CRT Eavesdropping: Optical Tempest 219
PortalCell writes "LED status monitors may potentially leak data in a few applications, but worse: Markus Kuhn has now revealed (pdf) that it's possible to read your monitor indirectly just by observing how the blue flicker lights up the room! Forget taping up LEDs or living in a metal box - now you might have to do without sunlight to be secure!" Hopefully people will also stop submitting the LED story now.
Not again... (Score:1, Funny)
On the other hand... (Score:2, Interesting)
A _field_ test of this would probabli yield a even worse picture, methinks...
Re:On the other hand... (Score:3, Insightful)
The method used is very simple, and could be vastly improved by using better/more sensors, more computing power (for higher order filters/longer convolutions), or more time to experimentally tune the process to the characteristics of the target display. It must be assumed that the big boys (i.e. world governments, maybe some corporations) have access to all three of the above.
Re:Not again... (Score:1, Funny)
It's madness! Soon it really will be like Blade Runner - my digital camera will be able to go round corners just like the Vespa thingy does, "Left a bit, right a bit, go behind the pillar..."
And that thing about how a butterfly flapping its wing in China affects stuff in the US? You'll be able to photo that from Chicago...
TFT! (Score:1, Redundant)
Interesting concept but... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Interesting concept but... (Score:1)
Re:Interesting concept but... (Score:2)
I don't see how the problem would be any worse for this technique than for simply looking at a CRT through binoculars. If someone blocks the light, you won't be able to read the screen for a few seconds. Oh well. Besides, since this technique can be used on diffusely reflected light from a wall, it would be MORE resistant to obstructions than direct observation, because the person's shadow would have to obstruct almost all of the light coming from the CRT to keep it from reflecting off of other objects, instead of the person just blocking direct line of sight from the CRT to you. In fact, the whole point of the technique is that it doesn't require a direct line of sight to the screen to read it.
Re:Interesting concept but... (Score:1)
Hopefully the people who submit read too (Score:2, Funny)
This article was posted Wednesday. Maybe people will get the clue and read slashdot before they send in submissions and just maybe the editors will do the same as well.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/06/122
LCD monitors and laptops are safer from this (Score:4, Informative)
LCD (Score:1)
This technique relies on the raster nature of CRTs
Re:LCD (Score:1)
This technique relies on the raster nature of CRTs ... therefore, for our own safety, I think the government ought to buy us all nice large LCD monitors.
Nope, the govt will take away your nice LCD. It's so much easier to ensure your safety when you use an easy to monitor LCD.
Cover the windows! (Score:1)
Re:Cover the windows! (Score:3, Funny)
Knowing your enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
I see a lot of potential in this sort of technology, though. When the government wants to crack down on terrorism / kiddie porn / the "threat" of the day, they will usually issue tens to hundreds of search warrants and confiscate tons of computer equipment in the name of "finding the bad guys." They will no longer have an excuse to do that, since they will now be able to eliminate potential suspects just by looking at light that was leaked from their residences. This will be a true victory for those of us (remember SJ Games?) who are scrutinized by our government without reason: they will have no reason to break into our private homes, steal our legitimately purchased equipment, and go on a "fishing expedition" in search of wrongdoing. No judge could ever let them harass a criminal suspect unless they have exhausted all other avenues and proven to the judge that that suspect is actually engaged in wrongdoing.
And that is good for us all.
-s3r
Re:Knowing your enemy (Score:1)
Secret Police to Judge: "We looked at his monitor emissions and he was reading about terrorism. No, we can't tell you what it was. Why not? National security."
Re:Knowing your enemy (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see how decoding blue light leaking from a residence would differ from decoding infrared radiation leaking from a residence.
I'm all for catching bad guys every way possible, (and even for reducing the rights of the masses to do this) but given the current state of affairs, I don't think this would work without the same warrants required for other monitoring.
Neat technology, though. One night, after seeing the neighbors TV glow flickering on their wall, I had thought about how it should be possible to monitor people's TV viewing habits, but spotting the patterns of illumination, comparing it to known broadcasts. Should be trivial to find the best match. Just one more thing for the paranoid conspiracy theorists to worry about.
-me
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Knowing your enemy (Score:2)
>flickering on their wall, I had thought about
>how it should be possible to monitor people's TV
>viewing habits,
Seems it would be easier to just get an inside at the local cable company to track what channels they watch on a regular basis.
The cable box I use is clearly two-way, for pay-per-view and on-demand viewing, so I'm pretty sure Time Warner has the CAPABILITY to log what channels you watch and for how long, and knowing TW I'm willing to bet they do some sort of demographic tracking BS.
I have to wonder how many nights they've been able to figure out "Ok, he's home drunk and alone and flipping through the Skinemax late-night features..."
Er, about my neighbors, I mean.
-l
Re:Knowing your enemy (Score:2)
>
> I have to wonder how many nights they've been able to figure out "Ok, he's home drunk and alone and flipping through the Skinemax late-night features..."
>
>Er, about my neighbors, I mean.
Well, sure, but you didn't need anything as high-tech as two-way cable or the tech described in this article to tell what was on if the light on your walls was mostly pink instead of blue, and its intensity varied in a sine wave with a frequency of about 1-2 Hz... ;-)
Van Eck phreaking (Score:2, Interesting)
Regards / ushac
Spying from the Outside (Score:2)
If your server is in a oversized closet opening into an inside room, then the odds of someone actually doing something with it from the outside is pretty slim.
Of course, If you have to worry about a hacker from inside the company, then you have other problems as it is.
Re:Spying from the Outside (Score:2)
If your server is in a oversized closet opening into an inside room, then the odds of someone actually doing something with it from the outside is pretty slim.
Why would anyone want to know what's on the screen of a server in a closet? Getting a screen image is probably only useful if a human is sitting at and using a computer. Humans often try to get offices with windows.
Sunlight==good (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the text it's just the opposite:
That's just another reason why I'd rather not subscribe to /. Not only do the editors fail to avoid dupicate stories, those submitting them don't even read them properly.
Re:Sunlight==good (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, at least I'm secure... pasty white, but secure.
Re:Sunlight==good (Score:3, Insightful)
People can't see the LED's if they can't see in your windowsless building. You also won't be able to see the sun
Re:Sunlight==good (Score:2)
That definately important! If you have Windows in the building, they can use magic lantern or other M$ software holes.
Re:Sunlight==good (Score:3, Insightful)
Hence, you might have to do without sunlight to be secure -- by not having windows in the room.
Re:Sunlight==good (Score:2)
Now, if we could only teach those vines to carry microphones and nanocameras with them...
Re:Security holes in walls (Score:2)
Re:Sunlight==good (Score:2)
This is just more anti-Microsoft FUD. Windows is harmless unless you install it.
-
Yet another advantage of Linux... (Score:4, Funny)
"Rooms where a significant amount of the ambient light comes from displayed sensitive information should be shielded appropriately, for example by avoiding Windows."
Ha! Take that, Microsoft!
--Cam
Re:Yet another advantage of Linux... (Score:2)
Pretty Obvious (Score:2)
Re:Pretty Obvious (Score:1)
And just because there is a blue glow doesn't mean there is information - if the decay of the phosphor was too slow the information would just be blurred (in the time domain)
Re:Pretty Obvious (Score:2)
Re:Pretty Obvious (Score:2)
Re:Pretty Obvious (Score:2)
It's trivially simple to figure out what someone is watching by looking at the glow coming out their window. The best place to see this is near a high rise retirement complex full of old people. I don't know what happens to you as you get older, but it seems that the older you get, the more likely you are to watch TV with no other lights on in the room. After watching for about thirty seconds, you can tell which rooms have TV sets tuned to the same channels. It's fascinating and depressing at the same time.
The best observation times are Sunday evenings. When 60 Minutes and Touched by an Angel are on, almost all the windows in any retirement complex become synchronized and light up or go dark all at once.
Sunlight? (Score:2)
No problem for most slashdot readers, since they are most likely asking: "What is this sunlight you speak of?"
Next, Randomly Scanning monitors (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Next, Randomly Scanning monitors (Score:2)
Uh, you mean like, LCDs?
Sunlight? (Score:2, Redundant)
What's this 'sunlight' I keep hearing about?
Knunov
Re:Sunlight? (Score:1)
Mod this guy down as redundant
Re:Sunlight? (Score:2)
Duh... (Score:1)
What's new here? This is almost equivlant to putting a Video Camera infront of a monitor and then hooking the output up to your TV.
Re:Duh... (Score:2)
ever looked in a window down the street late at night and seen the whole room lit up by a television?
Computers And Networks Leak Like Sieve (Score:5, Insightful)
On of the guys I used to work with would talk about the truck that would park outside their NOC to listen to their ethernet via radio receivers on the truck. One can guess where the truck came from, but the scary part is that this was more than a decade ago. They were doing things that might possibly be of interest to spooks, or perhaps a well-funded competitor.
It's fun to engage in a fantasy world where government spooks are around every corner, but in reality there's no justification for spending large amounts of money or time to protect yourself from imagined threats like that. I am more worried about somebody breaking into my house to steal my stuff or script kiddies from Germany installing an IRC server on my boxes than the government spying on me.
Most of us do not have anything that would justify non-criminals to bother with us. Those of us that do usually have the budgets to do something about it. And the criminals are not terribly sophisticated, so common sense and a decent system administrator are usually enough to meet the standard threats. Most criminals are opportunists, if you present a challenge, they'll move on to the guy who has his root password set to "password".
The people who have highly sensitive stuff know that there's no real security in most hardware and software and work to build environments to protect their stuff. They probably do not buy their hardware from Dell.
Those of us who really only need to protect our banking and personal information as well as our bandwidth don't need to worry about monitor emission security just yet. For banking information, it's much easier to get that information in much more mundane ways than eavesdropping on your monitor. You should worry about what your local convienence store does with their copy of your credit card receipt.
A really good point (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they could tell the receptionist they're here to see Bob, and then go look at the paper files. I think it would be easier to do the latter.
But very few would attempt the second kind of attack, because it's hard to say "Oh yeah, I was just checking out security. Just playing." when someone discovers you digging through files on someone else's property.
In the same way, stealing information via CRT flicker requires too much of a physical commitment for it to gain much popularity I think. At least in most cases - it might be different if your office is accross from a competitor's. Even then, seems like it would be easier just to zoom in and watch them type their password.
Interesting article anywho.
.
Re:Thanks for all the good news! (Score:2)
Re:Thanks for all the good news! (Score:2)
Gee, thanks troll. I thought I was talking about eavesdropping, and that the parent post was trying to tell me not to worry, that no one was really interested in insignificant little me especially with hard to use toys like optical tempest. The things I pointed to make blue light chasing unneeded but also show intent to look into everyone's life strong enough to use optical tempest. Of course the article said that optical tempest was good from 200 feet, so it would work from a van on the curb or a house next to yours. Sleep well.
This is old! (Score:1)
Flat Screens (Score:2)
Re:Flat Screens (Score:3, Informative)
Please research the electronic balast on the compact flourrescent bulbs. They are not a big inductor that the old F40CW bulbs used. After AC is rectified into DC, a high frequency oscilator drives the bulb through a balast capacitor. They operate depending on manufacture in the 6-25 KHZ range. Even the PDF file mentions they are a good source of noise because sevral bulbs are not in sync making the noise harder to predict and remove as a repetative waveform.
monitor tans (Score:2)
paranoia (Score:1)
I win (Score:2)
Would we be breaking T&Cs? (Score:1)
Van Eck radiaton attack much worse (Score:1)
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9
Forget closing the windows. Better build a grounded copper mesh encases your house.
Re:Van Eck radiaton attack much worse (Score:2)
Run this Linux program and beam music all over the house, by turning your monitor into a radio station (modulating it's signal). It's a pretty convincing proof for those who doubt the "story" about reading your CRT from a properly equipped van down the street.
http://www.erikyyy.de/tempest/
Software protection against that ? (Score:2)
A little software that modulates the h and v sync rate every frame should make it much harder to get a readable image. But I'm not sure if you could still get a stable image on the screen if your change your sync rates every frame. That software protection could be effective because it is very likely that they need to record more than one screen refresh to get a image that has a good enough to read it.
Also high resolutions and high vsync rates in general should make it harder to use that technology. Using non-standard resolutions and sync rates also make the sync information guessing harder.
Re:Software protection against that ? (Score:2)
As far as dynamically changing scan rates in software... that won't work, and would probably damage the monitor, if someone managed to do it.
This isn't meant to capture one "screen" of information, it's meant to give you a duplicate, real-time image of what's on the target monitor.
How about a digital LCD? (Score:1)
How safe is a LCD monitor with a digital (DVI) connection? The video card is probably not putting out RF emissions (because it's sending a digital signal), and there's no scanning CRT to track. What would be the easiest route to eavesdropping on that?
Re:How about a digital LCD? (Score:2)
If so, do both connectors output the signal even if only one is in use?
-kwishot
Re:How about a digital LCD? (Score:2)
The video card is probably not putting out RF emissions
Yes it is. All signals of any kind that are not D.C. and have sufficiently fast frequency emit RF, and any kind of switch to on or off (digital) WILL emit RF.
That includes flicking the power switch on ANY device, and the digital signals going across your cable.
At any rate, this isn't the problem with the method described, the problem is the LIGHT from the CRT, since it can be sampled and dupicated.
LCDs do not do this, because they don't scan, so your LCD is safe from this kind of eavesdropping.
Security to do list (Score:5, Funny)
2) Remove windows from computer room
So what... (Score:1)
static (Score:1)
In theory, wouldn't it be possible to also defeat this by turning a few old televisions in the room to an unused channel displaying static?
But your screen can probably be read off that tin-foil hat while a Carnivore analyzes the time difference between encrypted packets based on one-handed typing.
Add some noise to the decoding problem (Score:1)
Or just turn on a particular kind of CRT called a television with the sound off, not in your field of vision but lighting up the room, especially if it's aimed towards the windows. Leave it on any active channel.
Re:Add some noise to the decoding problem (Score:1)
Don't use Microsoft (Score:1)
Well Gee, didn't we already know that?
What's sunlight ? (Score:1)
It's in the book "Cybershock" (Score:2)
Just goes to show that computers draw together the people who are nervous and those who actually want to watch those scared people who are putting duct tape over their windows.
NOT tempest (Score:2)
Re:NOT tempest (Score:2)
Exactly nigga.
see where that word is appropriate and fits anywhere? remove the stigma!!!!
This isn't new... (Score:1)
It was on slashdot a while ago... [slashdot.org]
the blue flash will tell an eavesdropper... (Score:3, Funny)
OMG, Whatever next? (Score:3, Funny)
Dave
Different problem - same fix (Score:3, Funny)
So, I just applied the same fix for this, since my monitor faces a window. There is now a few strips (about 30) of electrical tape covering my monitor and the flicker is gone.
I appologize for any typing errors though. Every fix has a downside
I knew there was a good reason... (Score:2)
-Adam
A good excuse (Score:2, Insightful)
--
I gave up my +1 bonus, don't mod me down!
Big deal (Score:2, Informative)
You can pickup cordless, and maybe even cellphones (digital/encryption though).
You can open up the phone junction box outside the building and tap the wires.
You can pick-up the emf from a monitor or tv and reconstruct the image (pretty hard i think).
You can use the earth wire in a house to transmit data from bugs hidden in plugs.
You can use tools like netbus etc.. to view peoples computer over a network.
You can trick security guards with dumb-busty-blondes(tm)*
*I in no way endorse the use of busty-blondes(tm) or in anyway imply that they are all dumb, or that security guards are shallow/thick and are easily seduced.
You can look into windows with telescopes
You can recover badly deleted data from disks
You can packet sniff
You can abuse the fact that your an admin for that network and get anything you want
You can even use money to get information
And now you can use LEDs and monitor flicker too... And the FBI wants _more_ rights to tap you?!?!? how does that work?
simple solution... (Score:2)
Now to get this project's captial budget approved in the name of company security...
Possible solution: (Score:2)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as the examples given: Let's just say that I'd like to see it in action before believing it...
Re:Ridiculous (Score:1)
If the content of the paper is beyond your comprehension, why are you making statements about it? There's nothing in this paper that any reasonably competent electrical engineering undergraduate wouldn't be able to do in 3 days given access to the equipment (a photomultiplier and a 250MHz digital oscilliscope were the only recording equipment used.)
however scanning through it it simply sounds like an absurd premise : A computer monitor is not a flashlight, but is rather an ambient source of light whose net effect on any section of an opposing wall would not, in my opinion, be a "image" but a composite of all of the pixels put together.
The claim is not that an "image" is projected on the wall. The entirely obvious claim is that the image is encoded in the time domain. RTFA.
The timing of the scanlines is a consideration, however given the phosphor decay with the unknown intensity of the drawn pixels (i.e. pixels in the middle of the screen may still be brighter than the pixels being drawn at the top) make the idea of reading from diffuse reflection seemingly absurd for anything other than extremely high contrast test cases.
You haven't been scanning through the paper too well. Dealing with the impulse response fo the phosphors is what sections 3 and 4 are devoted to. The phosphor response is simply a linear convolution filter. Approximate deconvolution is covered in any undergraduate-level signals class.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:1)
You should really read the story before you post a comment. The pdf describes exactly how this stuff works, and even comes with sample screens which were captured using this method. It really works. There were no problems seeing the 5 fingers on the standard windows hand cursor (the resolution was 640x480 at 85Hz). The image was captured from the "reflections from a nearby wall".
Re:Ridiculous (Score:1)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:1)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:1)
Remember that all screenshots in the documents are just an 8 bit 2D representation of the data. The signal probably has much higher resolution. You may not see the fingers in the first image because the signal level is very low compared to the rest.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2)
Sure they are... it's very faint, but if you zoom in on it, you'll see a smudge there. I ran the pdf through Ghostscript's pdf2ps, then extracted the uncompressed image to make a PNG [azeotrope.org]. Run it through... The GIMP, and out comes this [azeotrope.org].
Looks like the original picture has been JPEGged in the process of turning it into a PDF--I bet it'd be even clearer in the original.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:1)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, my doubt is regarding non-trivial test cases with a normal computer monitor : Yeah if the raster gun was drawing a line on the opposing wall then it could be read, but it's a question about realistic implementation with real hardware.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2)
Sorry but the premise just seems questionable given that computer screens usually have P22 phosphor, which has a decay of, or so I've heard, about 100 usecs for the blue and green, and up to 1000 usec for the red, yet this paper shows their test case shows a 90% decline (to 10%) in about 0.55 usecs.
Human vision is approximately logarithmic in its perception of intensity. A search with Google should confirm this if you don't believe me. Thus, the exponential drop in that graph is not an exponential drop in the perceived intensity. Furthermore, CRTs work because of persistence of vision. If a CRT were frozen in time, only a fraction of the screen would appear illuminated, even to a human's logarithmic visual system.
I'd like to point at that at this point, all of your specific claims in this thread have been shown to be baseless.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2)
The 500Hz comment was merely joking, but it was based upon the difference between the sample phosphor decay and what people are practically use to.
This whole debate, ironically, is very similar to the LED debate of a few days ago: There are practical limitations of the reponse time of a LED that limit what can be read for anything other than a hypothetical.
Re:That's what I was thinking... (Score:2)
I'd say that the shutter time was about 1/5th of your screen refresh rate. If you take a photo of 100Hz monitor with 10ms shutter time full screen should be visible with equal intensity simply because monitor can draw full screen in 10ms. With 5ms shutter time you get exactly half the screen and so on.
If you constantly measure light level and digitize it every 5 ns [1] you should be able to get pixel intensity value for every single pixel on a 1600x1200@85Hz screen. The problem is to get meaningful readings with 5 ns "shutter time". Fortunately for you, there'll be much extra noise from the light emitted from the still more or less gloving previous pixels and office lighting and whatnot. However, the pixel the CRT is currently drawing is the brightest and this is how it works... if it works. If you want to make it hard for 'them' just use high resolution with high refresh rate. And extra small fonts.
1. Roughtly the time needed per pixel when drawing 1600x1200@85Hz, I calculated this as 1/(1800x1400x85) sec to take CRT scanning into account.
Please change your sig (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Waste of cpu cycles (Score:1)
Read the Article (Score:2)