Smart speakers can be manipulated with inaudible voice commands

[Rucker61]

[Alexa, fdisk c: return]

[hollohas]

I read it in full before my post and my point still stands. Did you miss this part?

While DolphinAttack has its limitations — the transmitter must be close to the receiving device — experts warned that more powerful ultrasonic systems were possible.

That warning was borne out in April, when researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign demonstrated ultrasound attacks from 25 feet away. While the commands couldn’t penetrate walls, they could control smart devices through open windows from outside a building.

Close to device, Not through walls, or at worst, 25ft away. They have to be right outside...while the windows are open.

Or...how are tampered with music recordings or spoken text going to get in my home?

Maybe someone will hack a commerical on KOA while I'm listening on I Heart Radio on the Echo. A) I don't know if the Echo can hear itself. And B) if it can and if it did pickup a hidden command, it would acknowledge that command and I'll hear it. If they mute it first so I can't hear the acknowledgement...well, then it won't hear the muted hidden command either.

So, as I said, my point stands. I'm not too worried about this one. What's the worst they can do, turn my kicthen lights or have it tell me a joke? Or maybe they will set a timer...scary stuff.

[Gman]

Sounds like your information on this old news is outdated. Reading the article might be a good idea.

I read it before I posted. It's still a re-tread.

[Irving]

How difficult would it be to setup an app, or ring tone, or song, one minute video file, or some simple media that could be purchased via whatever smart device, then imbed the various different instructions into some YouTube video that goes viral. Then out of millions of views, the number of people who watch the video within hearing range of said device will be a certain percentage. The number of people who don't catch the purchase will be some smaller percentage. With enough views, I'd think the numbers would be in the favor of the scammer. Just like early bulk email scams.

[Gman]

There are devices that are listening all the time. They don't have to be a smart speaker. They could be a laptop or a cell phone. They hear inaudible tones during commercials and feed the data back to the web, so they know whose eyes saw a specific ad.

If you are that worried about what people can find out about you by leveraging technology, you probably aren't posting here.

[Irving]

I'm personally not worried about it, well a little but not enough to do anything different. Seems like a lot of potential for people with bad intentions to mess with strangers.

[mattiooo]

Moreover, it could be used to engage in criminal activity such that it appears the person who is a target for .gov did X action did so themselves with no alibi otherwise, leading to a conviction with no recourse.

Vocal critic of something and a thorn in the side of Uncle Scam? Why, you snuff/kiddie porn addict. AND you also visited known jihadist websites. AND you (insert here)? You're goin' to jail little fella!

Never mind that *you* never visited such content in your life.

This already happens and with simple hacking. You don't need elaborate tech exploits and workarounds to accomplish this, just a 13 year old with the right skill set.

[CS1983]

This already happens and with simple hacking. You don't need elaborate tech exploits and workarounds to accomplish this, just a 13 year old with the right skill set.

Yes, but another vector for it to be accomplished more easily is a problem.

Imagine this technology being used in a broad-brush manner against, say, Congress or really any high profile target when directly hacking them is more difficult.
Why shoot a dart when you can simply mist the air with poison?

[mattiooo]

Yes, but another vector for it to be accomplished more easily is a problem.

Imagine this technology being used in a broad-brush manner against, say, Congress or really any high profile target when directly hacking them is more difficult.
Why shoot a dart when you can simply mist the air with poison?

When it evolves, it may well be. Right now, with having to be in the same location as the device, I think it's the more difficult process, and I'd worry more right now about remote breaches. The good news is we're constantly evolving the defenses as the technology evolves. The good guys are always catching up, but we at least keep the bad guys having to find new ways.

Where there is a will, there is almost always a way. Especially if laws are not something you worry about.

[Bailey Guns]

I was listening to the radio today about someone "teaching" an AI computer to fabricate a video of someone saying something. They'd just feed all sorts of video and audio files into a computer of a person and eventually have enough data to produce a video of that person saying whatever the maker of the video wanted them to say. Apparently it's very difficult to determine it's not actually a real recording of the person speaking without some pretty sophisticated equipment and skills.

I can see where that could be a problem.