Comments

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    3 months ago

    In the same slideshow, CMG counted Facebook, Google, and Amazon as clients of its “Active Listening” service. After 404 reached out to Google about its partnership, the tech giant removed the media group from the site for its “Partners Program,” which prompted Meta, the owner of Facebook, to admit that it is reviewing CMG to see if it violates any of its terms of service.

    So not just Facebook.

    • dev_null
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      So the scammy company listed some known names for their fake tech ad, knowing they are full of shit and they don’t have any partners in this, then deleted the ad when called out. Meanwhile it never existed because they were probably hoping to get someone’s money to develop it. Except everyone knew this is massively stupid so they didn’t.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It has to. The only way that it wouldn’t trip the indicator is if it was built into the operating system itself or somehow had an exploit to get around OS security protections.

      The information is fascinating but by and large should no longer be applicable because the OS has been designed to prevent using the microphone without the users knowledge. An app doesn’t have access to the microphone hardware without going through the OS first. Google could modify the OS to do such a thing, but of course, they have to hide this in the proprietary parts of Android, and the generally open nature of the platform give security researchers quite good access to observe such activity. I’d be surprised such activity would go unnoticed. It seems unlikely.

      I think this type of approach might have worked on older OS versions but I don’t see how it could work today in general.

        • henfredemars@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Starting with version 12, the Android operating system introduced a limit of 200Hz to help mitigate such attacks, but as you indicate research shows that some reconstruction may be possible in some scenarios. This is an ongoing area and future mitigations continue to be considered.

          From Kaspersky:

          In 92% of cases, the accelerometer data made it possible to distinguish one voice from another. In 99% of cases, it was possible to correctly determine gender. Actual speech was recognized with an accuracy of 56% — half of the words could not be reconstructed.

          The monitoring application would also need to run in the foreground to access the data on a continuous basis.

          Overall it does look like an interesting theoretical concern.

          • Reddfugee42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Background app can request “disable battery optimization” aka continuous operation. Users will just click okay

          • Trailblazing Braille Taser@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Here’s an exotic conspiracy theory: advertisers are performing sensor fusion / superresolution on many colocated gyrophones to exceed the per-device 200Hz cap. Phone clocks are certainly not aligned to the millisecond, so this would enable them to get a higher time resolution.

      • archchan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        What about Google Play Services? A pre-installed Swiss army knife of a system app with proprietary code and apps relying on it as a dependency seems to check the box.

        • henfredemars@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That might be possible. I’m not an expert in the wide ranging permissions that preinstalled system apps can access. It would require Google complicity. We haven’t seen this behavior in various sandbox versions of Google play running on custom ROMs, nor hasn’t been seen in any teardowns, but it cannot be completely ruled out.

          I feel like there are better places to hide such malicious code. For example, down in the hardware abstraction layer, or another proprietary demons that aren’t part of AOSP. At the end of the day, you need to have some trust in the company that develops your OS.

    • dev_null
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      If it existed, yes. They probably didn’t realize before making this failed “pitch”, which is why they never developed this.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Don’t think so. Wait until you find out what your smart TV is doing.

      • Baggie@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        Nah it got banned from the network when it started inserting ads into my YouTube feed that I already pay for.

      • OppositeOfOxymoron@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Heh. My TV has never been online, not even once. I’d rather suffer the occasional firmware bug than have it act as a sensor.

  • Malidak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    Can someone develop a tool that automatically screens TOS and small print for apps and warns you of agreeing to shit like this?

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      This would be amazing! Unfortunately, it requires us to trust that the TOS is truthful and specific.

  • dev_null
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Do we have any info about this being used by any app, or any details about the tech at all? We have an archived version of a deleted ad from a suspicious company. Do we know it even exists and wasn’t a prospective ad to judge interest that went nowhere?

  • plz1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Wasn’t this a thing like 1-2 years ago, that was completely unverified, from a different Facebook advertiser?

  • EmperorHenry@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    a lot of people called me crazy for saying that.

    google does it too.

    apple definitely does it too.

    • yboutros@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m not crazy about ads, it can be nice when they’re effective for the right reasons. That said, a break in happened at my estate once and the only evidence I needed or could secure was because I left my phone at home that day