4 ms·
That's the wrong way around. That's the TV receiving an over the air exploit via broadcast TV. Not the TV broadcasting anything that's picked up by anyone, nor
by kllrnohj 5y ago
That's the wrong way around. That's the TV receiving an over the air exploit via broadcast TV. Not the TV broadcasting anything that's picked up by anyone, nor is the TV connecting to any form of internet connected anything.
- Retr0id 5y agoOnce the TV is exploited, you can command it to connect to whatever you like, or broadcast whatever wifi/bluetooth data you like, unless the wifi card has been physically ripped out.
- kllrnohj 5y agoWhat's your threat model here that has any relevance to the discussion? That your neighbor hacks your TV to connect it to WiFi behind your back to...? Collect analytics?
- Retr0id 5y agoThe remote has a microphone on it, and the TV itself has APIs for capturing screen content. Not really things I'd like to share. Alternatively, they could just brick the TV. I agree that it's highly implausible that my neighbor would do either of these things, but they could, if sufficiently motivated.
- kllrnohj 5y agoBut that still doesn't really answer to what's the relevance to this discussion? It's not really a symptom of a smart TV nor the result of ads from aggressive cost cutting. It's a cool hack, and probably the only conceivable reason I'd ever let a TV take a firmware update, but it's hardly relevant to the topic of whether or not you should let your TV access the internet or whether or not Smart TVs are malicious when denied internet access during setup.
- fsflover 5y ago> It's not really a symptom of a smart TV Vulnerability which allows to listen to you is not a symptom of a smart TV? Since when normal TVs have microphones and such vulnerabilities?