hurts. I think microphones are more dangerous actually; it's hard to glean much meaningful data from most webcam streams (besides perhaps some less than flattering pictures of the user) but a microphone can pick up all sorts of confidential conversations.
      - capote 10y ago
        I always thought that problem was solved by the little light next to the camera turning on when the camera is on. And if the light doesn't turn on, it's likely something more problematic is happening.
        Jemmeh 10y ago
        If you can hack someone's camera, you can make it so the camera turns on without turning on the light and letting people know you're watching and listening.
        dogma1138 10y ago
        That's somewhat correct, on many cameras today that light is in line with the power to the sensor (IIRC this is the case on the new Macbooks) so as soon as it gets out of standby mode it is on so you can't hack that. The microphone is another story.
        capote 10y ago
- Esau 10y ago
  It is a real issue and there are people out there looking to use people's webcams for spying: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet-the-men-who-spy-on-women-through-their-webcams/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet...
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Yes, but if they can make you install malware that gives them access to your webcam they can then go on to install software that gives them access to any online banking you do. Taping over the webcam stops access to the camera, but does nothing about the rootkits and keyloggers that are giving criminal gangs access to all your online accounts.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

davnn 10y ago

I think Zuck's case is pretty special and he might be worried that, in the worst case, his computer gets compromised and the attackers can additionally see or hear something top secret. I don't care to be honest.

dogma1138 10y ago

I have 2 laptops that are used for work and I physically removed the camera and microphone array from them, one of them also has had the wireless card removed because of onsite requirements. While It's true that someone who compromised a machine can get a lot of information limiting what they can do with it is not a bad idea at all. Those computers end up being in rooms where sensitive material can be discussed and if they are compromised the recording from the camera or the microphone can reveal a lot of information which cannot be accessed digitally. It's also important to note that not every compromise is utter and complete the microphone and the camera for example can potentially be accessed via applications that might not have privileged access to the system or any access to the local storage (your browser for example). If some one gets remote access to these machines there are a lot of secondary security controls that might prevent them from owning the box completely and even if they have privileged access, accessing the information itself is another challenge as it is stored on separate encrypted containers, the microphone or the camera however as mentioned before can be easily accessed without any special permissions. So while putting a sticker on your camera and disabling your microphone can be analogous to "putting a BAND-AID on it" like you have said there is nothing wrong with it, as more often than not you just get a cut and a BAND-AID is pretty damn good at preventing it from getting infected, this isn't about internal bleeding with BAND-AID's. Not to mention that while your hard drive is where it's easy to get "technical" information from the microphone and your camera are where it's easy to get personal information from, no one wants the recording of what goes in their bedroom to become public and probably way too many people have had to take their laptops to the bathroom on some occasions. All those sensitive personal moments from sexual activity to the fights you can have with your significant other, friends and family are really good material for blackmail considerably better in virtually every case than the material you have on your hard drive, and when you attack targets both high or low blackmail is usually the way to go because it's a pretty damn good way to ensure that you can get what you want in almost every case.

gthtjtkt 10y ago

It would be far more damaging for someone to access the webcam on my girlfriend's laptop vs. the data on it. She has no access to any useful financial information or accounts, but images captured in her hotel room during a work trip could easily be used to blackmail her. It would also be trivial for someone in her company's IT department to do so, and the same is true at many other companies (and schools). The software that many IT departments use to monitor company-owned computers + prevent theft allows them to access any aspect of the computer on demand, without the user's knowledge.