> Muting the mic won’t work, since it’s possible for an intruder to unmute it. Your best defense is probably to insert a dummy plug into the microphone jack to prevent sound from being picked up by the internal mic. You can create a dummy plug by simply cutting off the unneeded portion of an old microphone plug. This won’t prevent someone from listening to your conversations when you need the mic, such as when using Skype, but it will at least thwart them from using the microphone on their own without you knowing.
The question stands, why tape the headphone jack? The microphone is not inside the headphone jack.
Right, but having a dummy plug will cause the vast majority of laptops to disable their built-in microphones and instead listen to whatever you plugged in. (In the case of a dummy, this would result in a dead line.)
The idea is to fool the system into having no physical microphone, and even a hacker/malware that compromises the operating system is going to have a hard time dealing with whatever soundcard firmware is responsible for making that switch in the hardware.
On many older devices the signal from the internal microphone is routed through the jack, just like the speakers often connected through the headphone jack. Plugging a device in physically breaks the connection to the mic/speakers in those cases.
That does not apply to most modern computers though, and especially not anything with a four-pin combo jack (including that Macbook). Those have to be able to handle situations where normal headphones are plugged in and the internal mic is still being used, so the mic switching is entirely software on these.
Headphone/speaker switching may be in hardware, but a lot of laptops I've used under Linux allowed me to treat the headphone jack as an entirely separate audio device. I suspect the Macbook would allow the same, though I don't have a new enough one available to test. Mine's an '08 model that Sierra finally EoLed.
On some newer laptops, the microphone and headphone ports are combined, so the headphone jack is also the microphone jack. This makes it work with in-line microphones that are popular with most cell phones.
I don't understand what he hopes to accomplish by taping the jack though; it's not like it does anything without something plugged into it.
Especially odd since it's a retina Macbook Pro, which has a single shared audio in/out jack, which means no use of headphone / external speaker either.
I don't get this. If someone gets unauthorized access to your computer's camera, all this prevents is them seeing your face staring into your computer. This doesn't solve the underlying problem of someone getting unauthorized access to your computer. It just solves the problem of someone seeing your face, which is not such a terrible problem to have, at least if you're as handsome as I am.
Just covering up the camera is like putting a bandaid on a small cut when you have internal bleeding.
All sorts of people do all sorts of things in their bedrooms that have nothing to do with their face staring into their computers. There have been quite a few instances of livestreamers forgetting to turn off their streams, and accidentally broadcasting themselves naked, or having sex with their partners.
I personally don't have any cameras in my room for this reason, but the risk of capturing something sensitive is quite real.
I suppose. The underlying problem is still greater, though, than someone seeing you having sex. Someone getting unauthorized access to your webcam, I'd imagine, has the ability and skill to do much worse than look at you naked (which, on the other hand, would be problematic to me because my body is flabby and unattractive).
Wouldn't a better solution be software-based, or some more advanced hardware (like added network security)?
But this picture is taken at an office, where presumably sex isn't happening, and anything confidential will likely not be in large font on a sheet of paper held up in front of a camera that is presumed inactive.
Unauthorized access to the laptop is a very different thing than the user (Mark Zuckerberg, in this case) browsing to a website that utilized a camera API, or accidentally clicking Allow, or being caught by some weakness in the Flash API without realizing it. He's probably also got all sorts of other protections on that laptop, but having an extra $0.01 bit of security never hurts.
I think microphones are more dangerous actually; it's hard to glean much meaningful data from most webcam streams (besides perhaps some less than flattering pictures of the user) but a microphone can pick up all sorts of confidential conversations.
If you can hack someone's camera, you can make it so the camera turns on without turning on the light and letting people know you're watching and listening.
That's somewhat correct, on many cameras today that light is in line with the power to the sensor (IIRC this is the case on the new Macbooks) so as soon as it gets out of standby mode it is on so you can't hack that.
The microphone is another story.
That's what I meant by "something more problematic is happening." If a hacker can turn on Mark Zuckerberg's camera without having the light turn on, then there's a big problem, and it needs to be rectified to a greater extent than just covering up the camera.
Again with the security is not a 1-fix kind of thing. You put a lot of measures in place to make things secure. This is just one of many security measures that should be in place. The enemy has breached the outer wall, but now we have 3 more inner walls protecting the most important stuff that they also have to breach.
And tape over the mic and webcam aren't really things that can be broken through remotely.
I would think conversations would be the biggest thing in this case. Say this computer is in a meeting room-- you could get business details picked up on the microphone, and the camera would verify who was speaking. There are many details in a business that you don't necessarily want public.
Computer security is not an all or nothing thing. It's more like plugging lots of little holes in a boat. This plugs the "microphone and camera" security hole very cheaply and simply.
Yes, but if they can make you install malware that gives them access to your webcam they can then go on to install software that gives them access to any online banking you do.
Taping over the webcam stops access to the camera, but does nothing about the rootkits and keyloggers that are giving criminal gangs access to all your online accounts.
I think Zuck's case is pretty special and he might be worried that, in the worst case, his computer gets compromised and the attackers can additionally see or hear something top secret.
I have 2 laptops that are used for work and I physically removed the camera and microphone array from them, one of them also has had the wireless card removed because of onsite requirements.
While It's true that someone who compromised a machine can get a lot of information limiting what they can do with it is not a bad idea at all.
Those computers end up being in rooms where sensitive material can be discussed and if they are compromised the recording from the camera or the microphone can reveal a lot of information which cannot be accessed digitally.
It's also important to note that not every compromise is utter and complete the microphone and the camera for example can potentially be accessed via applications that might not have privileged access to the system or any access to the local storage (your browser for example).
If some one gets remote access to these machines there are a lot of secondary security controls that might prevent them from owning the box completely and even if they have privileged access, accessing the information itself is another challenge as it is stored on separate encrypted containers, the microphone or the camera however as mentioned before can be easily accessed without any special permissions.
So while putting a sticker on your camera and disabling your microphone can be analogous to "putting a BAND-AID on it" like you have said there is nothing wrong with it, as more often than not you just get a cut and a BAND-AID is pretty damn good at preventing it from getting infected, this isn't about internal bleeding with BAND-AID's.
Not to mention that while your hard drive is where it's easy to get "technical" information from the microphone and your camera are where it's easy to get personal information from, no one wants the recording of what goes in their bedroom to become public and probably way too many people have had to take their laptops to the bathroom on some occasions.
All those sensitive personal moments from sexual activity to the fights you can have with your significant other, friends and family are really good material for blackmail considerably better in virtually every case than the material you have on your hard drive, and when you attack targets both high or low blackmail is usually the way to go because it's a pretty damn good way to ensure that you can get what you want in almost every case.
It would be far more damaging for someone to access the webcam on my girlfriend's laptop vs. the data on it. She has no access to any useful financial information or accounts, but images captured in her hotel room during a work trip could easily be used to blackmail her.
It would also be trivial for someone in her company's IT department to do so, and the same is true at many other companies (and schools). The software that many IT departments use to monitor company-owned computers + prevent theft allows them to access any aspect of the computer on demand, without the user's knowledge.
That's his office, it's quite known that he sits in the open space with all of the employees, I don't think there are any private offices in Facebook other than finance/payroll and some HR which are private due to regulations.
Sure, and none of that means that's his desk or his computer. Unless you have specific knowledge about what he keeps on his desk, this entire thread is a lot of silly speculation based on an unwarranted assumption.
I don't know why I would care about Zuckerberg in particular doing this, but while we're on the topic, can anyone recommend a decent retractable camera cover for mounting on a laptop?
I use these on my work machines, however I suggest placing the magnet combo vertically as opposed to horizontally like in the photo so that it defaults into that position.
[Yes I know I could get thin magnets much cheaper from somewhere else, I give them credit because they were the first one I found when looking for a solution a few years ago]
What benefit would it be using tape over the jack hole? The built in mic I could understand. But, surely it wouldn't work unless something was plugged in? Or is it a reminder to himself and yo prevent him from pluging in headphones with inline microphone? Genuinely curious.
49 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 118 ms ] threadhttp://i.imgur.com/3oNniEh.jpg
Zoomed in with the covers outlined:
http://i.imgur.com/laM8qEJ.png
The question stands, why tape the headphone jack? The microphone is not inside the headphone jack.
The idea is to fool the system into having no physical microphone, and even a hacker/malware that compromises the operating system is going to have a hard time dealing with whatever soundcard firmware is responsible for making that switch in the hardware.
That does not apply to most modern computers though, and especially not anything with a four-pin combo jack (including that Macbook). Those have to be able to handle situations where normal headphones are plugged in and the internal mic is still being used, so the mic switching is entirely software on these.
Headphone/speaker switching may be in hardware, but a lot of laptops I've used under Linux allowed me to treat the headphone jack as an entirely separate audio device. I suspect the Macbook would allow the same, though I don't have a new enough one available to test. Mine's an '08 model that Sierra finally EoLed.
I don't understand what he hopes to accomplish by taping the jack though; it's not like it does anything without something plugged into it.
Just covering up the camera is like putting a bandaid on a small cut when you have internal bleeding.
I personally don't have any cameras in my room for this reason, but the risk of capturing something sensitive is quite real.
Wouldn't a better solution be software-based, or some more advanced hardware (like added network security)?
But this picture is taken at an office, where presumably sex isn't happening, and anything confidential will likely not be in large font on a sheet of paper held up in front of a camera that is presumed inactive.
I think microphones are more dangerous actually; it's hard to glean much meaningful data from most webcam streams (besides perhaps some less than flattering pictures of the user) but a microphone can pick up all sorts of confidential conversations.
And if the light doesn't turn on, it's likely something more problematic is happening.
And tape over the mic and webcam aren't really things that can be broken through remotely.
Computer security is not an all or nothing thing. It's more like plugging lots of little holes in a boat. This plugs the "microphone and camera" security hole very cheaply and simply.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet...
Taping over the webcam stops access to the camera, but does nothing about the rootkits and keyloggers that are giving criminal gangs access to all your online accounts.
I don't care to be honest.
While It's true that someone who compromised a machine can get a lot of information limiting what they can do with it is not a bad idea at all.
Those computers end up being in rooms where sensitive material can be discussed and if they are compromised the recording from the camera or the microphone can reveal a lot of information which cannot be accessed digitally.
It's also important to note that not every compromise is utter and complete the microphone and the camera for example can potentially be accessed via applications that might not have privileged access to the system or any access to the local storage (your browser for example).
If some one gets remote access to these machines there are a lot of secondary security controls that might prevent them from owning the box completely and even if they have privileged access, accessing the information itself is another challenge as it is stored on separate encrypted containers, the microphone or the camera however as mentioned before can be easily accessed without any special permissions.
So while putting a sticker on your camera and disabling your microphone can be analogous to "putting a BAND-AID on it" like you have said there is nothing wrong with it, as more often than not you just get a cut and a BAND-AID is pretty damn good at preventing it from getting infected, this isn't about internal bleeding with BAND-AID's.
Not to mention that while your hard drive is where it's easy to get "technical" information from the microphone and your camera are where it's easy to get personal information from, no one wants the recording of what goes in their bedroom to become public and probably way too many people have had to take their laptops to the bathroom on some occasions.
All those sensitive personal moments from sexual activity to the fights you can have with your significant other, friends and family are really good material for blackmail considerably better in virtually every case than the material you have on your hard drive, and when you attack targets both high or low blackmail is usually the way to go because it's a pretty damn good way to ensure that you can get what you want in almost every case.
It would also be trivial for someone in her company's IT department to do so, and the same is true at many other companies (and schools). The software that many IT departments use to monitor company-owned computers + prevent theft allows them to access any aspect of the computer on demand, without the user's knowledge.
http://www.bungajungle.com/products/nope
I use these on my work machines, however I suggest placing the magnet combo vertically as opposed to horizontally like in the photo so that it defaults into that position.
[Yes I know I could get thin magnets much cheaper from somewhere else, I give them credit because they were the first one I found when looking for a solution a few years ago]
So it could be to block that light, or to prevent cruft from going into it, or to fight the urge to use headphones at work.