Search found 6 matches

by jimlongley
Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:15 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Be careful with those emails
Replies: 25
Views: 3450

Re: Be careful with those emails

VMI77 wrote:
jimlongley wrote:
VMI77 wrote:I don't know about the keyboard stuff, but years ago a Dutch engineer demonstrated that he could read CRT screens remotely via radio harmonics. I haven't read anything since about it, and don't know if it works with LED screens.
Yeah, one CRT isolated in a lab environment surrounded by a Faraday cage. Mix in several and a couple of digital TVs and good luck.
The demonstration wasn't in a lab environment. He read screens from a van parked in the street. Looking for some links on this --called Van Eck phreaking-- I found there is also another technique that uses reflected light. Signal discrimination for Van Eck viewing would be an issue but I think a single device can be pulled out of the EM fog with a directional antenna. Apparently, it does work of LCD screens. I think a Faraday cage would block the Van Eck method but most people don't have Faraday cages around their computers.

Van Eck viewing of flat-panel display: http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2006 ... ebit-2006/

Van Eck viewing of electronic voting machines: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091 ... 7048.shtml

Van Eck viewing description: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091 ... 7048.shtml

Van Eck view of laptops: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/07/0 ... ck-methods

Optical remote eavesdropping: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/securi ... ptical.pdf
Wim Van Eck's original experiments started with the entire apparatus isolated INSIDE a Faraday cage in order to prevent interference from other signals. Once he had characterized what he was looking for, then he continued outside the cage. Signal discrimination remained an issue, and remains so today, it's kind of like my neighbor's wifi conflicting with mine, my computer doesn't know the difference and will not unless I add some front end circuitry.

Although Van Eck minimized the difficulty of setting up to monitor, he acknowledged that he had particularly advanced skills and that there would be some similar skill set necessary to do what he did, as well as sophisticated equipment.

Considering the age of Van Eck's work, and the ages of those articles, I still don't see this as a major issue, or lots of people would be doing it by now. And before too long randomization, noise, and least significant bit destruction could easily be added to our computers to confound such monitoring systems. It wasn't too long before his work that we were still using timing loops to create music on radios next to computers, and we already knew that different text displayed on the screen had an effect.
by jimlongley
Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Be careful with those emails
Replies: 25
Views: 3450

Re: Be careful with those emails

VMI77 wrote:I don't know about the keyboard stuff, but years ago a Dutch engineer demonstrated that he could read CRT screens remotely via radio harmonics. I haven't read anything since about it, and don't know if it works with LED screens.
Yeah, one CRT isolated in a lab environment surrounded by a Faraday cage. Mix in several and a couple of digital TVs and good luck.
by jimlongley
Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:50 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Be careful with those emails
Replies: 25
Views: 3450

Re: Be careful with those emails

Thomas wrote:
jimlongley wrote:
Thomas wrote: . . . I'm not sure if this is applicable to laptops. I think they said USB keyboards weren't susceptible, but if you have a desktop and a keyboard that uses a PS/2 connector (the round one), all anyone has to do to figure out what you're typing is plug into the power lines going into your home. Basically the motherboard supplies power to the keyboard, it allowed unique signals for each key to go through.

Also, every electronic device emits electromagnetic (EM) fields. So, if you have an electronic safe/computer/whatever, every time you press a key, it emits an EM wave. Each key produces a unique EM wave. So you don't have to be in the same room to detect what keys are being pressed.
Don't believe me, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_s ... re_failure

The problem is though, if you wrap your computer in tin foil, it will probably overheat :mrgreen:

(If I recall correctly, it's pretty easy/cheap to build devices that will detect these signals. Basically it's security through EXTREME-obscurity.)
Back in the early days of computers we used to play music on them by tuning an AM radio off station near the cpu and then running specific timing loops. Some folks got pretty good at it.

As far as the PS/2 connector thing, this old telephone company noise engineer can't imagine how that would work. The power supply supplying the DC that runs the computer would adequately isolate the keyboard from the power mains to keep keyboard signals from "leaking" that far away. And in my case, since I protect my computers with UPS, which uses AC to charge a battery which continuously provides power to an inverter that provides AC to the PC, I have an additional layer of isolation.

Key signals are very weak to begin with, they only have to make it from the keyboard to the computer, and pretty short duration without a header or anything, so although I know of and even have used hardwire keystroke recorders, I find it hard to believe that they would make it very far. Even signaling systems that are designed for wireless have some pretty severe distance limitations.
You might be right, after three and a half years, I might have gotten the details mixed up. They said the grounding wire acted as an antenna, not the transmission line.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/161166/article.html
Maybe, but not likely, there won't be a direct path for ground all the way from the keyboard to the power line, and even if there was, it would be EXTREMELY noisy.

The wikipedia article is kind of poorly supported, at least in terms of detecting signals from the keyboard. First of all, they keep talking about "harmonics" which means that they could not detect the fundamental frequency involved. Since the signals involved are digital, they are therefore made up of the fundamental frequency plus all odd harmonics, creating a square wave. Harmonics are much lower in power than the fundamental frequency, rarely more than 1/3 the level of the fundamental. A couple of harmonics are additive in nature, how else would you get a square wave, but the subtractive harmonics would not be filtered out in this environment, leaving very poor signal strength to be detected, which would require sophisticated equipment just to start.

Secondly, they are talking in the PS/2 and USB cables about paired wires, the "ground" wire being the return path for the voltages driving the currents making up the signal. Since what is going out equals what is going int, the net current in the path is essentially zero. I know this is counter intuitive, but here's a simple experiment: Take a clamp on ammeter and clamp it around the power cord for a lamp, and you will see a very low to zero current flow (in most cases, there are exceptions, but beyond the scope of this little treatise) now, split the cord in half and clamp your meter around just one of the two conductors, and you will see all the current flowing. A simplistic explanation, to be sure, but it suffices, except we are talking DC and square waves (I know, DC doesn't have waves, but how else are we going to get the signal through than modulate the DC?) so there is a little variation from what I am stating, again, not enough space or time. This, BTW, is how GFI outlets protect you, they compare the current going to the device with the current coming back, and if there is a difference, they trip.

Paired wires are designed to cut down on leakage of signals, either out of the cable or in.

Without really getting too deep into the nitty gritty, the PC Magazine article is one I would have love to have seen and answered. Once again, the connection from the keyboard does NOT go directly, as the article states, to building ground, it goes to the PC, where it joins with the other grounds and eventually may trace to the PC's ground connection. The problem here is that the "grounds" referred to may not be "ground" in the term that I think of ground as a telecom engineer and ham radio operator.

The system ground in the PC is ideally separate and floating from ground, but may be, but hopefully not, at the same potential as the electrical neutral. I could go into great detail and explain why the neutral of the electrical system is not necessarily at ground potential, but the best would be for you to take my word for it. Yes, it should be at or near ground potential, but it is not always,and that leads to all kinds of issues for telephone and power companies. Remember that the PC has a power supply that is breaking down house AC current into Several levels of DC and just about everything after that point runs on DC, and it is unusual for the DC "ground" to be mixed with the AC neutral, which is just asking for noise.

In electricity and electronics, we have three different symbols for "ground."

The purpose of the neutral, which is often referred to as ground, is as a return path for currents driven by voltages providing power to devices. The purpose of true ground in building and home systems is to carry away fault currents. In a typical house (not mine and some other hams I know) true ground really only makes it as far as the breaker or fuse box, and connects to the power company neutral there, and the neutral is what "penetrates" the house. Most buildings incorporate a ground/neutral system which employs a "Principle Ground Point" which is where the power company neutral and the ground join, and then separate to travel further in the building, and they should never join again, that would lead to all kinds of issues, remember ground is for protection and neutral is for current.

The National Electric Code was revised in 1999 to recognize the difference between ground and neutral and made four wire connections for 240 volt appliances the law, with ground providing protection and the neutral carrying current.

And since the neutral is carrying ALL of the return currents, including lots of different keyboards, and motors, and fluorescent lights, and lots of other devices putting signals out there. How do you tell which keyboard is which?

I would be willing to bet that they conducted their tests with discrete devices and nothing else on the same circuits.

Boy I wish I had seen the article.

Sorry for the long post, when this old telephone engineer/technical trainer gets going, it's hard to stop me and this sort of signal troubleshooting just happened to be a specialty of mine.
by jimlongley
Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:45 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Be careful with those emails
Replies: 25
Views: 3450

Re: Be careful with those emails

Thomas wrote: . . . I'm not sure if this is applicable to laptops. I think they said USB keyboards weren't susceptible, but if you have a desktop and a keyboard that uses a PS/2 connector (the round one), all anyone has to do to figure out what you're typing is plug into the power lines going into your home. Basically the motherboard supplies power to the keyboard, it allowed unique signals for each key to go through.

Also, every electronic device emits electromagnetic (EM) fields. So, if you have an electronic safe/computer/whatever, every time you press a key, it emits an EM wave. Each key produces a unique EM wave. So you don't have to be in the same room to detect what keys are being pressed.
Don't believe me, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_s ... re_failure

The problem is though, if you wrap your computer in tin foil, it will probably overheat :mrgreen:

(If I recall correctly, it's pretty easy/cheap to build devices that will detect these signals. Basically it's security through EXTREME-obscurity.)
Back in the early days of computers we used to play music on them by tuning an AM radio off station near the cpu and then running specific timing loops. Some folks got pretty good at it.

As far as the PS/2 connector thing, this old telephone company noise engineer can't imagine how that would work. The power supply supplying the DC that runs the computer would adequately isolate the keyboard from the power mains to keep keyboard signals from "leaking" that far away. And in my case, since I protect my computers with UPS, which uses AC to charge a battery which continuously provides power to an inverter that provides AC to the PC, I have an additional layer of isolation.

Key signals are very weak to begin with, they only have to make it from the keyboard to the computer, and pretty short duration without a header or anything, so although I know of and even have used hardwire keystroke recorders, I find it hard to believe that they would make it very far. Even signaling systems that are designed for wireless have some pretty severe distance limitations.
by jimlongley
Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:11 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Be careful with those emails
Replies: 25
Views: 3450

Re: Be careful with those emails

VMI77 wrote:
jimlongley wrote:Even if they are, that is a mind boggling amount of data that they already, according to his testimony, don't have time to go through. By the time they get the ability to sort through it with any level of efficiency we will all be beyond caring.

A bunch of years ago I was the engineer of a network control center. The center monitored the condition (not the content) of a large (195 nodes) T1 network for the State of NY. We were required, per contract, to record and monitor ALL alarms and events on the network, and investigate each an every one, as well as keeping a database of those events, a raw record of those events, and a separate database of the trouble tickets generated and solutions. The amount of data gathered rapidly became so unmanageable that it was considered a joke to threaten someone on the staff with having to go look for a specific incident in the raw record. On top of that we kept a backup copy at a "geographically diverse location."

As the head engineer, I was charged with the responsibility for ensuring that all of the data was stored and accessible, and I hired a database "expert" to program the access to the raw data as well as sorting and storing it in a useable manner. It quickly became obvious that the state of the art was not up to the task, and the programmer was even behind that. (At one point, shortly before he was moved to another job we noticed that the trouble ticket database was taking huge amounts of time to load, and it turned out that what he had done to handle completed trouble tickets was set a "delete flag" on those tickets, so that when you searched for open tickets they got ignored, but every time you accessed the database ALL of it got loaded. One day my lead computer operator, who was not a programmer herself but had some programming ability, decided to see if she could improve the speed by "packing" the database, and the command she issued deleted all of the data with delete flags set. That was when it was decided that our programmer would be better off in a different job and that it was a good thing to have a separate copy of the database off site. Forgot to mention, one salient thing on his resume was his experience with NSA.

We got a new programmer who understood the troubleshooting process and trouble tickets and things got a little better.

All of this with the State of New York looking over our shoulders and nitpicking.

I eventually quit the job and went back to something more comfortable.

I don't think NSA has the ability, now or in the near future, to process that data, and the amount will continue to grow as they sit on it, so I don't much care what they are keeping of mine.
I think the key in your remarks is "a bunch of years ago." A bunch of years ago system modeling in my industry could take hours; now what took hours is done in a few seconds. What took about 30 minutes five years ago takes about 30 seconds now. And we just have PCs, not supercomputers. He's been out of the NSA for over 10 years and there have been major advances in computing ability during that time. And in the context he's talking about search time is not a critical factor. He's not talking about real-time monitoring but looking back through stored data for either legitimate criminal or illegitimate and nefarious politically motivated investigations. In either case it doesn't really matter if it takes an hour, a day, a week, or a month to pull from the database.

Also, this article doesn't address it, but the original court testimony he referred to also included testimony from an AT&T technician about the interface alluded to in the article. They're not just collecting emails, they're collecting everything...URL's visited, streaming audio and video (not the URL, the actual stream), online chats, online phone conversations, purchase data.....everything.
Actually, it was 20+ years ago and T1 was the "ne plus ultra" for networks, but the higher speeds have been offset by higher density of traffic and content. And I realize he's been out of NSA for more than 10 years, and I believe the same applies there.
Dragonfighter wrote:
For years, and I mean yeeeaars, phone traffic has been monitored to flag certain "keywords". All an agency has to do is set a combination of keywords they are looking for and the system will filter millions of emails in a matter of a few hours. So here is the scenario: You are looking for fundamentalist gun owners and you set your filter this particular day to "weapons, 2a, constitutional, (any number of makers' brand names), etc. So you get a few million emails either sent, forwarded or replied to that discuss the 2A in conjunction with weapons and bingo, a list of possible dissidents. The "agency" now simply reconfigures for each group of "inconvenient citizens". They have the data, all they need to do is sift it. And since they are allowed to gather the data without due process, then what prevents some Chicago mobster turned attorney general from sorting out and then setting about the squelching of anyone in their way. The only possible solution is to have that data base eradicated and cause for data collection very narrowly tailored to actual threat profiles.
Sorry, I don't believe that totally, there are just too many competing digital formats, not to mention analog, to do that in real time, which is what monitoring is. If it's being post processed, which using a database implies, then it is not monitoring.

I do believe that monitoring has taken place in some circumstances, I have even participated in both monitoring and failed attempts at monitoring. I actually had a lot of fun monitoring a lottery network back then, we were watching for errors in the lines, much easier to detect than specific words or word patterns, and my partner and myself actually figured out not only the polling sequences and addresses of stations on the network, but could even tell the difference, at a glance, between a quick pick ticket for one game and a selected ticket with choices penciled in, and even what the choices were, as well as which station originated the ticket.

We were sitting there running a test overseen by the State of NY and the computer company, and as Rich and I started saying what kind of ticket was being sent from which machine, the computer company person went ballistic on us, insisting on an immediate meeting with us, the State, and a variety of other players including a contracted security team. The security team basically laughed at them after they explained what the problem was, telling them that hours and hours of repetition watching those lines under test would have resulted in an easy education for anyone smart enough to be able to operate the sophisticated equipment we were using to monitor the lines to begin with. End of meeting, but then a "secrecy oath" to be signed so that we would not "expose" the secrets we had discovered.

------

But if I moved up a couple of levels, or down as the case may be, in the protocols stacks, I not only would have to be able to sort by station address, but which of several T1 "channels" that station was transmitting on, and then which of several available T1s in a T3, and so on, adding levels of complexity until the current state of the art. And that's just in the digital domain without any encryption, if it's analog, then you have to get it all the way back to analog in order to be able to tell what was said.

As a telephone engineer I participated in attempts to automatically monitor voice conversations, and the efforts were laughable. Look at voice recognition menus today, and how many errors are generated. An agency relying on real time monitoring of analog telephone traffic looking for specific keywords had better hope that the person they were monitoring spoke with no accent, at an even rate, and did not have a cold.

Do I believe "they" are trying to do it? Yes, most absolutely. But do I believe they are succeeding, not anywhere nearly to the extent that movies and TV shows would have us believe. And as I have said, the amount of digital data out there is just monstrously huge, and post processing that in all of its various formats is not a logistical problem I would like to even attempt, and I have troubleshot IBM SNA networks using a protocol analyzer that did not decode SNA.
by jimlongley
Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:53 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Be careful with those emails
Replies: 25
Views: 3450

Re: Be careful with those emails

Even if they are, that is a mind boggling amount of data that they already, according to his testimony, don't have time to go through. By the time they get the ability to sort through it with any level of efficiency we will all be beyond caring.

A bunch of years ago I was the engineer of a network control center. The center monitored the condition (not the content) of a large (195 nodes) T1 network for the State of NY. We were required, per contract, to record and monitor ALL alarms and events on the network, and investigate each an every one, as well as keeping a database of those events, a raw record of those events, and a separate database of the trouble tickets generated and solutions. The amount of data gathered rapidly became so unmanageable that it was considered a joke to threaten someone on the staff with having to go look for a specific incident in the raw record. On top of that we kept a backup copy at a "geographically diverse location."

As the head engineer, I was charged with the responsibility for ensuring that all of the data was stored and accessible, and I hired a database "expert" to program the access to the raw data as well as sorting and storing it in a useable manner. It quickly became obvious that the state of the art was not up to the task, and the programmer was even behind that. (At one point, shortly before he was moved to another job we noticed that the trouble ticket database was taking huge amounts of time to load, and it turned out that what he had done to handle completed trouble tickets was set a "delete flag" on those tickets, so that when you searched for open tickets they got ignored, but every time you accessed the database ALL of it got loaded. One day my lead computer operator, who was not a programmer herself but had some programming ability, decided to see if she could improve the speed by "packing" the database, and the command she issued deleted all of the data with delete flags set. That was when it was decided that our programmer would be better off in a different job and that it was a good thing to have a separate copy of the database off site. Forgot to mention, one salient thing on his resume was his experience with NSA.

We got a new programmer who understood the troubleshooting process and trouble tickets and things got a little better.

All of this with the State of New York looking over our shoulders and nitpicking.

I eventually quit the job and went back to something more comfortable.

I don't think NSA has the ability, now or in the near future, to process that data, and the amount will continue to grow as they sit on it, so I don't much care what they are keeping of mine.

Return to “Be careful with those emails”