5 ms·
> In the gender recognition test, whose goal is to determine whether the target is male or female, the EarSpy attack had a 98% accuracy. The accuracy was nearly
by hackernewds 4y ago
> In the gender recognition test, whose goal is to determine whether the target is male or female, the EarSpy attack had a 98% accuracy. The accuracy was nearly as high, at 92%, for detecting the speaker’s identity.
When it comes to actual speech, the accuracy was up to 56% for capturing digits spoken in a phone call.
“[This] accuracy still exhibits five times greater accuracy than a random guess, which implies that vibration due to the ear speaker induced a reasonable amount of distinguishable impact on accelerometer data,” the researchers said.
this seems not to have any practical significance. and recognizing numbers (only 56%) of the time is practically still as good as guessing, and not useful, in the context of spying, without the spoken words
- dannyw 4y agoSome OTP codes can be sent via phone calls, and keep in mind this is just a research prototype. It's certainly plausible that improvements can result in higher accuracy.
- codeddesign 4y ago“whether the target is male or female, the EarSpy attack had a 98% accuracy” I guess the other 2% are “gender neutral”.
- messe 4y ago> this seems not to have any practical significance. and recognizing numbers (only 56%) of the time is practically still as good as guessing, and not useful, in the context of spying, without the spoken words If that accuracy is at the single digit level, then it's significantly better than guessing, which would yield a 10% accuracy. 56% would be good enough to capture a 4-digit OTP code more than 1/8 of the time.