Snooping TV.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Just been listening to a radio piece about those Samsung smart TVs the CIA
etc have apparently hacked so they can listen to what's going on in the
room. So wondered if any of the computer savvy types could explain a few
things I've observed with my voice activated Samsung TV.

1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.
2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
though)
3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and on.
Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.
4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own speakers
just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech from the other
side of the room?

Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned down.
Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year. Obviously,
their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on loud when discussing
something naughty.

--
*Velcro - what a rip off!*

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:59:23 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.

Neither does the windows PC here but it'll wake up when sent a Wake
On Lan "magic packet".

> 2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
> internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
> though)

WOL is tricky across the internet but it is possible, getting past
firewalls and NAT is the biggest problem. Not sure what you can do
via uPnP that is designed to blow holes in firewalls. Anything here
with the uPnP feature gets it disabled.

> 3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and
> on. Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.

Probably under software control. The TV piece a day or so ago had a
TV running an "app" that appeared to do voice to text.

> 4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
> differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own speakers
> just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech from the other
> side of the room?

That's more of problem.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Adam Funk]

On 2017-03-10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Just been listening to a radio piece about those Samsung smart TVs the CIA
> etc have apparently hacked so they can listen to what's going on in the
> room. So wondered if any of the computer savvy types could explain a few
> things I've observed with my voice activated Samsung TV.
>
> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.
> 2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
> internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
> though)
> 3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and on.
> Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.
> 4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
> differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own speakers
> just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech from the other
> side of the room?

If the TV can be voice controlled, it must be able to separate speech
in the room from stuff coming out of the TV itself, right?

[Chris Bartram]

On 10/03/2017 13:19, Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:59:23 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.
>
> Neither does the windows PC here but it'll wake up when sent a Wake
> On Lan "magic packet".
>
>> 2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
>> internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
>> though)
>
> WOL is tricky across the internet but it is possible, getting past
> firewalls and NAT is the biggest problem. Not sure what you can do
> via uPnP that is designed to blow holes in firewalls. Anything here
> with the uPnP feature gets it disabled.
>

I believe the way it was done was to fake standby by altering the LEDs
to show standby even if the device is on the network, so no WOL needed.
Of course, you'd see it on the lan.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@news.individual.net>,

Dave Liquorice <allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote:
> > 3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and
> > on. Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.

> Probably under software control. The TV piece a day or so ago had a
> TV running an "app" that appeared to do voice to text.

Yes - think I saw that. Wouldn't a spy be suspicious if their TV suddenly
turned on and appeared to be running some sort of prog they didn't expect?

> > 4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
> > differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own
> > speakers just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech
> > from the other side of the room?

> That's more of problem.

I'd guess they have some magic software that enhances speech. Same as the
one they use to read a distant numberplate from a grotty VHS tape.

Perhaps the BBC could use it on SS GB? ;-)

--
*Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <i4mapdx...@news.ducksburg.com>,

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> If the TV can be voice controlled, it must be able to separate speech
> in the room from stuff coming out of the TV itself, right?

Think there's a difference from recognising a clear command to
understanding all speech.

Although I've never actually tried the voice activated side.

--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <o9u9pt$quk$1...@dont-email.me>,

Chris Bartram <ne...@delete-me.piglet-net.net> wrote:
> > WOL is tricky across the internet but it is possible, getting past
> > firewalls and NAT is the biggest problem. Not sure what you can do
> > via uPnP that is designed to blow holes in firewalls. Anything here
> > with the uPnP feature gets it disabled.
> >

> I believe the way it was done was to fake standby by altering the LEDs
> to show standby even if the device is on the network, so no WOL needed.
> Of course, you'd see it on the lan.

So first, you'd need to download and install special software to the TV to
get the LEDs to show what you want?

--
*He's not dead - he's electroencephalographically challenged

[dennis@home]

On 10/03/2017 13:19, Dave Liquorice wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:59:23 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.
>
> Neither does the windows PC here but it'll wake up when sent a Wake
> On Lan "magic packet".

If the TV has been hacked to do spying it doesn't need to do any of the
standard ways of WOL, etc.
It may just sit there pretending to be off while recording what's said
and sending it later.

The CIA/hacker decide what it does not the manufacturer and they can do
more or less what they like to hide its working.

If they have hacked the TV they may well have hacked the router too.
It could spoof another MAC address while spying so it wouldn't appear in
the routers tables as the TV but say, for example, the smart stat.

Even if you write your own code there are ways to put code into the
system without you knowing unless you code in hex. There was a
demonstration of how to get a C compiler to put code into programs
without the user knowing a few years ago.

[dennis@home]

On 10/03/2017 13:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>>> 4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
>>> differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own
>>> speakers just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech
>>> from the other side of the room?
>
>> That's more of problem.
>
> I'd guess they have some magic software that enhances speech. Same as the
> one they use to read a distant numberplate from a grotty VHS tape.
>
> Perhaps the BBC could use it on SS GB? ;-)
>

What makes you think they have grotty mics?
I would think they have an array of mics so that they can detect sounds
better and they would also be able to subtract the signal from the
speakers relatively easily.

[Nick Odell]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:57:25 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <o9u9pt$quk$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Chris Bartram <ne...@delete-me.piglet-net.net> wrote:
>> > WOL is tricky across the internet but it is possible, getting past
>> > firewalls and NAT is the biggest problem. Not sure what you can do
>> > via uPnP that is designed to blow holes in firewalls. Anything here
>> > with the uPnP feature gets it disabled.
>> >
>
>> I believe the way it was done was to fake standby by altering the LEDs
>> to show standby even if the device is on the network, so no WOL needed.
>> Of course, you'd see it on the lan.
>
>So first, you'd need to download and install special software to the TV to
>get the LEDs to show what you want?

Aren't we expecting a new Wikileak anyday soon with the code of how it
was done?

Nick

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <561aa67...@davenoise.co.uk>,

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
> So first, you'd need to download and install special software to the TV to
> get the LEDs to show what you want?

The TV downloads updates regularly. You'd just have to fool it into
loading some hacked update instead of the genuine thing. That could
be done by poisening your DNS entries or intercepting the update
traffic. With good security, these things would be difficult (but
not impossible). However, such appliances are well known for appalling
security. Another way would be to exploit a buffer overrun or similar
in some the the media decoding software, and providing a hacked film
or whatever that causes execution of embedded code via this mechanism.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <58c2b820$0$9686$c3e8da3$f6d5...@news.astraweb.com>,

dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > I'd guess they have some magic software that enhances speech. Same as the
> > one they use to read a distant numberplate from a grotty VHS tape.
> >
> > Perhaps the BBC could use it on SS GB? ;-)
> >

> What makes you think they have grotty mics?

Have you any idea how much decent mics cost?

> I would think they have an array of mics so that they can detect sounds
> better and they would also be able to subtract the signal from the
> speakers relatively easily.

Yes of course. For a stage performance you merely hide the mics inside the
speaker arrays. No need for any on the actual stage. It can all be done
with clever software.

--
*Frustration is trying to find your glasses without your glasses.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <o9uell$v7e$2...@dont-email.me>,

Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <561aa67...@davenoise.co.uk>,
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
> > So first, you'd need to download and install special software to the TV to
> > get the LEDs to show what you want?

> The TV downloads updates regularly. You'd just have to fool it into
> loading some hacked update instead of the genuine thing.

Going to be a pretty major hack, I'd say. Have 'they' really got
programmers writing this new software for every single telly on the market?

Odd how long it took them to get into a locked iPhone only a few months
ago.

> That could
> be done by poisening your DNS entries or intercepting the update
> traffic. With good security, these things would be difficult (but
> not impossible). However, such appliances are well known for appalling
> security. Another way would be to exploit a buffer overrun or similar
> in some the the media decoding software, and providing a hacked film
> or whatever that causes execution of embedded code via this mechanism.

You are assuming it is possible to re-programme the device to do all the
things needed to turn it into a covert listening device. Makes you wonder
how so many makers can't write software so the device works as intended.
;-)

--
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <o9ufcg$2a5$7...@dont-email.me>,

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> > 4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
> > differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own
> > speakers just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech
> > from the other side of the room?

> When my (Android) phone is on charge*, if you say "Google" in a normal
> voice, the mic manages to pick it up and trigger "OK Google" - gave me a
> hell of a start when it first did it.

Now put it beside a TV with the sound at normal level, and try telling it
to do that from the normal viewing seat.

> *There's a setting in Google Search for "voice control","OK Google", "On
> when charging"

Voice control isn't that new. Getting it to work in the midst of other
chat - especially if that chat drowns you out - would be impressive.

--
*Why 'that tie suits you' but 'those shoes suit you'?*

[tim...]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:561aad8...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <o9uell$v7e$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <561aa67...@davenoise.co.uk>,
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
>> > So first, you'd need to download and install special software to the TV
>> > to
>> > get the LEDs to show what you want?
>
>> The TV downloads updates regularly. You'd just have to fool it into
>> loading some hacked update instead of the genuine thing.
>
> Going to be a pretty major hack, I'd say. Have 'they' really got
> programmers writing this new software for every single telly on the
> market?

surprisingly,

yes this is exactly what the techs in the spooks department spend their time
doing

it's the easy part

the hard part is, as has been said, getting it onto a remote TV which can be
anything from not that difficult to extremely bloody difficult, depending
upon what levels of authentication the manufacture of the TV uses for OTA
updates.

(I suspect that they aren't going to persuade too many people to stick a
dodgy USB stick into their TV, which is how they will test their programs in
their lab)

tim

[tim...]

"dennis@home" <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:58c2b66f$0$62498$b1db1813$ba2d...@news.astraweb.com...

> On 10/03/2017 13:19, Dave Liquorice wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:59:23 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>
>>> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.
>>
>> Neither does the windows PC here but it'll wake up when sent a Wake
>> On Lan "magic packet".
>
> If the TV has been hacked to do spying it doesn't need to do any of the
> standard ways of WOL, etc.
> It may just sit there pretending to be off

it can't "pretend" to be off the LAN, that fact will be determined by your
router, based upon whether it is receiving any packets from it, or not

tim

[Andy Burns]

Dave Plowman wrote:

> wondered if any of the computer savvy types could explain a few
> things I've observed with my voice activated Samsung TV.

[Tinfoil hat mode on]

> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.

It could be programmed to look invisible when "off".

> 2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
> internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
> though)

It could have a WakeOnLAN function, this would of course require your
router to also be hacked to enable directed subnet broadcasts, or the TV
could quietly poll a CIA server when it's "off" and ask if they'd like
it to turn on in snoop mode.

> 3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and on.
> Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.

LEDs can lie, e.g. laptop cameras can be enabled without turning on the
camera LED, black tape over the lens works.

> 4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
> differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own speakers
> just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech from the other
> side of the room?

once the audio arrives to the CIA's server farm they can throw all the
audio processing they've got at the muffled audio to clarify your bomb plot.

[Andy Burns]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Have 'they' really got
> programmers writing this new software for every single telly on the market?

No, just the major brands; if they want to spy on you and you happen to
have the "wrong" brand of TV they arrange for you to win one in a
competition :-)

[tim...]

"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:eig8ib...@mid.individual.net...

> Dave Plowman wrote:
>
>> wondered if any of the computer savvy types could explain a few
>> things I've observed with my voice activated Samsung TV.
>
> [Tinfoil hat mode on]
>
>> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.
>
> It could be programmed to look invisible when "off".

only by not sending any packets

which would defeat the point if the snooper wanted to actually receive what
was being said

tim

[Andy Burns]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Jethro_uk wrote:
>
>> When my (Android) phone is on charge*, if you say "Google" in a normal
>> voice, the mic manages to pick it up and trigger "OK Google" - gave me a
>> hell of a start when it first did it.
>
> Now put it beside a TV with the sound at normal level, and try telling it
> to do that from the normal viewing seat.

Mine usually works when the phone is in my pocket and I'm driving
"OK google, navigate to home".

[John Rumm]

On 10/03/2017 12:59, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Just been listening to a radio piece about those Samsung smart TVs the CIA
> etc have apparently hacked so they can listen to what's going on in the
> room. So wondered if any of the computer savvy types could explain a few
> things I've observed with my voice activated Samsung TV.

I don't have any details of how their hack works, but I presume it
starts with a compromised app install, or possibly a trojan update of
some form.

> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.

If I were writing covert software that was going to phone home from
time to time, I might only activate the lan port for a very brief period
intermittently. I would also cache and DHCP allocated IP address so I
did not leave requests visible to the router at unexpected times.

> 2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
> internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
> though)

There may or may not be - but once compromised by whatever means (e.g.
that may even include someone gaining physical access to it to load
something from a USB stick) then it can do what ever is required.

> 3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and on.
> Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.

Chances are the LED is controlled by software.

> 4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
> differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own speakers
> just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech from the other
> side of the room?

Yes easily - especially if you know what is being played on the speaker
at the time - its a basic digital echo cancellation technique to excise
the transmitted signal from the received one.

> Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned down.
> Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year. Obviously,
> their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on loud when discussing
> something naughty.

Most domestic situations will leak information in all kinds of ways...

How effective any security measure is will vary enormously depending on
who your adversary is. If you are up against nation state funded spooks,
then you are going to lose pretty much every time unless you *really*
know what you are doing.



--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[John Rumm]

On 10/03/2017 15:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <o9uell$v7e$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <561aa67...@davenoise.co.uk>,
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
>>> So first, you'd need to download and install special software to the TV to
>>> get the LEDs to show what you want?
>
>> The TV downloads updates regularly. You'd just have to fool it into
>> loading some hacked update instead of the genuine thing.
>
> Going to be a pretty major hack, I'd say. Have 'they' really got
> programmers writing this new software for every single telly on the market?

They will target the widely adopted products - quite a large number of
smart TVs will share a limited number of code bases.

Note that they have custom firmware infecting code for all the common
hard drive controllers, so they can load malware onto a machine such
that its present before any OS loads, and a complete format and
reinstall does not clear it.

> Odd how long it took them to get into a locked iPhone only a few months
> ago.
>
>
>> That could
>> be done by poisening your DNS entries or intercepting the update
>> traffic. With good security, these things would be difficult (but
>> not impossible). However, such appliances are well known for appalling
>> security. Another way would be to exploit a buffer overrun or similar
>> in some the the media decoding software, and providing a hacked film
>> or whatever that causes execution of embedded code via this mechanism.
>
> You are assuming it is possible to re-programme the device to do all the
> things needed to turn it into a covert listening device. Makes you wonder
> how so many makers can't write software so the device works as intended.
> ;-)

Different levels of resources and funding!

[John Rumm]

On 10/03/2017 13:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <i4mapdx...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> If the TV can be voice controlled, it must be able to separate speech
>> in the room from stuff coming out of the TV itself, right?
>
> Think there's a difference from recognising a clear command to
> understanding all speech.

Unlike for voice command processing, the TV does not need to understand
the "bugged" speech - only upload it.

[dennis@home]

On 10/03/2017 15:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <58c2b820$0$9686$c3e8da3$f6d5...@news.astraweb.com>,
> dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> I'd guess they have some magic software that enhances speech. Same as the
>>> one they use to read a distant numberplate from a grotty VHS tape.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the BBC could use it on SS GB? ;-)
>>>
>
>> What makes you think they have grotty mics?
>
> Have you any idea how much decent mics cost?

A few pence!
And I really do mean they cost a few pence.

>
>> I would think they have an array of mics so that they can detect sounds
>> better and they would also be able to subtract the signal from the
>> speakers relatively easily.
>
> Yes of course. For a stage performance you merely hide the mics inside the
> speaker arrays. No need for any on the actual stage. It can all be done
> with clever software.
>

You could use a microphone array at the edge of the stage if you could
get technicians with enough of a brain to put them in right.

Don't assume you know anything about signal processing just because you
worked in TV. It wasn't exactly needed for such a simple job.

Amazon appear to have their echo working quite well in a home
environment and the whole thing retails for £50.

[harry]

I switch off the mains on all my stuff.
Should put a stop to it.

[dennis@home]

On 10/03/2017 18:33, John Rumm wrote:
> On 10/03/2017 13:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <i4mapdx...@news.ducksburg.com>,
>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>> If the TV can be voice controlled, it must be able to separate speech
>>> in the room from stuff coming out of the TV itself, right?
>>
>> Think there's a difference from recognising a clear command to
>> understanding all speech.
>
>
> Unlike for voice command processing, the TV does not need to understand
> the "bugged" speech - only upload it.
>
>

The TVs tend not to understand the speech and do the same as apple and
M$ ie. the upload it to a server for recognition.

So if you want to listen in you can hack the server as long as the user
is using the voice recognition.
If they have disabled voice recognition in the menus then you need to
hack the TV.

[bm]

"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message

news:eig8ri...@mid.individual.net...

Shazam amazes me, with low level background music and a fair amount of
hubbub it still usually works.

[Andy Burns]

tim... wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> It could be programmed to look invisible when "off".
>
> only by not sending any packets

So it deletes a couple of GB of stuff from flash that you'll not notice
(the Channel5 app, old recordings of Grand Designs) records the audio
and then uploads it later while you're streaming X-Factor.

[Graham.]

>
>Odd how long it took them to get into a locked iPhone only a few months
>ago.

I felt at the time that that's what they want us to believe, so as to
spare Apple's blushes for co-operating.


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[tony sayer]

In article <561aa12...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus

>Just been listening to a radio piece about those Samsung smart TVs the CIA
>etc have apparently hacked so they can listen to what's going on in the
>room. So wondered if any of the computer savvy types could explain a few
>things I've observed with my voice activated Samsung TV.
>

>1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.

>2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
>internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
>though)

>3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and on.
>Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.

>4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
>differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own speakers
>just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech from the other
>side of the room?
>

>Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned down.
>Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year. Obviously,
>their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on loud when discussing
>something naughty.
>

I do wonder why the CIA, MI5, 6 or 7 even want to listen to someone's
missus going on about the things they find time to whine on about!,
really do;!..
--
Tony Sayer

[Bob Eager]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:59:23 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Just been listening to a radio piece about those Samsung smart TVs the
> CIA etc have apparently hacked so they can listen to what's going on in
> the room. So wondered if any of the computer savvy types could explain a
> few things I've observed with my voice activated Samsung TV.
>
> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.

It might wake upo every few minutes to phone hoime and ask if it is
needed!

> 2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
> internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
> though)

See above.

> 3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and
> on. Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.

Probably software controlled so could lie!

> 4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
> differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own speakers
> just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech from the other
> side of the room?

That I am less sure of. You are the expert here ...

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

[Graham.]

>
>> 4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
>> differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own speakers
>> just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech from the other
>> side of the room?
>
>Yes easily - especially if you know what is being played on the speaker
>at the time - its a basic digital echo cancellation technique to excise
>the transmitted signal from the received one.

As the microphone was intended to receive spoken commands while the
set is playing normally, I would imagine this separation will occur
natively.

If the spooks need a clean copy of the programme material in order to
do the subtraction with greater accuracy, that won't pose a problem
either.


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[John Rumm]

On 10/03/2017 18:42, dennis@home wrote:
> On 10/03/2017 18:33, John Rumm wrote:
>> On 10/03/2017 13:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <i4mapdx...@news.ducksburg.com>,
>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>> If the TV can be voice controlled, it must be able to separate speech
>>>> in the room from stuff coming out of the TV itself, right?
>>>
>>> Think there's a difference from recognising a clear command to
>>> understanding all speech.
>>
>>
>> Unlike for voice command processing, the TV does not need to understand
>> the "bugged" speech - only upload it.
>>
>>
>
> The TVs tend not to understand the speech and do the same as apple and
> M$ ie. the upload it to a server for recognition.

Most of them seem to do a bit of trigger processing, so they know when
to start uploading, then do the grunt work in the cloud.

> So if you want to listen in you can hack the server as long as the user
> is using the voice recognition.
> If they have disabled voice recognition in the menus then you need to
> hack the TV.

Which was the object of the exercise being discussed I thought?

[dennis@home]

On 10/03/2017 23:15, John Rumm wrote:
> On 10/03/2017 18:42, dennis@home wrote:
>> On 10/03/2017 18:33, John Rumm wrote:
>>> On 10/03/2017 13:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>> In article <i4mapdx...@news.ducksburg.com>,
>>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>> If the TV can be voice controlled, it must be able to separate speech
>>>>> in the room from stuff coming out of the TV itself, right?
>>>>
>>>> Think there's a difference from recognising a clear command to
>>>> understanding all speech.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unlike for voice command processing, the TV does not need to understand
>>> the "bugged" speech - only upload it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The TVs tend not to understand the speech and do the same as apple and
>> M$ ie. the upload it to a server for recognition.
>
> Most of them seem to do a bit of trigger processing, so they know when
> to start uploading, then do the grunt work in the cloud.
>
>> So if you want to listen in you can hack the server as long as the user
>> is using the voice recognition.
>> If they have disabled voice recognition in the menus then you need to
>> hack the TV.
>
> Which was the object of the exercise being discussed I thought?
>

That's good because that's what I thought too.
So going by ARW and TNP you must be wrong too.

I like the way tim posts saying that you can't hide from being seen on
the router and snips the bits where I say how it can be done.
I suppose that's the way it goes, some just like to pretend they know
about things.

[newshound]

On 3/10/2017 12:59 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Just been listening to a radio piece about those Samsung smart TVs the CIA
> etc have apparently hacked so they can listen to what's going on in the
> room. So wondered if any of the computer savvy types could explain a few
> things I've observed with my voice activated Samsung TV.
>
> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.

> 2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
> internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
> though)

> 3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and on.
> Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.

> 4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
> differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own speakers
> just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech from the other
> side of the room?
>

> Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned down.
> Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year. Obviously,
> their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on loud when discussing
> something naughty.
>

TV manufacturers are not going to fit nice big batteries or
supercondensers inside. For a wifi-connected TV, it's going to be inert
not long after being switched off at the wall, even if its firmware has
been hacked.

Of course if you are tracking someone seriously, you might take notice
if their phone or TV gets switched off.

[tim...]

"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message

news:eigcbu...@mid.individual.net...

> tim... wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> It could be programmed to look invisible when "off".
>>
>> only by not sending any packets
>
> So it deletes a couple of GB of stuff from flash that you'll not notice
> (the Channel5 app, old recordings of Grand Designs)

If something deleted some of my saved recordings I'd bloody well notice

But in any case, these are smart TV's they don't have a store of recorded
stuff

> records the audio and then uploads it later while you're streaming
> X-Factor.

That'll be a three moth wait in my case (and no that's not relevant to the
choice of program)

tm


>

[Bob Eager]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 09:09:25 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 09:00:58 +0000, tim... wrote:
>
>> But in any case, these are smart TV's they don't have a store of
>> recorded stuff
>

> My LG can store stuff picked up via it's tuner on an USB device (memory
> stick or HDD) if connected.

My Samsung (spit) too.

[dennis@home]

On 11/03/2017 09:00, tim... wrote:


> But in any case, these are smart TV's they don't have a store of
> recorded stuff

So you can't update the firmware on your smart TV as there is no space
that can be written to?

[Capitol]

Surely it's very easy with an OTA update? No need to go near the LAN
until installed.
Incidentally, does any piece of modern equipment work correctly when
first installed?

[RJH]

On 10/03/2017 15:05, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:59:23 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> Just been listening to a radio piece about those Samsung smart TVs the
>> CIA etc have apparently hacked so they can listen to what's going on in
>> the room. So wondered if any of the computer savvy types could explain a
>> few things I've observed with my voice activated Samsung TV.
>>
>> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.
>> 2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
>> internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
>> though)
>> 3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and
>> on. Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.
>
>>

>> Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned
>> down.
>> Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year. Obviously,
>> their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on loud when
>> discussing something naughty.
>

> I believe the exploit required physical access to the TV. So spooks would
> need to break in to set it up. (Which is nothing untoward. As Peter
> Wright said in Spycatcher: "we bugged and burgled our way through
> London").
>

Yes, indeed, has to be modified physically - IIUC it can't be done with
a software hack. Same with the webcam on my Mac computer. I hope :-;

--
Cheers, Rob

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Saturday, 11 March 2017 10:32:28 UTC, Capitol wrote:
> Incidentally, does any piece of modern equipment work correctly when
> first installed?

Yes, but then it breaks at the first update.

Owain

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <oa0eo9$2a5$1...@dont-email.me>,
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:32:52 +0000, tim... wrote:

> > "dennis@home" <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:58c2b66f$0$62498$b1db1813$ba2d...@news.astraweb.com...
> >> On 10/03/2017 13:19, Dave Liquorice wrote:

> >>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:59:23 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.
> >>>

> >>> Neither does the windows PC here but it'll wake up when sent a Wake On
> >>> Lan "magic packet".
> >>
> >> If the TV has been hacked to do spying it doesn't need to do any of the
> >> standard ways of WOL, etc.
> >> It may just sit there pretending to be off
> >
> > it can't "pretend" to be off the LAN, that fact will be determined by
> > your router, based upon whether it is receiving any packets from it, or
> > not
> >
> > tim

> Unless they have the capability to nobble your router first ?

If they can do that, might as well just nobble your laptop too and use the
mic on that. Far more likely to be of use than one in a TV.

--
*Is there another word for synonym?

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <oa0krl$rbk$1...@dont-email.me>,

RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
> >> Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned
> >> down. Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year.
> >> Obviously, their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on loud
> >> when discussing something naughty.
> >
> > I believe the exploit required physical access to the TV. So spooks
> > would need to break in to set it up. (Which is nothing untoward. As
> > Peter Wright said in Spycatcher: "we bugged and burgled our way
> > through London").
> >

> Yes, indeed, has to be modified physically - IIUC it can't be done with
> a software hack. Same with the webcam on my Mac computer. I hope :-;

According to one bit in the meja, this Samsung TV already uploads speech
from its mic to some central server to gather data for their speech
recognition software.

So that would be relatively easy to hack.

But only if the TV was already on and connected to the internet.

I'm rather more interested in the concept of being able to access this mic
at all times even with the TV in standby. All being done via software,
with no indication it is happening. Strikes me as more like a Hollywood
script.

--
*A person who smiles in the face of adversity probably has a scapegoat *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <58c2f195$0$16888$b1db1813$8a71...@news.astraweb.com>,

dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/03/2017 15:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <58c2b820$0$9686$c3e8da3$f6d5...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >>> I'd guess they have some magic software that enhances speech. Same as the
> >>> one they use to read a distant numberplate from a grotty VHS tape.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps the BBC could use it on SS GB? ;-)
> >>>
> >
> >> What makes you think they have grotty mics?
> >
> > Have you any idea how much decent mics cost?

> A few pence!
> And I really do mean they cost a few pence.

Right. ;-)

> >
> >> I would think they have an array of mics so that they can detect
> >> sounds better and they would also be able to subtract the signal from
> >> the speakers relatively easily.
> >
> > Yes of course. For a stage performance you merely hide the mics inside
> > the speaker arrays. No need for any on the actual stage. It can all be
> > done with clever software.
> >

> You could use a microphone array at the edge of the stage if you could
> get technicians with enough of a brain to put them in right.

Really? Then I suggest you set up a company to do this. Being able to mic
up a stage for, say, a musical without using personal mics would make you
a fortune overnight.

> Don't assume you know anything about signal processing just because you
> worked in TV. It wasn't exactly needed for such a simple job.

But you think you know the basics of sound capture?

> Amazon appear to have their echo working quite well in a home
> environment and the whole thing retails for £50.

Ah. That's what you're basing it on. Say no more.

--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

[Bob Eager]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 11:20:03 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article <oa0krl$rbk$1...@dont-email.me>,
> RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> >> Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned
>> >> down. Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year.
>> >> Obviously, their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on
>> >> loud when discussing something naughty.
>> >
>> > I believe the exploit required physical access to the TV. So spooks
>> > would need to break in to set it up. (Which is nothing untoward. As
>> > Peter Wright said in Spycatcher: "we bugged and burgled our way
>> > through London").
>> >
>> >
>> Yes, indeed, has to be modified physically - IIUC it can't be done with
>> a software hack. Same with the webcam on my Mac computer. I hope :-;
>
> According to one bit in the meja, this Samsung TV already uploads speech
> from its mic to some central server to gather data for their speech
> recognition software.
>
> So that would be relatively easy to hack.
>
> But only if the TV was already on and connected to the internet.
>
> I'm rather more interested in the concept of being able to access this
> mic at all times even with the TV in standby. All being done via
> software, with no indication it is happening. Strikes me as more like a
> Hollywood script.

THe principle is not that different from being able to do things to a PC
in standby:
- turn it on
- modify BIOS settings
- attach virtual disks
- boot
- use

And that is well understood, and has been for 20 odd years (although it's
better these days). OK, mostly on servers, but that's just marketing.

[tim...]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:oa0eo9$2a5$1...@dont-email.me...

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:32:52 +0000, tim... wrote:
>
>> "dennis@home" <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:58c2b66f$0$62498$b1db1813$ba2d...@news.astraweb.com...
>>> On 10/03/2017 13:19, Dave Liquorice wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:59:23 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.
>>>>
>>>> Neither does the windows PC here but it'll wake up when sent a Wake On
>>>> Lan "magic packet".
>>>
>>> If the TV has been hacked to do spying it doesn't need to do any of the
>>> standard ways of WOL, etc.
>>> It may just sit there pretending to be off
>>
>> it can't "pretend" to be off the LAN, that fact will be determined by
>> your router, based upon whether it is receiving any packets from it, or
>> not
>>
>> tim
>
> Unless they have the capability to nobble your router first ?

there is no suggestion that they can do that

most routers don't have the capacity for software updates once they have
been released

they are a "throw away and buy something new" product, when standards change

tim

[tim...]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message

news:oa0es5$2a5$1...@dont-email.me...

> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 09:00:58 +0000, tim... wrote:
>

>> But in any case, these are smart TV's they don't have a store of
>> recorded stuff
>

> My LG can store stuff picked up via it's tuner on an USB device (memory
> stick or HDD) if connected.

that's an external device, there is no guarantee that you will find one

either when you want to record the stuff nor that it is still there when you
want to upload it

tim

[tim...]

"dennis@home" <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message

news:58c3c81d$0$31066$b1db1813$a307...@news.astraweb.com...

obviously there is

but there's no guarantee it will be non-volatile storage

tim




>
>
>

[tim...]

"newshound" <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote in message
news:aOOdnb3Y-P2I2F7F...@brightview.co.uk...

the hack works because people *don't" turn their TVs off at the wall but put
them into standby

tim

[tim...]

"Capitol" <sp...@whereva.uk> wrote in message
news:U9udnUI5bq-nT17F...@brightview.co.uk...

Not if the TV authenticates the download to check that it has come from an
authorised source (obviously the marker for the sender has to be hidden in
an encrypted download)

I doubt that there are any TVs that do this, but it's not an untested
technique. It is one that is mandatory for OTA downloads to equipment that
performs safety critical functions.

tim

[tim...]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

news:561b1be...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <oa0krl$rbk$1...@dont-email.me>,
> RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> >> Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned
>> >> down. Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year.
>> >> Obviously, their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on loud
>> >> when discussing something naughty.
>> >
>> > I believe the exploit required physical access to the TV. So spooks
>> > would need to break in to set it up. (Which is nothing untoward. As
>> > Peter Wright said in Spycatcher: "we bugged and burgled our way
>> > through London").
>> >
>
>> Yes, indeed, has to be modified physically - IIUC it can't be done with
>> a software hack. Same with the webcam on my Mac computer. I hope :-;
>
> According to one bit in the meja, this Samsung TV already uploads speech
> from its mic to some central server to gather data for their speech
> recognition software.
>
> So that would be relatively easy to hack.
>
> But only if the TV was already on and connected to the internet.
>
> I'm rather more interested in the concept of being able to access this mic
> at all times even with the TV in standby. All being done via software,
> with no indication it is happening. Strikes me as more like a Hollywood
> script.

what part of the indications do you expect not to be turned off?

if the "mic on" led is controlled by software then that can be hacked to
pretend to be off, even when it is on.

Ditto the standby led (in reverse, of course)

but they are never going to be able to hide the fact that it remains
connected to your WLAN (as shown by interrogating the router menu options)
when a standby device would not do so. I suspect that they rely on the fact
that most people don't bother to check.

tim

[The Natural Philosopher]

I think all the routers I have owned have had updated software.
#
Maybe th TP-link didn't.

> they are a "throw away and buy something new" product, when standards
> change

No, thats yours your laziness.

>
> tim
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It wouldn't be much use if it wasn't.

Were you born a numpty or is it a lifetime of study?

> tim


--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”

Mary Wollstonecraft

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 11/03/17 12:31, tim... wrote:
> never going to be able to hide the fact that it remains connected to
> your WLAN (as shown by interrogating the router menu options) when a
> standby device would not do so.

Oh dear. Unless you do a ping broadcast you cant tell whether any
machine connected to your LAN is 'still connected'

TCP/IP does not require any keepalives.


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

[dennis@home]

On 11/03/2017 11:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <58c2f195$0$16888$b1db1813$8a71...@news.astraweb.com>,
> dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/03/2017 15:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <58c2b820$0$9686$c3e8da3$f6d5...@news.astraweb.com>,
>>> dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> I'd guess they have some magic software that enhances speech. Same as the
>>>>> one they use to read a distant numberplate from a grotty VHS tape.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps the BBC could use it on SS GB? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> What makes you think they have grotty mics?
>>>
>>> Have you any idea how much decent mics cost?
>
>> A few pence!
>> And I really do mean they cost a few pence.
>
> Right. ;-)

Which bit of a mic is expensive?
They are not a complicated machine.
The selling price has no bearing on the actual costs, just ask Rus.

>
>>>
>>>> I would think they have an array of mics so that they can detect
>>>> sounds better and they would also be able to subtract the signal from
>>>> the speakers relatively easily.
>>>
>>> Yes of course. For a stage performance you merely hide the mics inside
>>> the speaker arrays. No need for any on the actual stage. It can all be
>>> done with clever software.
>>>
>
>> You could use a microphone array at the edge of the stage if you could
>> get technicians with enough of a brain to put them in right.
>
> Really? Then I suggest you set up a company to do this. Being able to mic
> up a stage for, say, a musical without using personal mics would make you
> a fortune overnight.

Do you think the unions would allow half the crew to be sacked?
Who is going to rewrite the code based on the new positions of the mics
and performers for each venue?
Your average technician won't be able to.
Give it a few years and things will change and you will be able to put a
few mikes in and capture the whole sound filed for post processing and a
bit after that it will be real time.

>
>> Don't assume you know anything about signal processing just because you
>> worked in TV. It wasn't exactly needed for such a simple job.
>
> But you think you know the basics of sound capture?
>
>> Amazon appear to have their echo working quite well in a home
>> environment and the whole thing retails for £50.
>
> Ah. That's what you're basing it on. Say no more.
>

What you are basing it on is not spying so what makes you think you need
personal mics to do it?

[newshound]

Of course. My point is that the hack seems to be trivially easy to block
by switching off the TV. But that could be the give-away that you are
having your mates around to discuss the next blag, drug deal, or whatever.

It does nicely illustrate that, for all that we liberals admire Snowden,
Manning, and the like, there is an element of validity in the argument
of the authorities that their techniques are compromised.

Of course the IOT really is the thing to hack, because it needs to be on
all the time.

Perhaps the day will come where anyone without IOT is a suspect, we are
probably heading that way with mobile phones. I read somewhere that we
used sometimes to spot potential suicide bombers when a young man with a
young family didn't have life insurance.

Orwell is upon us.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <oa0qjb$get$1...@dont-email.me>,

tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'm rather more interested in the concept of being able to access this mic
> > at all times even with the TV in standby. All being done via software,
> > with no indication it is happening. Strikes me as more like a Hollywood
> > script.

> what part of the indications do you expect not to be turned off?

> if the "mic on" led is controlled by software then that can be hacked to
> pretend to be off, even when it is on.

I've never seem a TV with a mic on LED.

> Ditto the standby led (in reverse, of course)

So they hack the power LED so the set is actually on and connected to the
LAN while the power LED shows off? Do they have a method of blanking the
screen etc totally too?

> but they are never going to be able to hide the fact that it remains
> connected to your WLAN (as shown by interrogating the router menu
> options) when a standby device would not do so. I suspect that they
> rely on the fact that most people don't bother to check.

If all this is so terribly easy, why haven't criminals managed to hack
into everyone's online bank account?

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <58c3f2d9$0$27157$b1db1813$d2f0...@news.astraweb.com>,

dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> A few pence!
> >> And I really do mean they cost a few pence.
> >
> > Right. ;-)

> Which bit of a mic is expensive?
> They are not a complicated machine.

Right. ;-)

--
*In "Casablanca", Humphrey Bogart never said "Play it again, Sam" *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <oa0otu$87c$1...@dont-email.me>,

tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > TV manufacturers are not going to fit nice big batteries or
> > supercondensers inside. For a wifi-connected TV, it's going to be
> > inert not long after being switched off at the wall, even if its
> > firmware has been hacked.

> the hack works because people *don't" turn their TVs off at the wall but
> put them into standby

So the hackers secretly get past your firewall, turn on the TV, and
install their new software. All without leaving any trace. Provided you
have a Samsung TV of a particular type, of course.

Spies Weekly will now have lots of used Samsung sets in the classified ads
at very low prices.

--
*Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <58c3f2d9$0$27157$b1db1813$d2f0...@news.astraweb.com>,
dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> > Really? Then I suggest you set up a company to do this. Being able to
> > mic up a stage for, say, a musical without using personal mics would
> > make you a fortune overnight.

> Do you think the unions would allow half the crew to be sacked?

What 'unions' would that be?

> Who is going to rewrite the code based on the new positions of the mics
> and performers for each venue?

Ah. So for the mic in the TV snoop to have any chance of working, you'd
have to know the exact positions of those talking in the room?

> Your average technician won't be able to.

I'd suggest you actually chat to those involved in the technical design
side of a large West End production. But then you'd be left behind after
the first few words.

> Give it a few years and things will change and you will be able to put a
> few mikes in and capture the whole sound filed for post processing and a
> bit after that it will be real time.

With every word you confirm you just haven't a clue.

--
*I don't have a solution, but I admire your problem. *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <-qednZF0IbMubl7F...@brightview.co.uk>,

newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
> Of course. My point is that the hack seems to be trivially easy to block
> by switching off the TV. But that could be the give-away that you are
> having your mates around to discuss the next blag, drug deal, or
> whatever.

Ah - right. So if any Samsung TV so equipped to snoop with is turned off
for any reason you get a search warrant and send the heavies in. ;-)

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

[dennis@home]

On 11/03/2017 13:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <58c3f2d9$0$27157$b1db1813$d2f0...@news.astraweb.com>,
> dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> Really? Then I suggest you set up a company to do this. Being able to
>>> mic up a stage for, say, a musical without using personal mics would
>>> make you a fortune overnight.
>
>> Do you think the unions would allow half the crew to be sacked?
>
> What 'unions' would that be?
>
>> Who is going to rewrite the code based on the new positions of the mics
>> and performers for each venue?
>
> Ah. So for the mic in the TV snoop to have any chance of working, you'd
> have to know the exact positions of those talking in the room?
>

No, it needs to be known where it is relative to the other mics being used.
With a TV they are fixed.

They are fixed in my laptop too.

You do understand that using arrays of mics is not new and is being used
now.

An array of mics can tell you where the people are in the room.

>
>> Your average technician won't be able to.
>
> I'd suggest you actually chat to those involved in the technical design
> side of a large West End production. But then you'd be left behind after
> the first few words.
>

I think you can leave anyone behind if you use jargon.
However that doesn't mean they can't understand what is being done and why.
It takes intelligence to avoid jargon when explaining things.

>> Give it a few years and things will change and you will be able to put a
>> few mikes in and capture the whole sound filed for post processing and a
>> bit after that it will be real time.
>
> With every word you confirm you just haven't a clue.
>

Your answers show that you don't have a clue.
The sound on some of the recent BBC programs indicates the technicians
don't have a clue either.

[dennis@home]

On 11/03/2017 11:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <oa0eo9$2a5$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:32:52 +0000, tim... wrote:
>
>>> "dennis@home" <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:58c2b66f$0$62498$b1db1813$ba2d...@news.astraweb.com...

>> Unless they have the capability to nobble your router first ?
>
> If they can do that, might as well just nobble your laptop too and use the
> mic on that. Far more likely to be of use than one in a TV.
>

What makes you think they don't?

There have been some attacks on the internet that do exactly that and
use the camera too. These are script kiddies not spies.

[dennis@home]

Hmm, every router I have owned has had the ability to be updated. Most
of the later ones over the internet or locally (how do they get ddwrt on
them if they can't be updated?).

There have been many attacks on routers and they are being actively used
in DDOS attacks.

Many routers have the default password and can be hacked by using a
script on a web page very easily.

Even if you have a good password you can be got by a drive by attack if
you have used a browser to login to your router and not terminated the
session as the router won't ask for the password.
Need I go on?

[John Rumm]

Assuming of course that they don't also have access to the signing
authorities certificates, thus allowing them to sign "authentic" code.



--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[John Rumm]

On 10/03/2017 18:37, harry wrote:

> On Friday, 10 March 2017 14:56:32 UTC, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>> In article <561aa67...@davenoise.co.uk>,
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
>>> So first, you'd need to download and install special software to the TV to
>>> get the LEDs to show what you want?
>>
>> The TV downloads updates regularly. You'd just have to fool it into

>> loading some hacked update instead of the genuine thing. That could
>> be done by poisening your DNS entries or intercepting the update
>> traffic. With good security, these things would be difficult (but
>> not impossible). However, such appliances are well known for appalling
>> security. Another way would be to exploit a buffer overrun or similar
>> in some the the media decoding software, and providing a hacked film
>> or whatever that causes execution of embedded code via this mechanism.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Gabriel
>> [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
>
> I switch off the mains on all my stuff.
> Should put a stop to it.

Until someone invents a battery or non volatile memory...

[John Rumm]

On 11/03/2017 11:57, tim... wrote:
>
>

IME that is far from true - I have seen very few that don't support some
kind of firmware upgrade capability. Whether it ever gets used is a
completely different matter though.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 11 March 2017 11:22:05 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <oa0krl$rbk$1...@dont-email.me>,
> RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
> > >> Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned
> > >> down. Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year.
> > >> Obviously, their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on loud
> > >> when discussing something naughty.
> > >
> > > I believe the exploit required physical access to the TV. So spooks
> > > would need to break in to set it up. (Which is nothing untoward. As
> > > Peter Wright said in Spycatcher: "we bugged and burgled our way
> > > through London").
> > >
>
> > Yes, indeed, has to be modified physically - IIUC it can't be done with
> > a software hack. Same with the webcam on my Mac computer. I hope :-;
>
> According to one bit in the meja, this Samsung TV already uploads speech
> from its mic to some central server to gather data for their speech
> recognition software.
>
> So that would be relatively easy to hack.
>
> But only if the TV was already on and connected to the internet.
>
> I'm rather more interested in the concept of being able to access this mic
> at all times even with the TV in standby. All being done via software,
> with no indication it is happening. Strikes me as more like a Hollywood
> script.

It's likely to have one powered rail even in standby.


NT

[dennis@home]

On 11/03/2017 13:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <oa0qjb$get$1...@dont-email.me>,
> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I'm rather more interested in the concept of being able to access this mic
>>> at all times even with the TV in standby. All being done via software,
>>> with no indication it is happening. Strikes me as more like a Hollywood
>>> script.
>
>> what part of the indications do you expect not to be turned off?
>
>> if the "mic on" led is controlled by software then that can be hacked to
>> pretend to be off, even when it is on.
>
> I've never seem a TV with a mic on LED.

I've never had a TV with a mic in it, it doesn't mean they don't exist.

>
>> Ditto the standby led (in reverse, of course)
>
> So they hack the power LED so the set is actually on and connected to the
> LAN while the power LED shows off? Do they have a method of blanking the
> screen etc totally too?

Of course they do, just turn off the back light.
Do you not understand that a smart TV is just a computer with a tuner
built in.
Anything you can do to a computer can be done to a smart TV.

>
>> but they are never going to be able to hide the fact that it remains
>> connected to your WLAN (as shown by interrogating the router menu
>> options) when a standby device would not do so. I suspect that they
>> rely on the fact that most people don't bother to check.
>
> If all this is so terribly easy, why haven't criminals managed to hack
> into everyone's online bank account?
>

If its so hard why did criminals hack into several thousand Tesco bank
accounts? That is criminals without the resources of the government to
do it.

[John Rumm]

On 10/03/2017 18:45, bm wrote:
> "Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
> news:eig8ri...@mid.individual.net...
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>
>>> Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> When my (Android) phone is on charge*, if you say "Google" in a normal
>>>> voice, the mic manages to pick it up and trigger "OK Google" - gave me a
>>>> hell of a start when it first did it.
>>>
>>> Now put it beside a TV with the sound at normal level, and try telling it
>>> to do that from the normal viewing seat.
>>
>> Mine usually works when the phone is in my pocket and I'm driving
>> "OK google, navigate to home".
>
> Shazam amazes me, with low level background music and a fair amount of
> hubbub it still usually works.

Yup it works fine in my car as well - although the screen does need to
be "on" for it to listen, since I usually have it running from its
battery rather than powered from the car.

[John Rumm]

On 11/03/2017 10:54, RJH wrote:
> On 10/03/2017 15:05, Jethro_uk wrote:

>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:59:23 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>
>>> Just been listening to a radio piece about those Samsung smart TVs the
>>> CIA etc have apparently hacked so they can listen to what's going on in
>>> the room. So wondered if any of the computer savvy types could explain a
>>> few things I've observed with my voice activated Samsung TV.
>>>

>>> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.

>>> 2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
>>> internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
>>> though)
>>> 3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and
>>> on. Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.
>>
>>>

>>> Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned
>>> down.
>>> Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year. Obviously,
>>> their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on loud when
>>> discussing something naughty.
>>
>> I believe the exploit required physical access to the TV. So spooks would
>> need to break in to set it up. (Which is nothing untoward. As Peter
>> Wright said in Spycatcher: "we bugged and burgled our way through
>> London").
>>
>
> Yes, indeed, has to be modified physically - IIUC it can't be done with
> a software hack. Same with the webcam on my Mac computer. I hope :-;

It will be a software hack - unlikely to need any hardware
modifications. You may need physical access, but even that is not certain.

[John Rumm]

On 11/03/2017 11:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <oa0krl$rbk$1...@dont-email.me>,
> RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:

>>>> Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned
>>>> down. Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year.
>>>> Obviously, their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on loud
>>>> when discussing something naughty.
>>>
>>> I believe the exploit required physical access to the TV. So spooks
>>> would need to break in to set it up. (Which is nothing untoward. As
>>> Peter Wright said in Spycatcher: "we bugged and burgled our way
>>> through London").
>>>
>
>> Yes, indeed, has to be modified physically - IIUC it can't be done with
>> a software hack. Same with the webcam on my Mac computer. I hope :-;
>

> According to one bit in the meja, this Samsung TV already uploads speech
> from its mic to some central server to gather data for their speech
> recognition software.
>
> So that would be relatively easy to hack.
>

> But only if the TV was already on and connected to the internet.

>
> I'm rather more interested in the concept of being able to access this mic
> at all times even with the TV in standby. All being done via software,
> with no indication it is happening. Strikes me as more like a Hollywood
> script.

Standby is just a software concept. Software controls which parts of the
hardware are powered. The CPU is running all the time the TV has mains
power - it needs to be to allow it to respond to the IR remote, do OTA
upgrades, and make timed video recordings to USB storage etc.

[John Rumm]

On 11/03/2017 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/03/17 12:31, tim... wrote:
>> never going to be able to hide the fact that it remains connected to
>> your WLAN (as shown by interrogating the router menu options) when a
>> standby device would not do so.
>
> Oh dear. Unless you do a ping broadcast you cant tell whether any
> machine connected to your LAN is 'still connected'

You can do it at the ARP level, never mind ping (ICMP). The switch
hardware in the router will see it at layer 1 as well.

[John Rumm]

On 11/03/2017 13:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article <oa0qjb$get$1...@dont-email.me>,
> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I'm rather more interested in the concept of being able to access this mic
>>> at all times even with the TV in standby. All being done via software,
>>> with no indication it is happening. Strikes me as more like a Hollywood
>>> script.
>
>> what part of the indications do you expect not to be turned off?
>
>> if the "mic on" led is controlled by software then that can be hacked to
>> pretend to be off, even when it is on.
>
> I've never seem a TV with a mic on LED.
>
>> Ditto the standby led (in reverse, of course)
>
> So they hack the power LED so the set is actually on and connected to the
> LAN while the power LED shows off? Do they have a method of blanking the
> screen etc totally too?

Of course. The power LED on my TV changes colour etc depending on what
the TV is doing - its certainly not hard wired to the PSU or anything
like that.

The power / system management controllers in modern devices have full
control of the voltage rail activation in modern electronic designs - so
they can selectively power what is needed for the current function. Its
all a result of the push to be "more green" and have ever lower standby
power while not losing capabilities and functionality.

>> but they are never going to be able to hide the fact that it remains
>> connected to your WLAN (as shown by interrogating the router menu
>> options) when a standby device would not do so. I suspect that they
>> rely on the fact that most people don't bother to check.
>
> If all this is so terribly easy, why haven't criminals managed to hack
> into everyone's online bank account?

That's a straw man argument. Unrelated circumstances and situations in
the first instance. Secondly, criminals have and frequently *do* hack
online accounts - so it tell you nothing. Lastly you need to appreciate
that the whole "Internet of Things" cosystem is currently a total
security cluster fuck, that will take years to even partially fix. Much
of the stuff out there was never designed to be secure, and the
manufacturers frequently have little (if any) interest in updating it or
improving / keeping any security it has.

That is a different situation from things like online banking that were
(mostly) designed with security in mind from the ground up.

[John Rumm]

On 11/03/2017 11:58, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message

> news:oa0es5$2a5$1...@dont-email.me...

>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 09:00:58 +0000, tim... wrote:
>>
>>> But in any case, these are smart TV's they don't have a store of
>>> recorded stuff
>>

>> My LG can store stuff picked up via it's tuner on an USB device (memory
>> stick or HDD) if connected.
>
> that's an external device, there is no guarantee that you will find one
>
> either when you want to record the stuff nor that it is still there when
> you want to upload it

There will typically be many megabytes of spare flash available in the
TV anyway...

Recognisable audio does not require much bandwidth to shift either. Very
few people would notice one device on their home lan streaming a 8kbps
audio feed even if done continuously.

[John Rumm]

On 11/03/2017 00:30, newshound wrote:

> On 3/10/2017 12:59 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> Just been listening to a radio piece about those Samsung smart TVs the
>> CIA
>> etc have apparently hacked so they can listen to what's going on in the
>> room. So wondered if any of the computer savvy types could explain a few
>> things I've observed with my voice activated Samsung TV.
>>
>> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.
>> 2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
>> internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
>> though)
>> 3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and on.
>> Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.

>> 4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
>> differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own speakers
>> just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech from the other
>> side of the room?
>>

>> Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned
>> down.
>> Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year. Obviously,
>> their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on loud when
>> discussing
>> something naughty.
>>

> TV manufacturers are not going to fit nice big batteries or
> supercondensers inside. For a wifi-connected TV, it's going to be inert
> not long after being switched off at the wall, even if its firmware has
> been hacked.
>

> Of course if you are tracking someone seriously, you might take notice
> if their phone or TV gets switched off.

Indeed, spooks are well aware that meta data can be hugely useful. A
select group of people all turning off their phones at a certain time
can tell them nearly as much as a phone that has been left on and
commanded to remotely enable its mic and relay what it can hear.

[John Rumm]

On 11/03/2017 13:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <oa0otu$87c$1...@dont-email.me>,
> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> TV manufacturers are not going to fit nice big batteries or
>>> supercondensers inside. For a wifi-connected TV, it's going to be
>>> inert not long after being switched off at the wall, even if its
>>> firmware has been hacked.
>
>> the hack works because people *don't" turn their TVs off at the wall but
>> put them into standby
>
> So the hackers secretly get past your firewall, turn on the TV, and
> install their new software. All without leaving any trace. Provided you
> have a Samsung TV of a particular type, of course.

I spent an hour last week uninstalling hundreds of items of unwanted
software from someone's computer. None of them were intentionally
installed by the user, and yet they all got there past the firewalls,
antivirus software etc.

> Spies Weekly will now have lots of used Samsung sets in the classified ads
> at very low prices.

You may find the makers of power control extension leads do well out of
it ;-)

[Graham.]

I don't know if modern ones fare any better, but Sky boxes used to
consume about 90% on standby compared to full on.


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Graham.]

The one for the RC IR receiver for a start.
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Graham.]

That's presupposing the manufactures aren't complicit in some way.

When the Edward Snowden allegations about what can be done with
smartphones came out, it seemed to me that back-doors designed in from
day one were being exploited.

Apple's famous refusal to unlock an iPad could have been public
posturing.


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Graham.]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 13:27:05 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <-qednZF0IbMubl7F...@brightview.co.uk>,
> newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
>> Of course. My point is that the hack seems to be trivially easy to block
>> by switching off the TV. But that could be the give-away that you are
>> having your mates around to discuss the next blag, drug deal, or
>> whatever.
>
>Ah - right. So if any Samsung TV so equipped to snoop with is turned off
>for any reason you get a search warrant and send the heavies in. ;-)

As he enters the flat, Winston hears a voice reading a list of figures
about the production of pig iron. It is coming from a telescreen,
which is embedded in the wall and can't be shut off, though the sound
can be turned down...


HTH


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[RJH]

Not sure why you'd need physical access to do anything other than a
hardware hack?

Anyway, hopefully the wikileak will give details in time. I got the
impression that hardware mods were needed from the recent media reports,
and something I was told about the webcam on my iMac. In essence it's
impossible to disable the 'on' light without snipping a wire (or
somesuch). I'd like to think these smart TVs have a similar activity
indicator. Like to think . . .

> That's presupposing the manufactures aren't complicit in some way.
>
> When the Edward Snowden allegations about what can be done with
> smartphones came out, it seemed to me that back-doors designed in from
> day one were being exploited.
>

Indeed - and Stuxnet. It's quite terrifying what governments can and
will do.

> Apple's famous refusal to unlock an iPad could have been public
> posturing.
>

Any publicity etc - bet they love it.



--
Cheers, Rob

[tim...]

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:hMidndOG8chhtVnF...@brightview.co.uk...

> On 11/03/2017 12:10, tim... wrote:
>>

>>> Surely it's very easy with an OTA update?
>>
>> Not if the TV authenticates the download to check that it has come from
>> an authorised source (obviously the marker for the sender has to be
>> hidden in an encrypted download)
>>
>> I doubt that there are any TVs that do this, but it's not an untested
>> technique. It is one that is mandatory for OTA downloads to equipment
>> that performs safety critical functions.
>
> Assuming of course that they don't also have access to the signing
> authorities certificates, thus allowing them to sign "authentic" code.

well that would be a step too far, in my view

tim

[tim...]

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message

news:hMidndKG8cjbtFnF...@brightview.co.uk...

> On 10/03/2017 18:37, harry wrote:
>> On Friday, 10 March 2017 14:56:32 UTC, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>>> In article <561aa67...@davenoise.co.uk>,
>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
>>>> So first, you'd need to download and install special software to the TV
>>>> to
>>>> get the LEDs to show what you want?
>>>
>>> The TV downloads updates regularly. You'd just have to fool it into
>>> loading some hacked update instead of the genuine thing. That could
>>> be done by poisening your DNS entries or intercepting the update
>>> traffic. With good security, these things would be difficult (but
>>> not impossible). However, such appliances are well known for appalling
>>> security. Another way would be to exploit a buffer overrun or similar
>>> in some the the media decoding software, and providing a hacked film
>>> or whatever that causes execution of embedded code via this mechanism.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew Gabriel
>>> [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
>>
>> I switch off the mains on all my stuff.
>> Should put a stop to it.
>
> Until someone invents a battery or non volatile memory...

we have that, it's called standby

why would someone need to invent a system which kept your TV "on" when it
was unplugged

tim

[Max Demian]

On 11/03/2017 16:54, John Rumm wrote:
> On 11/03/2017 11:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>> I'm rather more interested in the concept of being able to access this
>> mic
>> at all times even with the TV in standby. All being done via software,
>> with no indication it is happening. Strikes me as more like a Hollywood
>> script.
>
> Standby is just a software concept. Software controls which parts of the
> hardware are powered. The CPU is running all the time the TV has mains
> power - it needs to be to allow it to respond to the IR remote, do OTA
> upgrades, and make timed video recordings to USB storage etc.

The main processor and memory don't need to be powered up for the remote
receiver to work, and a real time clock can wake the device up 15
minutes before the scheduled programme. OTA upgrades can be checked at
3am or so before going back to sleep, or only when the device is turned
on by the user.

EU regulations require that standby consume not more than 1W of mains,
at least in the most economical 'green' mode.

--
Max Demian

[tim...]

"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:oa0r8k$dt2$5...@news.albasani.net...

> On 11/03/17 12:31, tim... wrote:

>> never going to be able to hide the fact that it remains connected to
>> your WLAN (as shown by interrogating the router menu options) when a
>> standby device would not do so.
>

> Oh dear. Unless you do a ping broadcast you cant tell whether any machine
> connected to your LAN is 'still connected'

the whole purpose of this "keeping your TV on when it's off" is to collect
data which is then sent "home"

please tell me how it's going to send the data if it isn't using you LAN to
do that?


>
> TCP/IP does not require any keepalives.

but real data will be being sent

tim

[tim...]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:561b26c...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <oa0qjb$get$1...@dont-email.me>,

> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > I'm rather more interested in the concept of being able to access this
>> > mic
>> > at all times even with the TV in standby. All being done via software,
>> > with no indication it is happening. Strikes me as more like a Hollywood
>> > script.
>

>> what part of the indications do you expect not to be turned off?
>
>> if the "mic on" led is controlled by software then that can be hacked to
>> pretend to be off, even when it is on.
>
> I've never seem a TV with a mic on LED.

I've never seen a TV with a mic :-)

why would it want one?

>> Ditto the standby led (in reverse, of course)
>
> So they hack the power LED so the set is actually on and connected to the
> LAN while the power LED shows off? Do they have a method of blanking the
> screen etc totally too?

It's already going to be "off"

the dodgy code is embedded into the standby state

>> but they are never going to be able to hide the fact that it remains

>> connected to your WLAN (as shown by interrogating the router menu

>> options) when a standby device would not do so. I suspect that they
>> rely on the fact that most people don't bother to check.
>
> If all this is so terribly easy, why haven't criminals managed to hack
> into everyone's online bank account?

I didn't say it was easy. I'm saying that if you can do it, taking extra
steps to lessen the chances of being detected is easy

tim

[tim...]

"newshound" <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote in message
news:-qednZF0IbMubl7F...@brightview.co.uk...
> On 3/11/2017 12:03 PM, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "newshound" <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote in message
>> news:aOOdnb3Y-P2I2F7F...@brightview.co.uk...

>>> On 3/10/2017 12:59 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>> Just been listening to a radio piece about those Samsung smart TVs
>>>> the CIA
>>>> etc have apparently hacked so they can listen to what's going on in the
>>>> room. So wondered if any of the computer savvy types could explain a
>>>> few
>>>> things I've observed with my voice activated Samsung TV.
>>>>
>>>> 1) If it is in standby, it no longer appears on my LAN.
>>>> 2) I'm not aware of a method of bringing it out of standby over the
>>>> internet. (it can be set to look for software updates etc overnight,
>>>> though)
>>>> 3) The LED on the front of the set changes colour between standby and
>>>> on.
>>>> Think most would notice if it was on when meant to be off.

>>>> 4) Can the really very cheap microphone fitted to such things
>>>> differentiate between the speech or music etc from the TV's own
>>>> speakers
>>>> just a few inches from it and pick up intelligible speech from the
>>>> other
>>>> side of the room?
>>>>

>>>> Perhaps spies always have their TV switched on with the sound turned
>>>> down.
>>>> Despite things like bugs having been around for many a year. Obviously,
>>>> their spy degree didn't include having a radio etc on loud when
>>>> discussing
>>>> something naughty.
>>>>

>>> TV manufacturers are not going to fit nice big batteries or
>>> supercondensers inside. For a wifi-connected TV, it's going to be
>>> inert not long after being switched off at the wall, even if its
>>> firmware has been hacked.
>>
>> the hack works because people *don't" turn their TVs off at the wall but
>> put them into standby
>>

>> tim

>>
>>
>>
> Of course. My point is that the hack seems to be trivially easy to block
> by switching off the TV. But that could be the give-away that you are
> having your mates around to discuss the next blag, drug deal, or whatever.

no it wouldn't

it would indicate that you are numpty who thinks that leaving things on
standby is "unsafe" (FSVO)

In any case you could achieve the same result by turning your router wifi
capability off - some people still do this to stop their neighbours hacking
into it (no, I don't want a discussion on whether that is necessary)

> It does nicely illustrate that, for all that we liberals admire Snowden,
> Manning, and the like, there is an element of validity in the argument of
> the authorities that their techniques are compromised.
>
> Of course the IOT really is the thing to hack, because it needs to be on
> all the time.

there is no single IOT

tim

[tim...]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

news:561b264...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <oa0otu$87c$1...@dont-email.me>,
> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > TV manufacturers are not going to fit nice big batteries or
>> > supercondensers inside. For a wifi-connected TV, it's going to be
>> > inert not long after being switched off at the wall, even if its
>> > firmware has been hacked.
>
>> the hack works because people *don't" turn their TVs off at the wall but
>> put them into standby
>

> So the hackers secretly get past your firewall, turn on the TV, and
> install their new software. All without leaving any trace. Provided you
> have a Samsung TV of a particular type, of course.

a TV with a firewall!!!!!

the software will be loaded onto the TV using its own OTA update capability.
As I have already pointed out, it is possible to make such a process secure
from hacking, but, for a TV, unlikely (perhaps they will start to implement
this on future models - who knows).

Of course, if targeting a know individual, there is always the spooks tried
and trusted method of installing bugs by breaking in and downloading the
dodgy software onto your TV using its USB update feature

tim

[tim...]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

news:561b274...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <58c3f2d9$0$27157$b1db1813$d2f0...@news.astraweb.com>,
> dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> > Really? Then I suggest you set up a company to do this. Being able to
>> > mic up a stage for, say, a musical without using personal mics would
>> > make you a fortune overnight.
>
>> Do you think the unions would allow half the crew to be sacked?
>
> What 'unions' would that be?

https://www.bectu.org.uk/

that you think they might be ineffectual, doesn't mean that they don't exist

tiom

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 12/03/17 09:58, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:oa0r8k$dt2$5...@news.albasani.net...
>> On 11/03/17 12:31, tim... wrote:
>>> never going to be able to hide the fact that it remains connected to
>>> your WLAN (as shown by interrogating the router menu options) when a
>>> standby device would not do so.
>>
>> Oh dear. Unless you do a ping broadcast you cant tell whether any
>> machine connected to your LAN is 'still connected'
>
> the whole purpose of this "keeping your TV on when it's off" is to
> collect data which is then sent "home"
>
> please tell me how it's going to send the data if it isn't using you LAN
> to do that?
>

That isn't what I said.

Your brain cant it seems appear to cope with the fact that siometh8ng
that keeps quiet for 10 hours, cant be detected even though it might be
still there.

>
>>
>> TCP/IP does not require any keepalives.
>
> but real data will be being sent
>

So? tell me how to detect that, and identify its source, on a bog
standard router.

> tim
>
>
>


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 12/03/17 10:13, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:561b264...@davenoise.co.uk...
>> In article <oa0otu$87c$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > TV manufacturers are not going to fit nice big batteries or
>>> > supercondensers inside. For a wifi-connected TV, it's going to be
>>> > inert not long after being switched off at the wall, even if its
>>> > firmware has been hacked.
>>
>>> the hack works because people *don't" turn their TVs off at the wall but
>>> put them into standby
>>
>> So the hackers secretly get past your firewall, turn on the TV, and
>> install their new software. All without leaving any trace. Provided you
>> have a Samsung TV of a particular type, of course.
>
> a TV with a firewall!!!!!

Oh dear. More massive ignorance on display.

Your domestic router is a firewall.

>
> the software will be loaded onto the TV using its own OTA update
> capability. As I have already pointed out, it is possible to make such a
> process secure from hacking, but, for a TV, unlikely (perhaps they will
> start to implement this on future models - who knows).
>

It is in fact trivially easy.

Most sets are linux based and this sort of distro signing is so9mething
linux has alreday.

> Of course, if targeting a know individual, there is always the spooks
> tried and trusted method of installing bugs by breaking in and
> downloading the dodgy software onto your TV using its USB update feature
>

I don't think (smart) TVs actually can be updated via USB. Mine I think
needs the internet. Or it is dispatched over Freeview

[The Natural Philosopher]

Master of the bait and switch eh?

He didn't say they didn't exist. He said they were ineffectual.
> tiom
>
>
>


--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

[Capitol]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <oa0otu$87c$1...@dont-email.me>,
> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> TV manufacturers are not going to fit nice big batteries or
>>> supercondensers inside. For a wifi-connected TV, it's going to be
>>> inert not long after being switched off at the wall, even if its
>>> firmware has been hacked.
>
>> the hack works because people *don't" turn their TVs off at the wall but
>> put them into standby
>
> So the hackers secretly get past your firewall, turn on the TV, and
> install their new software. All without leaving any trace. Provided you
> have a Samsung TV of a particular type, of course.
>

> Spies Weekly will now have lots of used Samsung sets in the classified ads
> at very low prices.
>

And, not only that, they can identify a few bits of data out of an
infinite number of inputs! No wonder the intelligence derived is so
complete.

[dennis@home]

On 12/03/2017 09:58, tim... wrote:
>


> please tell me how it's going to send the data if it isn't using you LAN
> to do that?

If its wifi it never even needs to go to your router, it can use any
wifi device that is within range and that can be one the CIA has put
there so you wouldn't know.

If they are going to the trouble of hacking your TV they will probably
hack the router and other stuff too.

AFAIK they haven't hacked the legal intercept bit of the BT network, but
would they have to as they are the government?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <58c42649$0$27057$b1db1813$d2f0...@news.astraweb.com>,
dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> Who is going to rewrite the code based on the new positions of the
> >> mics and performers for each venue?
> >
> > Ah. So for the mic in the TV snoop to have any chance of working,
> > you'd have to know the exact positions of those talking in the room?
> >


> No, it needs to be known where it is relative to the other mics being
> used. With a TV they are fixed.

Then you could fix them on the stage too.

> They are fixed in my laptop too.

Tell me something, dennis. Do you really think the vocal quality you get
from a laptop mic would be good enough for a West End production?

> You do understand that using arrays of mics is not new and is being used
> now.

But you made it sound like you'd just invented it and pros had no
conception of it.

> An array of mics can tell you where the people are in the room.

A simple stereo pair will do that.

--
*My designated driver drove me to drink

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <74d3cd17-5692-4eb9...@googlegroups.com>,

<tabb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm rather more interested in the concept of being able to access this
> > mic at all times even with the TV in standby. All being done via
> > software, with no indication it is happening. Strikes me as more like
> > a Hollywood script.

> It's likely to have one powered rail even in standby.

Of course. How else would the remote control work?

--
*Do paediatricians play miniature golf on Wednesdays?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <58c42649$0$27057$b1db1813$d2f0...@news.astraweb.com>,
dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> > With every word you confirm you just haven't a clue.
> >

> Your answers show that you don't have a clue.
> The sound on some of the recent BBC programs indicates the technicians
> don't have a clue either.

There you go, then, dennis. Yet another opportunity for you to show them
how it should be done.

--
*When blondes have more fun, do they know it?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <58c42aab$0$44608$b1db1813$b96d...@news.astraweb.com>,

dennis@home <den...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > I've never seem a TV with a mic on LED.

> I've never had a TV with a mic in it, it doesn't mean they don't exist.

But you claim to be an expert on just what they can and can't do?

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

[dennis@home]

I don't think spies care what the EU regs say.