4 ms·

> Some of dragosr's claims/suspicions come off as next to impossible. Which ones? The technical aspects are all known to be practical. The only thing odd is th

> Some of dragosr's claims/suspicions come off as next to impossible. Which ones? The technical aspects are all known to be practical. The only thing odd is that a reasonably sophisticated and determined attacker is seemingly targeting him specifically and no one else.

300bps 13y ago
Please explain this one: Strangest of all was the ability of infected machines to transmit small amounts of network data with other infected machines even when their power cords and Ethernet cables were unplugged and their Wi-Fi and Bluetooth cards were removed
- nknighthb 13y ago
  It is explained. HF audio via speakers and microphones. In other words, a modem. Your username is highly ironic.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      > Are you just assuming these are laptops with a battery? Did you even read the article? It's a laptop. That would be the safe assumption, anyway. Laptops far out-stripped desktop sales years ago, they're what most work happens on now. > And saying that computers are communicating by speakers and microphones over long distances (i.e. > a few inches) is patently ridiculous. It's not. I've done it myself. Go grab a couple laptops and some PSK31 software and you can do it, too.
  - 300bps 13y ago
    My main question was regarding the power cords not being plugged in but apparently these are laptops. As for communications via speakers and microphones, that makes as much sense as any other outrageously insane theory I've ever heard.
- ToastyMallows 13y ago
  > power cables Keep in mind he's talking about laptops that have batteries.
pja 13y ago
Or else he simply picked up the malware simply by borrowing a usb key from someone else who'd been infected. I bet the majority of security researchers are only a couple of hops on their network of acquaintances from people who are pretty much guaranteed to be targets of <pick your state security agency of choice> and they would certainly have the resources to develop something like this if they chose to. We know that Stuxnet spread beyond it's intended target - that's how it was discovered by the wider security community in the first place. Malware this pernicious could spread fairly stealthily through a large number of people without being noticed I'd imagine. (If it really is using high frequency audio to leak data then that would be strong evidence that it was originally designed to target some group using air gapped computer networks to protect their high grade information. If your top secret & merely secret grade computers are laptops in the same room & they can communicate over a back channel like this then suddenly your air gapped computer network isn't cut off from the internet any more!)
RazorOfOccam 13y ago
> The technical aspects are all known to be practical. No, they aren't. Not by a long shot. They sound vaguely similar to some that are however, so people are overlooking the details that would take this from advanced malware to hollywood fantasy.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Unless you care to explain which parts are not practical, and which details are being overlooked, what you have here is literally the opposite of credibility. You have deliberately made yourself non-credible through your anonymous cowardice.

300bps 13y ago

Please explain this one: Strangest of all was the ability of infected machines to transmit small amounts of network data with other infected machines even when their power cords and Ethernet cables were unplugged and their Wi-Fi and Bluetooth cards were removed

nknighthb 13y ago
It is explained. HF audio via speakers and microphones. In other words, a modem. Your username is highly ironic.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    > Are you just assuming these are laptops with a battery? Did you even read the article? It's a laptop. That would be the safe assumption, anyway. Laptops far out-stripped desktop sales years ago, they're what most work happens on now. > And saying that computers are communicating by speakers and microphones over long distances (i.e. > a few inches) is patently ridiculous. It's not. I've done it myself. Go grab a couple laptops and some PSK31 software and you can do it, too.
- 300bps 13y ago
  My main question was regarding the power cords not being plugged in but apparently these are laptops. As for communications via speakers and microphones, that makes as much sense as any other outrageously insane theory I've ever heard.
ToastyMallows 13y ago
> power cables Keep in mind he's talking about laptops that have batteries.

pja 13y ago

Or else he simply picked up the malware simply by borrowing a usb key from someone else who'd been infected. I bet the majority of security researchers are only a couple of hops on their network of acquaintances from people who are pretty much guaranteed to be targets of <pick your state security agency of choice> and they would certainly have the resources to develop something like this if they chose to. We know that Stuxnet spread beyond it's intended target - that's how it was discovered by the wider security community in the first place. Malware this pernicious could spread fairly stealthily through a large number of people without being noticed I'd imagine. (If it really is using high frequency audio to leak data then that would be strong evidence that it was originally designed to target some group using air gapped computer networks to protect their high grade information. If your top secret & merely secret grade computers are laptops in the same room & they can communicate over a back channel like this then suddenly your air gapped computer network isn't cut off from the internet any more!)

RazorOfOccam 13y ago

> The technical aspects are all known to be practical. No, they aren't. Not by a long shot. They sound vaguely similar to some that are however, so people are overlooking the details that would take this from advanced malware to hollywood fantasy.

nknighthb 13y ago
Unless you care to explain which parts are not practical, and which details are being overlooked, what you have here is literally the opposite of credibility. You have deliberately made yourself non-credible through your anonymous cowardice.