In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I don't claim anything, dennis. Just correct your illusions.

So why do you keep making stuff up about how its impossible to do stuff
so I have to show that it is?

But you don't - that's the point.

All you've said is such and such is practicable, but is banned by the
unions. ;-)

--
*Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 13/03/2017 19:38, tim... wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/03/2017 09:20, tim... wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 12/03/2017 09:54, tim... wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.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

How confident are you that "they" share your view?

(There are plenty of "dodgy" certification authorities out there
already).

if it's encrypted you need to know the secret (aka private) key

performing the certification is easy for you to do yourself if you know
that

impossible for anyone if you don't

Thank you for the lesson in public key cryptography. Not sure it helps
in this particular case.

well no, because it doesn't work like that now

but the discussion is about how it could work if they wanted it to be
secure

I would expect that if you are a government sponsored spook, you will
have access to a tame legit certification authority that is
established in the root certificate hierarchy of trust. Hence you can
sign anything you like as genuine. In addition to that there are a
number of certification authorities that are none to fussy about what
they sign.

but if it's encrypted and you don't know the key, it won't match when
the recipient decrypts it

and the recipient isn't a web browser that can choose to ignore a sig
that doesn't match

It's a specifically written embedded program that chooses to throw away
*everything* that doesn't match (otherwise it's useless as a secure
product)

You seem to be suggesting a system where a unique public key pair is
used to allow the device to verify the authenticity of code updates
without replying on signed binaries and the more commonly used systems
for establishing trust in these circumstances.

The difficulty with those types of systems is that they fall about in a
heap the moment the private key is compromised. As nicely demonstrated
by the CSS system applied to DVDs.

The old adage about every engineer can conceive of a crypto system that
they could not themselves break, it perhaps worth keeping in mind.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 13/03/2017 15:50, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 15:10:37 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just send round and "engineer" with a tool box and "ID" with a
story
that the TV is subject to a "recall" and free safety check.
They'll
know what make/model TV it is, when/where it was bought and the
names
of the people at the property.

If you've identified a possible terrorist and are going to send a man
round to install special software on his TV...

Something wrong with that sentance. Can't see why not, might yield
other interesting information from things seen lying around.

Also, reading more deeply on the subject, this does indeed appear to be
the use case that the CIA/NSA devised for this particular hack.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 13/03/2017 12:35, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 19:28:45 +0000, Graham. wrote:

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.

Several problems.

The hardware would wipe the memory if more than "n" unsuccesful
attempts were made to access/crack the phone.

Apple had/have the abilty to do it and, quite correctly IMHO, were
not prepared to share that abilty with the CIA/FBI.

Apple were happy to take the phone, extract the data and return both
to the CIA/FBI.

As I see it the CIA/FBI wanted more than just the data on the phone,
they really wanted the abilty to crack apples.

i.e. they wanted their own back door introduced into the system.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Friday, 10 March 2017 13:00:52 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) 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.

You need to put your TV in the bathroom and put the shower on or have water flowing, easy when you know how to foil these spies ;-)

Friends have samsung and have never activate the speech thing I wonder if that measn it's NOT or can't listen.

Maybe they have male and female modes.

Male listen only female talk only :-)

On 3/14/2017 11:41 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

However, plenty of TVs do allow you to software configure which of their
indicator LEDs are on or off so the only secure way with a smart TV or a
laptop with a camera is a lens cap or clip over the lens!

enable x-ray vision

:-)

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
So just what can be switched off on a laptop that wouldn't be needed
under normal use? Generally when making things by the million you
don't put in facilities that will never be needed.


Lets see on mine..
The disk drive
individual usb ports
the keyboard back light
the ethernet chip
the wifi chip
the screen back light
half of the CPU
and probably other stuff

All of which to help with battery life.

Domestic TVs normally run off the mains only. And most don't leave them
powered up when not using them - unlike a computer.

--
*Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/03/2017 10:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 13/03/2017 15:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
2) Totally blank the screen (and audio) so there is no indication it is on.

The screen and audio would not need to be on in the first place. Its
not on in standby is it?

How many separately switched power rails do you think are in the
average TV - all controlled via the software?

Judging by what is in a typical laptop - a few dozen.

So just what can be switched off on a laptop that wouldn't be needed under
normal use?

Laptops (like most PCs) have a number of discrete power states:

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/lib...(v=vs.85).aspx

However the control is *far* more fine grained than that. The power
management controller will typically control a multitude of individual
rails - combinations of which will need to be switched for any given
power state (laptops are much more complex than desktops in this respect
since they also have to allow multiple power sources as well as deal
with charging). Quite often there is a logic chain that will detect and
prove one bit of circuitry before powering the next. That allows for
more comprehensive fault reporting.

Generally when making things by the million you don't put in
facilities that will never be needed.

True, but you can get off the shelf power management controllers that do
much of the grunt work for you. It may cost you a bit more at board
layout time, but not a large change to the BoM once into production.

Why would you provide the ability to
turn off picture and sound etc but power up the rest if this was never
needed in practice?

Its already used in practice... as I mentioned before timed recording,
OTT updates etc.

Have you actually known any set do a software update without switching on?

Yup. Mine certainly does timed recordings without turning the screen or
audio on.

But surely for this system to be of much use, it's going to have to work
with any TV with a built in mic?

Custom software would need to be written at least for each individual
platform, and possibly even tuned for individual sets.

The 2014 hack that was described in the leak, was for a particular range
or possibly even model of set from 2013.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/03/2017 19:38, tim... wrote:




It's a specifically written embedded program that chooses to throw away
*everything* that doesn't match (otherwise it's useless as a secure
product)

You seem to be suggesting a system where a unique public key pair is used
to allow the device to verify the authenticity of code updates without
replying on signed binaries and the more commonly used systems for
establishing trust in these circumstances.

I am not sure what you are referring to as signed binaries

my understanding of signed binaries is to make sure that what you have
received is what was sent, so that you don't try and load accidentally
faulty code

the "encryption" used to make sure that the download is authentic, lies
above that

The difficulty with those types of systems is that they fall about in a
heap the moment the private key is compromised.

I understand that this is the weak link

but I also *know* that it is the technique used to control downloads of
software in some safety critical applications - applications where the
acceptance of hacked code could kill someone (if that were the intention of
the hacker)

I have no idea how the holder of that key makes sure it remains secure, I
was only working on the public end.

As nicely demonstrated by the CSS system applied to DVDs.

The old adage about every engineer can conceive of a crypto system that
they could not themselves break, it perhaps worth keeping in mind.

tis difficult to come up with any scheme that cannot be broken by a rogue
employee revealing the secret formula

tim

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:06:40 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Spacing the capsules further apart would reduce the required
timing
resolution. Four mics at each corner of a 42" screen would give
ToA
differences up to a few milli seconds, far more manageable.

If you're talking echo cancellation at highish fequencies, the accuracy
needed for that is rather high too. ;-)

Echo cancellation, as in mics and speakers in the same box, only
needs event sync. Simple enough to match the wave forms between
incoming stream and that coming back from the mic(s) to maximise
cancelation. There is no need to make an absolute measurement that a
ToA range finding system would require.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 14/03/2017 16:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
So just what can be switched off on a laptop that wouldn't be needed
under normal use? Generally when making things by the million you
don't put in facilities that will never be needed.


Lets see on mine..
The disk drive
individual usb ports
the keyboard back light
the ethernet chip
the wifi chip
the screen back light
half of the CPU
and probably other stuff

All of which to help with battery life.

Yes and you asked for what reason?


Domestic TVs normally run off the mains only. And most don't leave them
powered up when not using them - unlike a computer.


Why are you still going on about what's powered up on a TV?

On 14/03/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I don't claim anything, dennis. Just correct your illusions.

So why do you keep making stuff up about how its impossible to do stuff
so I have to show that it is?

But you don't - that's the point.

You have said array mics work,
I have posted links to where you can buy laser mics
others have said how you can hack TVs
what exactly are you claiming I have said that's impossible now?


All you've said is such and such is practicable, but is banned by the
unions. ;-)


You're the only one to mention bans by unions.

On 14/03/17 13:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I've had a brilliant idea. Why not just have your snoop mic array inside
the TV remote? That is far more likely to be close to where people are
talking in the room. ;-)

Been done....

http://amzn.eu/c58O5m0

:-)

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 14/03/2017 16:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
So just what can be switched off on a laptop that wouldn't be needed
under normal use? Generally when making things by the million you
don't put in facilities that will never be needed.


Lets see on mine..
The disk drive
individual usb ports
the keyboard back light
the ethernet chip
the wifi chip
the screen back light
half of the CPU
and probably other stuff

All of which to help with battery life.

Yes and you asked for what reason?

Are you really that incapable of following a discussion?


Domestic TVs normally run off the mains only. And most don't leave them
powered up when not using them - unlike a computer.


Why are you still going on about what's powered up on a TV?

Why are you on about anything?

--
*If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 14/03/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I don't claim anything, dennis. Just correct your illusions.

So why do you keep making stuff up about how its impossible to do stuff
so I have to show that it is?

But you don't - that's the point.

You have said array mics work,
I have posted links to where you can buy laser mics
others have said how you can hack TVs
what exactly are you claiming I have said that's impossible now?


All you've said is such and such is practicable, but is banned by the
unions. ;-)


You're the only one to mention bans by unions.

Sigh. Thanks for confirming you can't even remember what you posted.
Here's a reminder:-

From: dennis@home
Subject: Snooping TV.
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:50
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y

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?

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/03/2017 17:16, tim... wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/03/2017 19:38, tim... wrote:




It's a specifically written embedded program that chooses to throw away
*everything* that doesn't match (otherwise it's useless as a secure
product)

You seem to be suggesting a system where a unique public key pair is
used to allow the device to verify the authenticity of code updates
without replying on signed binaries and the more commonly used systems
for establishing trust in these circumstances.

I am not sure what you are referring to as signed binaries

my understanding of signed binaries is to make sure that what you have
received is what was sent, so that you don't try and load accidentally
faulty code

No, that would just be a checksum, or possibly a cryptographic hash like
a MD5 checksum.

the "encryption" used to make sure that the download is authentic, lies
above that

This is normally done with digital certification and a secured
communications channel. The initial part of the secure session
establishment will typically use public key cryptography (even if a
higher performance symmetric algorithm is used once a secure key
exchange can be done). The key pairs will be created on the fly. The
digital signature is issued by a certification authority to guarantee
that a public key paid is actually owned by who it claims to be owned by.

So using this approach you get a good combination of protections without
needing any hard coded keys that could be compromised, and you also get
to verify you are actually talking to the right endpoint, and eliminate
the potential for impersonation or "man in the middle" attacks.

(Its the way web based https or other SSL channels connections are
established example).

Plenty more on it he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_authority
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_key_infrastructure

The difficulty with those types of systems is that they fall about in
a heap the moment the private key is compromised.

I understand that this is the weak link

but I also *know* that it is the technique used to control downloads of
software in some safety critical applications - applications where the
acceptance of hacked code could kill someone (if that were the intention
of the hacker)

I have no idea how the holder of that key makes sure it remains secure,
I was only working on the public end.

That's why modern systems will often use one time key pairs to initiate
the channel. Once the connection is done with, the old keys are of no
further value.

As nicely demonstrated by the CSS system applied to DVDs.

The old adage about every engineer can conceive of a crypto system
that they could not themselves break, it perhaps worth keeping in mind.

tis difficult to come up with any scheme that cannot be broken by a
rogue employee revealing the secret formula

The whole point of decent encryption is that there should be no secret
stuff. The whole algorithm should be open and freely available. Any form
of "security by obscurity" always fails.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

They use an adaptive finite impulse response filter where all the
filter coefficients can be varied.
Once adaptation has completed the filter has an impulse
response which is the complement of the impulse response of the
speaker + room + microphone. If something changes, like a person
moving around, there will be a slight echo that gradually
disappears as re-adaptation takes place.
The filter needs enough taps to delay the audio by a time corresponding
to the reverberation time of the room in order to get "complete"
cancellation.
John

On 15/03/2017 00:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 14/03/2017 16:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
So just what can be switched off on a laptop that wouldn't be needed
under normal use? Generally when making things by the million you
don't put in facilities that will never be needed.


Lets see on mine..
The disk drive
individual usb ports
the keyboard back light
the ethernet chip
the wifi chip
the screen back light
half of the CPU
and probably other stuff

All of which to help with battery life.

Yes and you asked for what reason?

Are you really that incapable of following a discussion?


Domestic TVs normally run off the mains only. And most don't leave them
powered up when not using them - unlike a computer.


Why are you still going on about what's powered up on a TV?

Why are you on about anything?


You are wiskey-dave AICMFP.

On 15/03/2017 00:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 14/03/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I don't claim anything, dennis. Just correct your illusions.

So why do you keep making stuff up about how its impossible to do stuff
so I have to show that it is?

But you don't - that's the point.

You have said array mics work,
I have posted links to where you can buy laser mics
others have said how you can hack TVs
what exactly are you claiming I have said that's impossible now?


All you've said is such and such is practicable, but is banned by the
unions. ;-)


You're the only one to mention bans by unions.

Sigh. Thanks for confirming you can't even remember what you posted.
Here's a reminder:-

From: dennis@home
Subject: Snooping TV.
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:50
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y

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?


Well do you?

Anyway I am going to ignore the rest of your none contributions.
I no longer think you have a clue and think you are trolling.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 15/03/2017 00:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 14/03/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I don't claim anything, dennis. Just correct your illusions.

So why do you keep making stuff up about how its impossible to do stuff
so I have to show that it is?

But you don't - that's the point.

You have said array mics work,
I have posted links to where you can buy laser mics
others have said how you can hack TVs
what exactly are you claiming I have said that's impossible now?


All you've said is such and such is practicable, but is banned by the
unions. ;-)


You're the only one to mention bans by unions.

Sigh. Thanks for confirming you can't even remember what you posted.
Here's a reminder:-

From: dennis@home
Subject: Snooping TV.
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:50
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y

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?


Well do you?

No. The entertainment craft unions normally grab new technology and sort
out a deal afterwards.

Anyway I am going to ignore the rest of your none contributions.
I no longer think you have a clue and think you are trolling.

You've been learning from Trump. Deny what you've been shown to have said,
then try and cover it up by changing the subject.

And rather typical - full of 'it would be so easy to do' type of thing
without ever having attempted it. So sad on what is meant to be a DIY
group.

--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 13/03/2017 19:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article l.net,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
You think the sort of mic array they use at a sporting event would be
suitable for micing up a stage - where sound reinforcement is in use?

That array of mics mounted along with the speakers - as you'd have to do
with this snoop TV?

As has been mentioned several times a simple bit of "echo
cancelation" takes care of that.

TWYM is 'helps take care of that.'


The set already has the speaker
sounds as a stream, might need a bit a EQ adjustment to better match
that actually picked up by the mic(s). All relatively trivial for a
set capable of the DSP required for handling HD video in real time.

All very trivial. Until you try and do it with software and no access to
the TV or room.

I would have thought that for a TV with a built in mic, excising the TVs
own audio output would be a standard part of the software - its going to
need it for every occasion the mic is used.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
All very trivial. Until you try and do it with software and no access to
the TV or room.

I would have thought that for a TV with a built in mic, excising the TVs
own audio output would be a standard part of the software - its going to
need it for every occasion the mic is used.

It does sound oh so easy in theory. You simply remove the signal to the
speakers from the mic output. And I'm sure can be made to work quite well
in an anechoic room. And to be able to recognise clearly spoken commands.

But what it is being asked to do is somewhat different. To snoop on a
conversation being held in the room.

I'd love to actually hear the results of this. And some proof of where it
has actually been used with success.

--
*Why is it called tourist season if we can't shoot at them?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/03/2017 10:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 15/03/2017 00:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 14/03/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I don't claim anything, dennis. Just correct your illusions.

So why do you keep making stuff up about how its impossible to do stuff
so I have to show that it is?

But you don't - that's the point.

You have said array mics work,
I have posted links to where you can buy laser mics
others have said how you can hack TVs
what exactly are you claiming I have said that's impossible now?


All you've said is such and such is practicable, but is banned by the
unions. ;-)


You're the only one to mention bans by unions.

Sigh. Thanks for confirming you can't even remember what you posted.
Here's a reminder:-

From: dennis@home
Subject: Snooping TV.
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:50
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y

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?


Well do you?

No. The entertainment craft unions normally grab new technology and sort
out a deal afterwards.

And if they are like you and can't work out how to use the technology?


Anyway I am going to ignore the rest of your none contributions.
I no longer think you have a clue and think you are trolling.

You've been learning from Trump. Deny what you've been shown to have said,
then try and cover it up by changing the subject.

Its you that has made lots of claims that its impossible and then just
tried to divert the thread when someone posts saying it has been done.
Not once have you said "sorry I was wrong you can do that".


And rather typical - full of 'it would be so easy to do' type of thing
without ever having attempted it. So sad on what is meant to be a DIY
group.


Quite the opposite of what I actually said!
I said the technicians wouldn't be able to do it but if you want to read
that as easy then that's your problem.

However I didn't claim it was impossible for someone clever to do it
only that the unions wouldn't be very happy with sacking their members
and letting someone else do the job.

Its all very well the members embracing technology but they don't do it
when they don't understand it as you have demonstrated. They certainly
don't want people that do know how to do it taking their jobs.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
No. The entertainment craft unions normally grab new technology and sort
out a deal afterwards.

And if they are like you and can't work out how to use the technology?

Have you *ever* worked in anything which could even remotely be called
industry?

--
*I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/03/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
No. The entertainment craft unions normally grab new technology and sort
out a deal afterwards.

And if they are like you and can't work out how to use the technology?

Have you *ever* worked in anything which could even remotely be called
industry?


Have you ever worked where they design and make technology?

Dave Plowman wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

I no longer think you have a clue and think you are trolling.

You've been learning from Trump. Deny what you've been shown to have said,
then try and cover it up by changing the subject.

ISTR it was you that asked if the reported snooping stuff with TVs was
feasible, several here gave answers that yes, given deep pockets it
could be done, because TVs are mainly linux boxes in disguise now.

You seem to have wanted to hear that is wasn't feasible at at all, and
must all be a scare story, and have argued the toss over every point
that people have said can be done to some extent or other ...

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

I no longer think you have a clue and think you are trolling.

You've been learning from Trump. Deny what you've been shown to have
said, then try and cover it up by changing the subject.

ISTR it was you that asked if the reported snooping stuff with TVs was
feasible, several here gave answers that yes, given deep pockets it
could be done, because TVs are mainly linux boxes in disguise now.

Many things are feasible on paper.

However, what most have been saying on here seems to have gone much
further than what has been reported as happening.

You seem to have wanted to hear that is wasn't feasible at at all, and
must all be a scare story, and have argued the toss over every point
that people have said can be done to some extent or other ...

I'd want to see a decent example given. A transcript of something recorded
in this way would do. After all, if it has worked, it must have resulted
in stopping some heinous crime or other?

--
*Be more or less specific *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 15/03/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
No. The entertainment craft unions normally grab new technology and
sort out a deal afterwards.

And if they are like you and can't work out how to use the technology?

Have you *ever* worked in anything which could even remotely be called
industry?


Have you ever worked where they design and make technology?

You think they design and make technology in the average theatre?

If something like you've described - a method of using fixed mics mounted
some way off to cover a stage performance for that audience - came along,
it would first be demonstrated to interested parties. If it looked
promising it would go on to trials in the field. If those were successful
it would then be introduced.

Only an idiot like you would expect anyone to buy something untried and
untested because you *just know* it will work.

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'd want to see a decent example given. A transcript of something recorded
in this way would do. After all, if it has worked, it must have resulted
in stopping some heinous crime or other?

"they" are reluctant to use such intercept evidence in course, so
they're hardly likely to show it to you or me ...

Andy Burns wrote:

"they" are reluctant to use such intercept evidence in course

"in courts" ...

On 15/03/2017 15:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 15/03/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
No. The entertainment craft unions normally grab new technology and
sort out a deal afterwards.

And if they are like you and can't work out how to use the technology?

Have you *ever* worked in anything which could even remotely be called
industry?


Have you ever worked where they design and make technology?

You think they design and make technology in the average theatre?

If something like you've described - a method of using fixed mics mounted
some way off to cover a stage performance for that audience - came along,
it would first be demonstrated to interested parties. If it looked
promising it would go on to trials in the field. If those were successful
it would then be introduced.

Only an idiot like you would expect anyone to buy something untried and
untested because you *just know* it will work.


I think you are just arguing for nothing so I will be blunt..
the sound technicians wouldn't have a clue how to set it up and use it
and there is no need to reinvent the wheel as nobody is spying on stage
productions.
Mics fitted to performers have other uses too, its harder to mime when
they don't have a mic to hide their lips.

You do recall this is about spying and not stage performances?

Its already proven that the array mic technology works, why it is used
for some stuff and not others is nothing to do with spying.

Just accept that if the CIA/GCHQ wanted to hack your smart TV they could
and with your knowledge you wouldn't know.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 14/03/2017 17:16, tim... wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/03/2017 19:38, tim... wrote:




It's a specifically written embedded program that chooses to throw away
*everything* that doesn't match (otherwise it's useless as a secure
product)

You seem to be suggesting a system where a unique public key pair is
used to allow the device to verify the authenticity of code updates
without replying on signed binaries and the more commonly used systems
for establishing trust in these circumstances.

I am not sure what you are referring to as signed binaries

my understanding of signed binaries is to make sure that what you have
received is what was sent, so that you don't try and load accidentally
faulty code

No, that would just be a checksum, or possibly a cryptographic hash like a
MD5 checksum.

the "encryption" used to make sure that the download is authentic, lies
above that

This is normally done with digital certification and a secured
communications channel.

the whole idea is that there isn't a secure communications channel

The initial part of the secure session establishment will typically use
public key cryptography (even if a higher performance symmetric algorithm
is used once a secure key exchange can be done). The key pairs will be
created on the fly. The digital signature is issued by a certification
authority to guarantee that a public key paid is actually owned by who it
claims to be owned by.

but you said that there were places that would create dodgy certificates

So using this approach you get a good combination of protections without
needing any hard coded keys that could be compromised, and you also get to
verify you are actually talking to the right endpoint, and eliminate the
potential for impersonation or "man in the middle" attacks.

(Its the way web based https or other SSL channels connections are
established example).

Plenty more on it he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_authority
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_key_infrastructure

thanks


The difficulty with those types of systems is that they fall about in
a heap the moment the private key is compromised.

I understand that this is the weak link

but I also *know* that it is the technique used to control downloads of
software in some safety critical applications - applications where the
acceptance of hacked code could kill someone (if that were the intention
of the hacker)

I have no idea how the holder of that key makes sure it remains secure,
I was only working on the public end.

That's why modern systems will often use one time key pairs to initiate
the channel. Once the connection is done with, the old keys are of no
further value.

but how do you tell the device that you are communication with, the new key
in a secure way? What stops someone cloning this process?

Remember, this is a download being broadcast to 100,000 (or 1 million)
separate devices all at the same time

This isn't a point to point communications link

tim

On 15/03/2017 11:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
All very trivial. Until you try and do it with software and no access to
the TV or room.

I would have thought that for a TV with a built in mic, excising the TVs
own audio output would be a standard part of the software - its going to
need it for every occasion the mic is used.

It does sound oh so easy in theory. You simply remove the signal to the
speakers from the mic output. And I'm sure can be made to work quite well
in an anechoic room.

In practice it seems to work quite well. Have you never tried having a
skype conversation without using a headset - i.e. with a web cam type
setup where the mic can "hear" the computer's speaker output? I have
done it many times and not had any difficulty making out what was being
said.

Likewise the voice recognition on my phone seems quite able to take
dictation in the noisy environment of my car, and that actually requires
digital voice recognition.

And to be able to recognise clearly spoken commands.

Its does not even need to do that - all we are talking about is
recording the ambient audio - any interpretation of it could be done
later (if if that is pre-scanned by a computer for key words etc).

But what it is being asked to do is somewhat different. To snoop on a
conversation being held in the room.

Which is obviously far simpler...

I'd love to actually hear the results of this.

If you have a laptop, lob it in the corner of the room, turn the TV on,
and then have a conversation. See what you can recognise of the
conversation. I would expect that for "normal" TV volume levels you will
have no difficulty making out every word without any echo cancellation
or other processing.

And some proof of where it
has actually been used with success.

I don't expect your average CIA/NSA operative is going to spell out
chapter and verse how they obtained a covert recording.

Personally I can't see any technical limitation to stop a TV making an
audio recording if it has a mic and an internet connection. Even without
the sophisticated signal processing I expect it would work quite well.
The more difficult bit is getting your spyware onto the TV in the first
place. Even if there is no easy[1] way to do this remotely, its almost
certain to be vulnerable if you have physical access to the hardware -
and in all likelihood that will be the case, given the nature of your
adversary.

[1] also given deep pockets, "easy" is not a pre-requirement either.
Exceedingly hard and expensive is also acceptable if it yields valuable
enough intelligence.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I think you are just arguing for nothing so I will be blunt..
the sound technicians wouldn't have a clue how to set it up and use it
and there is no need to reinvent the wheel as nobody is spying on stage
productions.

I merely mentioned it as a way for you to make your fortune. Since you
believe it feasible. I can absolutely assure you if you could make it work
there'd be a queue at your door.

Mics fitted to performers have other uses too, its harder to mime when
they don't have a mic to hide their lips.

I'm sure that makes sense to you. Perhaps you'd try again in English?

You do recall this is about spying and not stage performances?

Then why did you say the technique would work perfectly there?

--
*You're never too old to learn something stupid.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/03/2017 17:07, tim... wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 14/03/2017 17:16, tim... wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/03/2017 19:38, tim... wrote:




It's a specifically written embedded program that chooses to throw
away
*everything* that doesn't match (otherwise it's useless as a secure
product)

You seem to be suggesting a system where a unique public key pair is
used to allow the device to verify the authenticity of code updates
without replying on signed binaries and the more commonly used systems
for establishing trust in these circumstances.

I am not sure what you are referring to as signed binaries

my understanding of signed binaries is to make sure that what you have
received is what was sent, so that you don't try and load accidentally
faulty code

No, that would just be a checksum, or possibly a cryptographic hash
like a MD5 checksum.

the "encryption" used to make sure that the download is authentic, lies
above that

This is normally done with digital certification and a secured
communications channel.

the whole idea is that there isn't a secure communications channel

The initial part of the secure session establishment will typically
use public key cryptography (even if a higher performance symmetric
algorithm is used once a secure key exchange can be done). The key
pairs will be created on the fly. The digital signature is issued by a
certification authority to guarantee that a public key paid is
actually owned by who it claims to be owned by.

but you said that there were places that would create dodgy certificates

That is also why there is a revocation mechanism. If a certificate
itself is compromised it can be revoked, and the same applies to a
certification authority as well (in fact one was recently removed).

That's why modern systems will often use one time key pairs to
initiate the channel. Once the connection is done with, the old keys
are of no further value.

but how do you tell the device that you are communication with, the new
key in a secure way? What stops someone cloning this process?

Because the security certificate is tied to a particular domain name and
IP address as well.

Remember, this is a download being broadcast to 100,000 (or 1 million)
separate devices all at the same time

This isn't a point to point communications link

Which "this" are you referring to in particular?

True multipoint comms (e.g. multicast) on the internet is still fairly
rare - so frequently single source to multiple hosts will still
typically be a point to point link (even in things like iplayer etc).
Multicast also has the disadvantage that you can't so easily establish a
reliable channel over it. This may not matter for the streaming
applications it was intended for (where the timelyness of the data are
as or more important than their absolute correctness), but it will be a
big obstacle for doing things like software updates to multiple devices.
So you have to rely on Forward Error Correction (FEC) to correct errors.
(There are some slightly more obscure protocols that layer on top of UDP
to give some error protection)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 15/03/2017 17:07, tim... wrote:


Remember, this is a download being broadcast to 100,000 (or 1 million)
separate devices all at the same time

This isn't a point to point communications link

Which "this" are you referring to in particular?

the way that updates are downloaded to TVs etc

the one that is currently insecure, that we need to make secure, to stop the
spooks using it to download their dodgy software.

It's already been suggested that if the spooks have access to a specific TV
so that they can download the code manually, they can just as easily plant
some normal bugs and not have to engage in the expensive task of
re-engineering the TV's software

True multipoint comms (e.g. multicast) on the internet is still fairly

but these devices are not always "on the internet"

the devices that I worked with were not

And I'm still interested in how I make that download of new software secure,
without having to resort to "keeping the key secret" (as will my ex-employer
and his clients - world leading in their sector, though not internet
security obviously)

tim

On 16/03/2017 18:16, tim... wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 15/03/2017 17:07, tim... wrote:


Remember, this is a download being broadcast to 100,000 (or 1 million)
separate devices all at the same time

This isn't a point to point communications link

Which "this" are you referring to in particular?

the way that updates are downloaded to TVs etc

the one that is currently insecure, that we need to make secure, to stop
the spooks using it to download their dodgy software.

Keep in mind in the case cited they used physical access and USB to hack
the set. If the spooks were really keen they could hack a set before the
owner got it, or apply pressure to the maker to help them.

It's already been suggested that if the spooks have access to a specific
TV so that they can download the code manually, they can just as easily
plant some normal bugs and not have to engage in the expensive task of
re-engineering the TV's software

True, but a normal bug could be found, whereas finding your TV in the
living room may come as less of a surprise!

True multipoint comms (e.g. multicast) on the internet is still fairly

but these devices are not always "on the internet"

What smart TVs? They are normally on the network full time. Mine appear
on windows machines as a DLNA compatible output device.

Some of the older non smart TVs had ethernet only for updates etc.


the devices that I worked with were not

And I'm still interested in how I make that download of new software
secure, without having to resort to "keeping the key secret" (as will my
ex-employer and his clients - world leading in their sector, though not
internet security obviously)

Real security is a difficult game, and the rules change depending on who
you are trying to defend against.

A combination of certificated sources, and signed binaries is probably
the best approach.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 16/03/2017 18:16, tim... wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 15/03/2017 17:07, tim... wrote:


Remember, this is a download being broadcast to 100,000 (or 1 million)
separate devices all at the same time

This isn't a point to point communications link

Which "this" are you referring to in particular?

the way that updates are downloaded to TVs etc

the one that is currently insecure, that we need to make secure, to stop
the spooks using it to download their dodgy software.

Keep in mind in the case cited they used physical access and USB to hack
the set. If the spooks were really keen they could hack a set before the
owner got it, or apply pressure to the maker to help them.

It's already been suggested that if the spooks have access to a specific
TV so that they can download the code manually, they can just as easily
plant some normal bugs and not have to engage in the expensive task of
re-engineering the TV's software

True, but a normal bug could be found, whereas finding your TV in the
living room may come as less of a surprise!

True multipoint comms (e.g. multicast) on the internet is still fairly

but these devices are not always "on the internet"

What smart TVs? They are normally on the network full time. Mine appear on
windows machines as a DLNA compatible output device.

Some of the older non smart TVs had ethernet only for updates etc.

non-smart TVs use OTA broadcast for updating

it is always there and requires no user intervention, and because it's TV
already has all the necessary stuff for receiving the broadcast

tim

On 17/03/2017 10:45, tim... wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 16/03/2017 18:16, tim... wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 15/03/2017 17:07, tim... wrote:


Remember, this is a download being broadcast to 100,000 (or 1 million)
separate devices all at the same time

This isn't a point to point communications link

Which "this" are you referring to in particular?

the way that updates are downloaded to TVs etc

the one that is currently insecure, that we need to make secure, to stop
the spooks using it to download their dodgy software.

Keep in mind in the case cited they used physical access and USB to
hack the set. If the spooks were really keen they could hack a set
before the owner got it, or apply pressure to the maker to help them.

It's already been suggested that if the spooks have access to a specific
TV so that they can download the code manually, they can just as easily
plant some normal bugs and not have to engage in the expensive task of
re-engineering the TV's software

True, but a normal bug could be found, whereas finding your TV in the
living room may come as less of a surprise!

True multipoint comms (e.g. multicast) on the internet is still fairly

but these devices are not always "on the internet"

What smart TVs? They are normally on the network full time. Mine
appear on windows machines as a DLNA compatible output device.

Some of the older non smart TVs had ethernet only for updates etc.

non-smart TVs use OTA broadcast for updating

it is always there and requires no user intervention, and because it's
TV already has all the necessary stuff for receiving the broadcast

True, but some of them also have ethernet which allows access to updates
and diagnostics that way in addition to the OTA updates.



--
Cheers,

John.

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