6 ms·

Sigh. I was with you right until the end. Of _course_ those in power believe themselves smart enough to avoid the rules they wrote - they want to be secure, a

by abofh 10y ago

Sigh. I was with you right until the end. Of _course_ those in power believe themselves smart enough to avoid the rules they wrote - they want to be secure, and know the presence of very real threats both within and outside of the US. I'm not defending it - but you'd have to be extremely foolish to commit a crime from your @whitehouse.gov email address. You'd have to be equally foolish to commit any crime over email or unencrypted IM if you'd talked to a lawyer with half a braincell to rub against a rock. And the US /has/ banned unbreakable crypto - those 56 bit ciphers in old browsers? That was export law banning the export of 'weapons' to unfriendly states. While the law has been recinded, nothing has made it hard for congress (or even the executive) to change that. And lastly - Echo does NOT transmit to amazon when the light is off (perhaps unless compelled to by court order - but I leave paranoia to your imagination). Don't believe me? Disconnect your internet and ask for the time - it knows how to do a few very minimal things without the network -- No AWS transmission needed if your clock's in sync.

tambourine_man 10y ago
Not much imagination needed https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/27/amazon-echo-audio-data-murder-case/ https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/27/amazon-echo-audio-data-m...
bitexploder 10y ago
This view of the amazon Echo threat model is very narrow and credits a great deal of trust into Amazon and or how things "should" work. I won't go into the likelihood that what I am about to explain is an actual reality, but in practical terms a nation state actor like the NSA can backdoor the Echo. Just because a simple test (disconnecting) the network shows you one behavior means and tells you absolutely nothing about how it could be backdoored. It could be as exotic as a payload deep in the NIC firmware that merely requires the right packet to cross through it completely altering the behavior so it can silently listen. Anyone that can accomplish this much can make the device behave normally until they want it not to. And even then, it will APPEAR normal. It could also be as simple as code Amazon knows about and is compelled by a NSL to never reveal. So, paranoia or likelihood aside, using some cursory behavioral conclusion as an argument is weak at best. We can also talk about phones, laptops and so many other things and why the meme of the echo being /the/ spy device has gained mind share. Anyhow, for the truly paranoid even something like a modern mobile device is a bit of a non-starter.
- Natsu 10y ago
  Based on the things Snowden leaked, they would backdoor the hardware before it ever reached your home. Or at the design level. A part of me strongly suspects that the Intel IME was dreamed up by the NSA and I'd be very surprised if they don't have a way to own it.
  - bitexploder 10y ago
    That would be my suspicion for a well funded nation state as well. The NSA dedicates a non-trivial amount of time to analyzing the chips they source and use in their infrastructure for backdoors. That is not a defensive only capability :)
- Pyxl101 10y ago
  Is there any special reason to worry about your Echo being backdoored rather than your PC or laptops with their frequently built-in microphones? Heck even my computer monitors seem to have microphones today. I'm sure my PC is a lot easier to break into than the Echo. Depending on how the Echo works, it might not be so easy to back door. It's not likely to be running any system services that can be connected to remotely. It's a pretty simple device without a lot going on internally (compared to a phone or PC). I'd be far more worried about complex electronics like a television or PC being backdoored than an Echo. Furthermore, because these other devices are an order of magnitude more popular, and actually store people's data there's far more incentive for malicious actors of all kinds to develop back doors for them. The Echo is actually a pretty uninteresting target. It doesn't store any data. Maybe you can break into it remotely and use it to listen, but that's it. That's all. You cannot, just by breaking in, sift over a vast trove of preexisting information, like you can with a PC. You'll never steal someone's documents, or read their email, or steal their passwords. Plus if you get into someone's PC or phone you can probably turn on a mic and record them too! I think the Echo honestly has pretty limited value on average as an attack target. It will be low in the priority list for attackers to target. Regardless, if any of these devices are backdoored and recording me, then it will be trivially easy to detect that unexpected network activity. I am far less worried about my Echo than my PC, because I expect my Echo to have zero network activity except when I'm using it. Since it does one thing, it has no excuse for unexpected network activity. It's very easy for me to monitor that network activity - built right into my wireless router. With my PC, who knows what the hell it's doing because some software decided to download an update. PCs and phones are not simple enough that you can expect them to have no network activity when idle. The Echo is simple enough to have no network activity when idle. Because the Echo would be so easy to detect if it were improperly recording you, I do not think a state actor would risk trying to observe anyone security-conscious in that way.
cle 10y ago
What's the security of the software that triggers the transmission? Does anyone even know? (Outside of a handful of engineers at Amazon.)
- echo_throwaway9 10y ago
  I worked on the Echo firmware and cloud software. Let me definitively say: It's easier for a malicious software engineer to embed a backdoor than the NSA, barring any vulnerabilities in open source software (openssl, Linux, etc.). The "wakeword" is detected by a pretty large user space program, constantly observing filtered audio. The device can not recognize much on its own. The Echo family also can't stream audio continually, the CPU is not very powerful and the sheer bandwidth required would be enough for anyone tech savvy to notice. The firmware and OTA process is likely more secure than necessary and it would be stupid difficult for a 3rd party to produce a signed firmware image, and involving Amazon would likely rouse the suspicion of many engineers and they're not known to keep their mouths shut. I would be (and am) much more concerned about my phone or laptop (or surroundings) recording me than the Echo devices. I am happy to talk more about the device security privately. I am sick at the amount of FUD around this class of products. There are so many more frightening threats out there. (Disclaimer: I used to, but no longer, work for Amazon.)
  - alsetmusic 10y ago
    > It's easier for a malicious software engineer to embed a backdoor than the NSA, barring any vulnerabilities in open source software (openssl, Linux, etc.). Of course. An engineer within the company has access to source code without having to involve multiple parties. This does not preclude other threats or diminish the reach of a well-funded agency. Can an engineer at Google write code to log searches more easily than an outsider? Sure. That doesn't mean that you should write off the possibility that a third party could do the same.
  - geofft 10y ago
    > The Echo family also can't stream audio continually, the CPU is not very powerful and the sheer bandwidth required would be enough for anyone tech savvy to notice. This is probably the most compelling independently-verifiable argument. Even assuming the ability to do arbitrary things with an Echo, logging or transmitting useful voice all the time without notice isn't doable. And it seems hard to recognize suspicious discussions and turn on just for those (Echo has enough trouble recognizing "Alexa" 100% reliably). You could subvert Echo so that it records you during pre-determined times - but there are so many other devices you could subvert, too. Getting malware on a government official's personal laptop via spearphishing seems so much easier.
digler999 10y ago
> Don't believe me? Disconnect your internet and ask for the time well that settles it then. I'm sure an unscrupulous entity would never think of compressing an audio stream for later retrieval/conversion to text/spurious retrieval. That would be dishonest.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
>you'd have to be extremely foolish to commit a crime from your @whitehouse.gov email address. Or you can just use a private server and wipe it clean.

by abofh 10y ago

tambourine_man 10y ago

Not much imagination needed https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/27/amazon-echo-audio-data-murder-case/ https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/27/amazon-echo-audio-data-m...

bitexploder 10y ago

This view of the amazon Echo threat model is very narrow and credits a great deal of trust into Amazon and or how things "should" work. I won't go into the likelihood that what I am about to explain is an actual reality, but in practical terms a nation state actor like the NSA can backdoor the Echo. Just because a simple test (disconnecting) the network shows you one behavior means and tells you absolutely nothing about how it could be backdoored. It could be as exotic as a payload deep in the NIC firmware that merely requires the right packet to cross through it completely altering the behavior so it can silently listen. Anyone that can accomplish this much can make the device behave normally until they want it not to. And even then, it will APPEAR normal. It could also be as simple as code Amazon knows about and is compelled by a NSL to never reveal. So, paranoia or likelihood aside, using some cursory behavioral conclusion as an argument is weak at best. We can also talk about phones, laptops and so many other things and why the meme of the echo being /the/ spy device has gained mind share. Anyhow, for the truly paranoid even something like a modern mobile device is a bit of a non-starter.

Natsu 10y ago
Based on the things Snowden leaked, they would backdoor the hardware before it ever reached your home. Or at the design level. A part of me strongly suspects that the Intel IME was dreamed up by the NSA and I'd be very surprised if they don't have a way to own it.
- bitexploder 10y ago
  That would be my suspicion for a well funded nation state as well. The NSA dedicates a non-trivial amount of time to analyzing the chips they source and use in their infrastructure for backdoors. That is not a defensive only capability :)
Pyxl101 10y ago
Is there any special reason to worry about your Echo being backdoored rather than your PC or laptops with their frequently built-in microphones? Heck even my computer monitors seem to have microphones today. I'm sure my PC is a lot easier to break into than the Echo. Depending on how the Echo works, it might not be so easy to back door. It's not likely to be running any system services that can be connected to remotely. It's a pretty simple device without a lot going on internally (compared to a phone or PC). I'd be far more worried about complex electronics like a television or PC being backdoored than an Echo. Furthermore, because these other devices are an order of magnitude more popular, and actually store people's data there's far more incentive for malicious actors of all kinds to develop back doors for them. The Echo is actually a pretty uninteresting target. It doesn't store any data. Maybe you can break into it remotely and use it to listen, but that's it. That's all. You cannot, just by breaking in, sift over a vast trove of preexisting information, like you can with a PC. You'll never steal someone's documents, or read their email, or steal their passwords. Plus if you get into someone's PC or phone you can probably turn on a mic and record them too! I think the Echo honestly has pretty limited value on average as an attack target. It will be low in the priority list for attackers to target. Regardless, if any of these devices are backdoored and recording me, then it will be trivially easy to detect that unexpected network activity. I am far less worried about my Echo than my PC, because I expect my Echo to have zero network activity except when I'm using it. Since it does one thing, it has no excuse for unexpected network activity. It's very easy for me to monitor that network activity - built right into my wireless router. With my PC, who knows what the hell it's doing because some software decided to download an update. PCs and phones are not simple enough that you can expect them to have no network activity when idle. The Echo is simple enough to have no network activity when idle. Because the Echo would be so easy to detect if it were improperly recording you, I do not think a state actor would risk trying to observe anyone security-conscious in that way.

cle 10y ago

What's the security of the software that triggers the transmission? Does anyone even know? (Outside of a handful of engineers at Amazon.)

echo_throwaway9 10y ago
I worked on the Echo firmware and cloud software. Let me definitively say: It's easier for a malicious software engineer to embed a backdoor than the NSA, barring any vulnerabilities in open source software (openssl, Linux, etc.). The "wakeword" is detected by a pretty large user space program, constantly observing filtered audio. The device can not recognize much on its own. The Echo family also can't stream audio continually, the CPU is not very powerful and the sheer bandwidth required would be enough for anyone tech savvy to notice. The firmware and OTA process is likely more secure than necessary and it would be stupid difficult for a 3rd party to produce a signed firmware image, and involving Amazon would likely rouse the suspicion of many engineers and they're not known to keep their mouths shut. I would be (and am) much more concerned about my phone or laptop (or surroundings) recording me than the Echo devices. I am happy to talk more about the device security privately. I am sick at the amount of FUD around this class of products. There are so many more frightening threats out there. (Disclaimer: I used to, but no longer, work for Amazon.)
- alsetmusic 10y ago
  > It's easier for a malicious software engineer to embed a backdoor than the NSA, barring any vulnerabilities in open source software (openssl, Linux, etc.). Of course. An engineer within the company has access to source code without having to involve multiple parties. This does not preclude other threats or diminish the reach of a well-funded agency. Can an engineer at Google write code to log searches more easily than an outsider? Sure. That doesn't mean that you should write off the possibility that a third party could do the same.
- geofft 10y ago
  > The Echo family also can't stream audio continually, the CPU is not very powerful and the sheer bandwidth required would be enough for anyone tech savvy to notice. This is probably the most compelling independently-verifiable argument. Even assuming the ability to do arbitrary things with an Echo, logging or transmitting useful voice all the time without notice isn't doable. And it seems hard to recognize suspicious discussions and turn on just for those (Echo has enough trouble recognizing "Alexa" 100% reliably). You could subvert Echo so that it records you during pre-determined times - but there are so many other devices you could subvert, too. Getting malware on a government official's personal laptop via spearphishing seems so much easier.

digler999 10y ago

> Don't believe me? Disconnect your internet and ask for the time well that settles it then. I'm sure an unscrupulous entity would never think of compressing an audio stream for later retrieval/conversion to text/spurious retrieval. That would be dishonest.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

>you'd have to be extremely foolish to commit a crime from your @whitehouse.gov email address. Or you can just use a private server and wipe it clean.