Comments

1
"There is no evidence that the N.S.A. has implanted its software or used its radio frequency technology inside the United States."

Maybe we should read the whole article before snapping?

But still, Holy Balls.
2
All the more reason to be a good geek and build your computer from scratch. I imagine they could still sneak stuff in if they wanted, but at least it'd be harder.
3
So... What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Googling around, I see images of TAWDRYYARD and RAGEMASTER device catalog sheets. Looks like they're designed only to capture the video signal going to an RGB monitor, and only when illuminated by a strong radar signal. Probably some other products around for HDMI, DVI and laptops.

So, basically, to detect whether you're being monitored, all you need is an old Fuzzbuster radar detector? Can you detect the device in a computer by aiming a radar gun at it? Inquiring minds, etc.

Have any old-school hackers managed to get their hands on any of these devices? I'd love to see a tear-down.
4
This goes nicely with my movie where about people shrink themselves down in some kind of craft and ride radio waves into the internet itself to protect it from...I don't know terrorists or something, fuck you.

Copyright pending, you animals.
5
Maybe that's why so many computers ship with internal USB ports...
6
I always have a good laugh when I read or see a hysterical news item about China hacking the US and how they are stealing our secrets, can crash our infrastructure, etc.

I can only imagine how bad we are fucking with the Chinese every day. Of course the Chinese don't report it because that would be acknowledging weakness.

We are pretty good at cyber warfare, our gov gets to practice on our citizens every day.
7
What's fucking stupid about this article is that it doesn't immediately spell out that the shortwave radio transmitter is in PERIPHERALS they specifically install, not mass-embedded inside the computer itself.

Of course they'd have this technology readily available. The article makes it sound as if all PCs potentially had these chips on board.
8
I also heard the NSA is, like, eight feet tall and has a thousand muscles and it has laser rockets instead of fists and the NSA can totally beat up your dad.
9
@8 So, microscopic devices can't transmit radio waves hundreds of miles on a bandwidth that magically no one has ever discovered? You'd almost think there was some disinformation campaign going on.
10
@9 - I didn't say that. Sorry, I just thought it was funny. I didn't mean to derail the conversation.

Here, have a song.
11
Did everyone just forget this was discovered in the wild, and written up two months ago?

No one claimed responsibility... oh sorry the keywords don't match exactly even though the concept is the same.

http://threatpost.com/acoustical-mesh-ne…
12
Technology used primarily for corporate and political espionage by NSA agents on the sly.
13
If you really care, put your computer in a Faraday cage.
14
@11: Probably because

1) You're talking about something entirely different.
2) Radio waves, not sub-acoustic transmission.
3) It's not being performed by the NSA
4) It's custom software, and would have to be separately installed on the computers
15
Also, the range would be extremely limited with your ultrasonic article (in the same, small room) versus a few miles to worldwide transmission.

"No one claimed responsibility..."

Because the ultrasonic "mesh" network was an academic experiment/research paper.

"oh sorry the keywords don't match exactly even though the concept is the same."

No it fucking isn't.
16
Still not as cool as the remotely powered spy mic thing the Soviets gifted to us once.
17
@14

1. you mean they aren't both clandestine spying platform that works over wireless? your right that's like a refrigerator and a tulip being compared
2. wow you sound like a angry 12 year old here
3. There is no evidence either way, unless both parties suddently start holding press conferences but its highly likely the NSA is involved in both, because.. duh?
4. except for the part where its in the firmware of chipsets, like this reference, and it is impervious to machine wiping.

I did enjoy your rants, however misguided and poorly considered but these events are most likely related and should be reviewed as such. The habit of intercepting retail sales and installing malware falls into this category as well.

In your next tirade can you focus on being critical of grammar a little more? I like my pedants to be really thorough
18
@12, no -- it is used primarily by creepoid NSA agents to stalk their ex-girlfriends (or potential future ex-girlfriends). I can't wait until the rapists start flocking to the agency so they can get their hands on this stuff and operate with full legal impunity (like soldiers can, in actual practice if not in law).
19
Hold on to your tinfoil hats, folks. The NSA hack requires installing hackware INSIDE your hardware ... in contrast to the more sophisticated brainwave hacking the extraterrestrials have used for millenia. For THAT, you need tinfoil (pro tip: don't let anybody con you into using plain old aluminum foil).
20
100,000 devices times $200 (random estimate for a custom-made high-tech device) = wayyy to much money burned for little tangible benefit.
22
@20, the NSA has an infinite budget and thus no interest in how much things cost.
23
$20 million is not really that much for a program that creates 100,000 covert radio transmitters to spy on various perceived enemies. The real expense would be in distributing them to the right locations. I assume they didn't just randomly release 100,000 into the supply chain but targeted particular customers somehow.

Reading this article, I was torn between thinking that this was not a bad idea against actual enemies, but a really disturbing thing if unleashed more broadly. Unfortunately, I don't trust the NSA to make a proper distinction.
24
@17:

"1. you mean they aren't both clandestine spying platform that works over wireless? your right that's like a refrigerator and a tulip being compared
2. wow you sound like a angry 12 year old here
3. There is no evidence either way, unless both parties suddently start holding press conferences but its highly likely the NSA is involved in both, because.. duh?
4. except for the part where its in the firmware of chipsets, like this reference, and it is impervious to machine wiping."

1) They aren't. Acoustics aren't RF. You're wrong.
2) And yet I'm correct.
3) You didn't read the article you're referencing.
4) It's not in the firmware of chipsets. It's in the firmware of USB cables and specific 3rd party peripherals installed by the NSA.

Good god you're dumb.
25
@24, what kind of USB cables have firmware in them? All of mine are just wires with plugs, no chips atall. The signaling etc. comes from whatever's plugged into them.
26
@17, assuming you're talking about an article that swept over a bunch of comp security blogs a few weeks ago... That shit doesn't exist, it wasn't real and isn't going to be. There is no sub-acoustic firmware based malware that works cross-platform across commodity hardware.
27
@24 calmer than you.
28
@27: Well, you could attempt to understand things before reverting to bullshit.

@24: The article describes a specific cable or device, nothing embedded in the mobo or generic USB cables.

There's also http://boingboing.net/2013/10/30/power-o…

But that's not specific to the NSA.
29
Did Snowden release this?
30
@29: "Over the past two months, parts of the program have been disclosed in documents from the trove leaked by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor."

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.