4 ms·

>A motion sensor in your phone is also a microphone and might be able to pick up speech. It's also possible to read lips and monitor typing or writing motions

by rl3 3y ago

>A motion sensor in your phone is also a microphone and might be able to pick up speech. It's also possible to read lips and monitor typing or writing motions using 802.11, so that's another modality. In addition, your phone's baseband could potentially be used for those same purposes given it affords access to an additional spectrum of RF.

godelski 3y ago
I'm not sure these comments help much. The sophistication of these attacks increases a lot as well as the error/noise. Security is never infinite, it is always probabilistic. Mostly it is about putting enough roadblocks in the way of your adversary so that they don't have the resources to attack you (time, money, and/or skill). This is why the discussion of a threat scenario is always critical because that's what bounds this. I'm sure they'd have an easier time hacking your phone to get a view of your screen than it would to pull off either of the above hacks. So, removing the microphones is going to significantly hinder any adversary and lets be honest, unless you're a high profile target that's being attacked by a nation state, this will be far more than sufficient to ward off any would be attackers (including even many nation state attacks). But as far as interesting and what is possible, these comments are that.
- rl3 3y ago
  >I'm not sure these comments help much. They weren't intended to. That said, I otherwise agree with everything you said. >But as far as interesting and what is possible, these comments are that. Yeah, it's just fun to discuss the theoretical. I'm pretty boring, so I don't personally use any exotic tinfoil precautions. Heck, if I were important I'd probably just not use a phone. Much simpler.
  - godelski 3y ago
    No worries, I mistook the intent of the comments. It is often hard to distinguish people who are stating something because it is fun and they are interested from someone who is stating something where the intent is to indicate that efforts are wasted.
astrange 3y ago
> It's also possible to read lips and monitor typing or writing motions using 802.11, so that's another modality. Doesn't that require the router to cooperate? As in, this is something that was developed to be used on purpose, but it's not very reliable on a random network you don't own. You can see a lot of timing info from network sniffing even if you can't read it of course.
- rl3 3y ago
  >You can see a lot of timing info from network sniffing even if you can't read it of course. That was my primary assumption. Worst case, modern phones can act as hotspots—so if your phone is owned but stuffed in a drawer, it could theoretically sense beyond that and perhaps read your lips from another room. I'm guessing any stereotypical white vans worth their salt would provide fake devices for your phone to connect to in that case. On the baseband side, perhaps Stingray setups have the potential to be more useful than commonly imagined.

by rl3 3y ago

godelski 3y ago

I'm not sure these comments help much. The sophistication of these attacks increases a lot as well as the error/noise. Security is never infinite, it is always probabilistic. Mostly it is about putting enough roadblocks in the way of your adversary so that they don't have the resources to attack you (time, money, and/or skill). This is why the discussion of a threat scenario is always critical because that's what bounds this. I'm sure they'd have an easier time hacking your phone to get a view of your screen than it would to pull off either of the above hacks. So, removing the microphones is going to significantly hinder any adversary and lets be honest, unless you're a high profile target that's being attacked by a nation state, this will be far more than sufficient to ward off any would be attackers (including even many nation state attacks). But as far as interesting and what is possible, these comments are that.

rl3 3y ago
>I'm not sure these comments help much. They weren't intended to. That said, I otherwise agree with everything you said. >But as far as interesting and what is possible, these comments are that. Yeah, it's just fun to discuss the theoretical. I'm pretty boring, so I don't personally use any exotic tinfoil precautions. Heck, if I were important I'd probably just not use a phone. Much simpler.
- godelski 3y ago
  No worries, I mistook the intent of the comments. It is often hard to distinguish people who are stating something because it is fun and they are interested from someone who is stating something where the intent is to indicate that efforts are wasted.

astrange 3y ago

> It's also possible to read lips and monitor typing or writing motions using 802.11, so that's another modality. Doesn't that require the router to cooperate? As in, this is something that was developed to be used on purpose, but it's not very reliable on a random network you don't own. You can see a lot of timing info from network sniffing even if you can't read it of course.

rl3 3y ago
>You can see a lot of timing info from network sniffing even if you can't read it of course. That was my primary assumption. Worst case, modern phones can act as hotspots—so if your phone is owned but stuffed in a drawer, it could theoretically sense beyond that and perhaps read your lips from another room. I'm guessing any stereotypical white vans worth their salt would provide fake devices for your phone to connect to in that case. On the baseband side, perhaps Stingray setups have the potential to be more useful than commonly imagined.