SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ultrasounds emitted by ads or JavaScript code hidden on a page accessed through the Tor Browser can deanonymize Tor users by making nearby phones or computers send identity beacons back to advertisers, data which contains sensitive information that state-sponsored actors can easily obtain via a subpoena.
This attack model was brought to light towards the end of 2016 by a team of six researchers, who presented their findings at the Black Hat Europe 2016 security conference in November and the 33rd Chaos Communication Congress held last week.
Their research focuses on the science of ultrasound cross-device tracking (uXDT), a new technology that started being deployed in modern-day advertising platforms around 2014.
uXDT relies on advertisers hiding ultrasounds in their ads. When the ad plays on a TV or radio, or some ad code runs on a mobile or computer, it emits ultrasounds that get picked up by the microphone of nearby laptops, desktops, tablets or smartphones.
These second-stage devices, who silently listen in the background, will interpret these ultrasounds, which contain hidden instructions, telling them to ping back to the advertiser's server with details about that device.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @12:21PM
Just disable it. There you go.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MrGuy on Monday January 09 2017, @01:45PM
This is both true, and an answer that really pisses me off. (note: not slamming parent poster - just expressing frustration this is the "stock" answer to this problem) I mean, if I really don't want online surveillance, I could always disable my network card entirely, which is an even more effective "problem solved." It just makes my computer largely useless for what I want it to do.
Why should I have to deal with a huge swath of the useful functionality of most websites being disabled, just because some @sshole can use the same functionality to run what's effectively malware using the same functionality? Why is deliberate delivery of malware considered OK, even normal practice? Why is corporate surveillance of individuals ok, at a level that's way more intrusive than the level we actively fear from governments?
And why isn't there some equivalent to anti-virus software that could disable individual scripts (or at least disable them by default unless explicitly re-enabled) that match certain heuristic patterns (e.g. canvas fingerprinting, accessing camera or microphone, accessing third-party domain cookies, accessing files on hard drive, etc.) that seem associated with bad actions?
"Either forgo a ton of functionality or accept massive surveillance" should not be the only options.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @03:08PM
There's no technical reason why disabling javascript should result in disabling functionality. Maybe if more people disabled it, then more websites would work correctly without it, to the benefit people using TOR to avoid censorship.
Because this method can only find old threats after they have successfully attacked many people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @03:21PM
That's his point, the problem here is that advertisers feel entitled to do whatever the hell they want to track people and generally behave like amoral crackpots. You should have to disable ads in order to have a reasonably safe visit to a website. But, so many websites use ads that aren't simple GIFS and JPGs or god forbid text, that disabling them becomes more or less necessary to avoid malware.
Going online is never going to be completely safe, but it's ridiculous that advertisers seem to feel the need to spy. It's bad enough when alphabet soup agencies do it, we don't also need advertisers doing it for them.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday January 09 2017, @03:27PM
It can't be done because you can't patch fast enough. Every time there is enough data accumulated to create a profile or signature for the malware, it is too late.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Monday January 09 2017, @03:42PM
Tell me why this same argument doesn't imply antivirus in general is useless.
(Score: 3, Informative) by canopic jug on Monday January 09 2017, @04:04PM
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Monday January 09 2017, @05:02PM
Life would be better if everyone was on a well-administered linux system and running a browser that perfectly sandboxed content and data (by the way, if you know of one, let me know).
Fine. Point taken. But IMO it's not a terrible helpful suggestion in the real world.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday January 09 2017, @05:39PM
It depends. People didn't used to wash their hands, not even surgeons. People didn't used to handle and store food in ways now known to be safe, not even after serving. For a period there were even radioactive products on the market, some for human consumption. Things change. It's just taking a while to get around to treating computing like any other industry. Gates and his minions have a lot of people bamboozled but that may come to a turning point due to the political crisis in the US. It could turn for the better or the worse, but even if it turns for the worse, it is likely to push the rest of the world in the right direction that much harder.
Browsers suck but a lot of the problems go away, or ameliorate slightly at least, by moving to dedicated client applications. Smartphones are already kind of pretending to go in that direction and although their "apps" are mostly wrappers for web pages it wouldn't take much to step over to making proper, dedicated applications. There are enough portable frameworks that it is not just possible but relatively easy. Statefullness and proper encryption are the first obvious improvements. There are even distribution channels (repositories, stores) with various levels of vetting for OS X, Chrome/Linux, Android/Linux, and the various GNU/Linux distros. Any of that is a step up from the situation we have now.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday January 09 2017, @09:53PM
I have stopped suggesting anti-viruses for the average user.
If you tell the average user that they have an anti-virus installed, they become complacent and assume it will catch anything bad.
The Sony-BMG rootkit [wikipedia.org] scandal (never forget!) was probably my wake-up call that anti-virus software is kind of useless.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Monday January 09 2017, @03:30PM
This was my argument the other day. Java script isn't evil by default. The problem is web standards which force browser designs to be insecure by default. We need a browser that respects privacy and security by removing the ability to access files, devices, cookies outside of its domain, and disable auto playing of audio and video. Another thing to nuke is the lock-the-browser dialogue box (are you sure you want to leave this site?) If a page wants to use javascript for the basics like DOM manipulation, fine. Just disable all of the bullshit like camera access, file system access, and audio/video playing.
Though a better fix would be to use minimalist browsers like Dillo and NetSurf which do not support most of the problematic stuff like javascript and HTML 5 extensions.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday January 09 2017, @07:04PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @09:06PM
Well. Actually, no. HTML5, flash, silverlight, java browser plug-in also have to be disabled, not just ECMAScript. And apps on nearby devices are also suspect.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DmT on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:55AM
Have you actually read the privacy statement of anti-virus software? They send back a lot of data, some even all the URL-s you have visited - for advertising purposes! So be careful with them ...