4 ms·
>... inspecting the contents of ... multiplayer video game conversations ... I've had this theory that chat in multiplayer games is probably one of the most re
by rl3 9y ago
>... inspecting the contents of ... multiplayer video game conversations ...
I've had this theory that chat in multiplayer games is probably one of the most reliable methods to bypass dragnet surveillance that exists.
Figure that most popular chat protocols are reverse engineered and actively captured. Moreover, any crypto usage beyond https will simply flag you.
It's concievable that NSA/GCHQ have had people dedicated to reversing videogame chat protocols for some time now, but given the veritable Cambrian explosion of games we've seen in recent years thanks to Steam, I have serious doubts that even major SIGINT agencies can keep up.
Their best hope is that the game uses IRC, a cloud service, or some other standardized chat protocol as a backing for its in-game chat. If it's some obscure game with a custom-but-unencrypted chat protocol, I highly doubt it's automatically interpreted. At best the raw data itself is probably captured and stored for a short period of time. It is possible however that they're applying automated methods to anomalous traffic that are able to pull out unencrypted text streams.
Of course, why use in-game chat when you could just pick a game that has a way to write out a message in the game itself. Minecraft clones and certain multiplayer paint apps become more or less perfect steganography in that case.
- zdkl 9y agoFaulty assumption. I don't need to pay attention to the tubes if I can look in on your terminal.
- rl3 9y agoThat's why I qualified the statement with dragnet surveillance. Obviously if someone's already targeted it's simple for any self-respecting SIGINT agency to just install implants and get whatever they want. I was describing measures that would likely foil automated bulk analysis. Now if you're implying there's some sort of bulk, indiscriminate implantation program, that would be news to pretty much every private sector security expert on the planet. May as well just tap fiber for appearances at that point.
- zdkl 9y ago> Now if you're implying there's some sort of bulk, indiscriminate implantation program, that would be news to pretty much every private sector security expert on the planet. Are you sure? I thought it was widely accepted that you couldn't trust chinese hardware or most american firmware.
- rl3 9y agoYes, I'm sure. Backdoors are not implants, they are vulnerabilities. Implants are the payloads that persistently infect target systems, surveil or modify the envrionment, and exfiltrate data. So unless you want to suggest the majority of consumer systems are actively compromised to the point of exfiltrating screen caps on a regular basis, my original point still stands. Even then, good luck conducting successful automated analysis on hidden messages made out of blocks in Minecraft. Reconstructing game state as it went across the wire would be easier than making sense of screenshots in that scenario.
- zdkl 9y agoDoes ECHELON ring a bell to you? I don't believe every computing device ever is exfilling the amount of data you describe, but I'd be very very surprised if it weren't an option for nation level actors at the flick of a switch. Screw minecraft, all I need is access to your USB/ethernet controllers and that's not remotely difficult. I believe your threat model is flawed if you don't assume any existing known vulnerability isn't being at least passively used to surveil remote systems.
- rl3 9y agoFrom one of my previous replies: "I was describing measures that would likely foil automated bulk analysis." Nothing you just said is relevant in that context. Yes, obviously anything can be easily compromised if it's targeted. I said as much in the very same post. Automated bulk analysis exists to find targets in the first place.