Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-even-couch-potatoes-are-safe dept.

A new attack on smart TVs allows a malicious actor to take over devices using rogue DVB-T (Digital Video Broadcasting — Terrestrial) signals, get root access on the smart TV, and use the device for all sorts of nasty actions, ranging from DDoS attacks to spying on end users.

The attack, developed by Rafael Scheel, a security researcher working for Swiss cyber security consulting company Oneconsult, is unique and much more dangerous than previous smart TV hacks.

Until now, all smart TV exploits relied on attackers having physical access to the device, in order to plug in an USB that executes malicious code. Other attacks relied on social engineering, meaning attackers had to trick users into installing a malicious app on their TV.

Even the mighty CIA developed a hacking tool named "Weeping Angel," which could take over Samsung smart TVs and turn them into spying devices. But despite its considerable human and financial resources, the CIA and its operators needed physical access to install Weeping Angel, which made it less likely to be used in mass attacks, and was only feasible if deployed on one target at a time, during carefully-planned operations.

Because of the many constraints that come with physical and social engineering attacks, Scheel didn't consider any of them as truly dangerous, and decided to create his own.

Source: BleepingComputer


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday March 31 2017, @12:05PM (2 children)

    And no, it is not that likely that you personally are a target (at least as far as I can tell; I don't know you, so maybe you're actually a prime target for some reason). But the probability is high that someone somewhere is targeted in exactly that way. It's as with the lottery: For each individual the probability of winning is extremely small. Yet in most weeks someone wins the lottery.

    You're generalizing from my specific use case. However, I was being quite specific.

    I don't care about anyone else being targeted, unless they're paying me to secure their environments. Which I've done many times. Perhaps I could help you? Although, given your bad attitude, I would likely triple my hourly rate and mark up expenses at least 500% just for you. Let me know if you'd like to engage my services, friend.

    And by the way, there are a variety of tools which allow one to quite easily identify both Wifi and cellular signals. Which I use with some regularity. How often do you do so?

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hyperturtle on Friday March 31 2017, @04:51PM (1 child)

    by Hyperturtle (2824) on Friday March 31 2017, @04:51PM (#487168)

    I think he is being difficult to prove a point to others, not to irritate you

    The point is, many people think they need only turn a feature off; much of the thread covered how the tvs and appliances nowadays are in a standby and not off mode, despite marketing calling standby modes a mode when the appliance is off.

    He appears to be saying that to the common person, be certain it is doing as you expressed intent for it to do (not rat you out) because it may do what the marketing says on the tin it will do (no config no talking!) but that may not be what you (the general consumer) actually intended.

    A good example is that android OSes, such as those on smart tvs, will still talk to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 to report dns queries even if a specifically chosen alternate DNS is provided via static IP or dhcp assignment. It will go to your chosen DNS server IP -- but also report to google anyway even if it isn't intending to get a query response from those IPs--it's intending to report the query.

    Not having a gateway will prevent that, or having a route further upstream to black hole it, or an access list, etc. But a non-adminstrative controllable connection will defeat IoT fencing.

    And, to his point, a device like a cell phone has no such precaution available since administrative control of he network protocol on the ISP side is not easily managed by the consumer, nor filtered by the expert. It's like trying to block a cable modem from looking at what you let through your firewall to it--once it is vendor managed, it is no longer consumer configurable except for appearances if even that much is permissible.

    Anyway, the last time I posted about this, a few people laughed at my tl;dr and that it wasn't feasible for this to happen; now there is an article on the front page. At least the discussion now is the right way to do it rather than denounce it as a liberal plot to deny capitalists their rightful income because of some paranoid lunatic with nothing better to do than fear advertising.

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday March 31 2017, @06:08PM

      Your points are both valid and insightful, turtle. Thank you.

      You seem to be reading between the lines quite a bit as far as maxwell_daemon's comments. Perhaps further than is warranted.

      As I pointed out, even cellular signals can be easily detected, even if they are not so easily blocked.

      I suppose it's possible that some smart tv manufacturers are surreptitiously including cellular transceivers into their products on the off chance that someone will block access via their own networks. That seems rather unlikely, however, since most people will just plug their device in and, through ignorance (willful or otherwise), let the device transmit whatever it wants over their internet connection.

      Given that few have the knowledge, skills and presence of mind to even consider how their data may be exfiltrated, I'm not so concerned about large-scale secret back channels being integrated into smart tvs. At least not yet.

      Perhaps I'm not sufficiently paranoid. Then again, I haven't detected any cellular transmissions emanating from my smart tv.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr