4 ms·
I really liked their take on the countermeasures: "It is possible to reduce the amount of light reaching the microphone’s diaphragm using a barrier that physica
by w-m 7y ago
I really liked their take on the countermeasures: "It is possible to reduce the amount of light reaching the microphone’s diaphragm using a barrier that physically blocks straight light beams [...] However, we note that such physical barriers are only effective to a certain point, as an attacker can always increase the laser power in an attempt to compensate for the cover-induced attenuation. Finally, in case such compensation is not possible, the attacker can always use the laser to burn through barriers, creating his own light path."
Sure, you can try to defend by putting a lid on the microphone. But we already have a laser here, we'll just burn through that.
- ilikepi 7y agoI wonder if simply having dirty windows would be a more effective countermeasure. See also "Real Genius".
- brianberns 7y agoIf someone is willing to blast your possessions to bits using a laser, I think the security of your smart devices is probably the least of your immediate concerns.
- Majromax 7y agoI don't see how that follows? A thief might be willing to break a conventional door lock if it gains them access to high-value, fenceable possessions. In this hypothetical, the hostile actor isn't interested in the smart speaker itself, they're interested in what the smart speaker can do.
- brianberns 7y agoMy point is that if someone is directing a powerful laser into your home, you are in imminent mortal danger, which is worse than whatever the smart speaker can do.
- virgil_disgr4ce 7y agoFor such a thorough and insightful paper, I wonder if they mean this as a joke. Not even a 1W laser is going to burn through any common, real-world materials at a distance.