So you are saying it is implausible because it doesn't make sense if you don't read the whole article? That isn't how implausibility generally works.
And I personally find the speaker-microphone route implausible given how difficult that would be.
Ever used a modem?
That's a bit of a strawman, don't you think?
> Ever used a modem?
Yes. And I don't think that's applicable in this case. First, a modem is designed specifically for such a use case--second, we're talking about an exploit that would (in theory) somehow make use of a microphone to spread itself to a target host.
You would have to assume that there's some flaw in either the audio driver for the microphone, firmware, or whatever that can be exploited by sending some combination of sounds to it. While that's possible, it seems unlikely that would be the case and much more likely that the culprit is an infected USB device of some sort, which has been discussed at length in other threads here (and would take far less work). For the variable quality of consumer microphones in a laptop or other such device to pick up a signal in such a manner as to exploit firmware/driver software at range makes this theory questionable IMO.
My personal hunch isn't that Mr. Ruiu is wrong. I think he's found something interesting and potentially dangerous, new, and fascinating. What I DO think, however, is that the Ars writer may have misunderstood, misinterpreted, or is misrepresenting the information he received.
No.
we're talking about an exploit that would (in theory) somehow make use of a microphone to spread itself to a target host.
No we are not, we are talking about communication between already infected machines. https://twitter.com/dragosr/status/395959517243928576
My personal hunch isn't that Mr. Ruiu is wrong.
He may or may not be, but whatever your hunch is, it doesn't appear to be based on the actual situation at hand, so I don't think it carries that much weight.
edit - sorry for being so harsh by the way, I went and re-read the article and I can see how you can read it as the transmission vector being audio rather than just communication between infected machines. I didn't read it myself that way but at the same time it is not particularly clear.
I rather wish you had shared that tweet instead of engaging me in splitting hairs. I dismissed the article outright as stupid largely based on the initial claims it made, which seemed implausible and outlandish. Going back and re-reading the bit on microphone-speaker ultrasonic transmissions makes more sense in light of what you've shared. I don't think those two paragraphs were particularly well written and could have provided additional clarification.
That said, I was wrong and misinterpreted that particular part as being a mechanism for attack. I apologize for my glaring mistake. It renders my previous comments entirely incorrect and they should be ignored. To anyone else viewing this thread, please disregard my previous statements. They were based off of misinterpretations regarding an incorrect reading of the Ars piece.
Sadly, it's the fault of my unfortunately judgmental and inherently skeptical nature with regards to much of the news I read. Maybe it's the fault of politics and the likes, but in spite of the dangers of excessive skepticism, I think it's a better long term approach that can yield useful questions and discussion. Unless it gets out of hand, as is my case. :)
> He may or may not be, but whatever your hunch is, it doesn't appear to be based on the actual situation at hand, so I don't think it carries that much weight.
I still stand by what I have said. I think Mr. Ruiu has stumbled upon something quite fascinating. I was under the mistaken impression that ultrasonic communication was used as an attack vector. So let's not be too harsh over an honest mistake. :)
However, I do think the Ars piece isn't a particularly useful exhibit of Mr. Ruiu's work thusfar (particularly in light of the tweet you shared); it's a lengthy, rambling article that provides only fragments throughout its impressive word count, requiring careful reading and some liberal interpretation of the author's intent.
Then again, that's probably a matter of necessity, so I can't really fault Ars. A frightening-sounding article peppered with equally frightening lingo gets page views. "Boring" academic reports rich in data do not.
C'est la vie.
Assuming decent error checking, the question isn't whether you could do it, it is just how fast would it be.