Google Chrome Can Listen To Your Conversations

Forgive me but I'm a bit confused as to why this news is so shocking. The government and security services can probably manipulate just about anything in order to abstract data, in this case from the user. Really and truly you shouldn't be concerned unless you are involved in illegal activities. This privacy stuff is getting boring now. People just need to accept that we all live in a security state where our every movement whether it is on the street or online is captured.

mysterioustranger
reply to post by rangerdanger

 

Well...they can activate a mic thats set to OFF and still listen. Like a phone even though it is off....they just enable it from their end...and thats been widely discussed here on ATS previously.

Oh. And if you have a webcam? At least turn it off too...and put a piece of heavy tape over the lens . And NOT clear scotch tape!!

edit on 09-22-2013 by mysterioustranger because: spell

Nobody is getting access to any part of your computer system without an installed exploit or firewall permissions.
Google Chrome may be able to listen through your microphone but once disabled there is no way for them to turn it on from their end. The real issue however is that they are doing it anyway and the fact it was implemented into the browser to start with.

reply to post by CallYourBluff

Therein is the issue...they dont NEED to "turn it on" to active the disconnected unit.

A disconnected "off" from the source unit can still be utilized. As in a spkr lying on the ground. There are ways to activate it from a remote source ie: power, signal.

We knew this back in the 1980's when the CIA's nefarious methods became newsworthy when they were trying to locate the Iranian Hostages, and we learned they were using phones that were turned off.

You didnt? Its not me, its old news.

reply to post by CallYourBluff

Wrong. Here from C/Net in 2006, and the methods go back for cameras as well to 1986 during the Iranian Hostage crisis and CIA surveillance techniques.

FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool
December 1, 2006 2:20 PM PST
news.cnet.com...

The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.
The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him.

Nextel cell phones owned by two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations. The FBI views Ardito as one of the most powerful men in the Genovese family, a major part of the national Mafia.

The surveillance technique came to light in an opinion published this week by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan. He ruled that the "roving bug" was legal because federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect's cell phone.

Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off."

mysterioustranger
reply to post by CallYourBluff

 

Therein is the issue...they dont NEED to "turn it on" to active the disconnected unit.

A disconnected "off" from the source unit can still be utilized. As in a spkr lying on the ground. There are ways to activate it from a remote source ie: power, signal.

We knew this back in the 1980's when the CIA's nefarious methods became newsworthy when they were trying to locate the Iranian Hostages, and we learned they were using phones that were turned off.

You didnt? Its not me, its old news.

Not sure about the phones but definitely not with computers. A well maintained computer will always be secure, otherwise cyber security companies would be obsolete. The exploits you talk of are conspiracy nonsense. In the world of computers it's very easy to monitor all ingoing and outgoing traffic.

mysterioustranger
reply to post by CallYourBluff

 

Wrong. Here from C/Net in 2006, and the methods go back for cameras as well to 1986 during the Iranian Hostage crisis and CIA surveillance techniques.

FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool
December 1, 2006 2:20 PM PST
news.cnet.com...

The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.
The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him.

Nextel cell phones owned by two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations. The FBI views Ardito as one of the most powerful men in the Genovese family, a major part of the national Mafia.

The surveillance technique came to light in an opinion published this week by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan. He ruled that the "roving bug" was legal because federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect's cell phone.

Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off."

I can't be wrong because I never said anything about phone spying. I am telling you what is true as far as computer security goes.

Not sure about the phones but definitely not with computers. A well maintained computer will always be secure, otherwise cyber security companies would be obsolete. The exploits you talk of are conspiracy nonsense. In the world of computers it's very easy to monitor all ingoing and outgoing traffic.

I would disagree on that one mate.

A computer, no matter how well maintained can only really be secured against exploits that have been made known and then patched. Its the same reason cyber security companies arnet obsolite, its simply because their products are effective at protecting against known threats, occasionaly they find one, you get a big alert on your screen... Job done, everyones happy.

The truth is that there arnet many antivirus software solutions out there that cant be circumvented, with a little bit of work its not to difficult to circumvent the signature based detection by manipulating the file. Even the heuristic analysis techniques boasted by most vendors are easily circumvented through simple delays in execution.

I belive that there are a lot of people out there who are infected and simply arnet aware. Viri/Trojans/Malware arnet what they used to be. In the good old days you knew when you were infected, your PC would go a bit spazzy and if you were lucky your screen locked up with a picture of a naked lady on it! Nowdays everything is designed to sit quiet, do its job, gather whatever and then await further instruction. If your AV aint picking it up then how do you know its there?

Obviously as you said, you can watch all of your traffic but in reality no one could possibly sit watching a live streaming packet capture and even if they did, they have to be able to understand what they are seeing. The reality is most people leave this task to their firewall, which again, in many circumstances, offers very little protection even against something as simple as a reverse connection.

In fact the internet itself is insecure, its built on a bunch of insecure protocols that allow these nasties to be delivered and spread. The truth is basically no one is ever 100% secure; the best a person can do is minimise the risk by adopting a layered approach to protecting themselves with a good AV solution being only one of those layers.

Their is really only one way to secure your computer if you are truly worried, remove layer 1 if you using ethernet or remove your WIC if you are 802.11. I know, someone read on the deep web in a FAQ that "all computers have a chip which can broadcast WIFI". Cool story. Packet tracing, physical or WIFI, can show you exactly what is coming into and leaving your machine.

For the average home user their isn't anything that is more secure in running a dedicated hardware based firewall vs a software vs using the firewall that comes in most broadband routers. If it makes someone feel more secure then great but the reality is blocking some exploitable TCP/UDP port or preventing certain types of traffic is no more secure if you use a Checkpoint, ASA or the windows 7 firewall. Someone earlier said it best "a layered approach". I use the basic firewall in my broadband router and 1 AV/malware program + the most important defense their is , common sense. I'm sure someone will follow that up with "you think your machine is secure but its been exploited" which shows how naive people are if they actually think that way.
As much as people want to think the Matrix is real it's not as easy to exploit a system/network/PBX as TV shows make it seem . Sure it is easier to do bad things with phones vs when you used to have build blue boxes but it's still not anywhere close to TV.

What can't be accounted for is the thing that has always been the easiest to exploit and that is social engineering or the human element. You can run the highest spec firewall you can find, with Malwarebytes, Spybot, 23 different types of AV and if you still click on that unknown link in your email from the "Best Bruy Tex Supprt Depar" which happens to use port 80 to do bad things then you deserve everything you get.

Prior to certain things becoming standard security practice with PBXs I didn't have to war dial, box or do anything else. Their were numbers for companies where I could call and ask to be forwarded to extension 91xxx and 20 minutes later I am ending my LD call.

Non-existent Layer 8 of the OSI model , the human element, always has been and always will be the weakest part of any network.

I have known for years Google worked for the NSA I thought everyone else did too? Not really news to me.

reply to post by CallYourBluff

www.washingtonsblog.com... d-on-the-street-via-mobile-scanners-and-drones-through-our-smart-meters-and-in-many-other-ways.htmlTake a Peek at How Widespread Spying Has Become
Sept, 2013

c/o Washingtonsblog
“A top expert in the ‘microprocessors’ or ‘chips’ inside every computer – having helped start two semiconductor companies and a supercomputer firm – also says:
He would be “surprised” if the US National Security Agency was not embedding “back doors” inside chips produced by Intel and AMD, two of the world’s largest semiconductor firms, giving them the possibility to access and control machines.
***
[The expert] said when he learned the NSA had secured “pre-encryption stage” access to Microsoft’s email products via the PRISM leaks, he recognised that “pretty much all our computers have a way for the NSA to get inside their hardware” before a user can even think about applying encryption or other defensive measures.”