Skip to content
Back to the collection

Don't Skype & Type! Acoustic Eavesdropping in Voice-Over-IP

Alberto Compagno, Mauro Conti, Daniele Lain, Gene Tsudik

2016 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
5
Readers
5
Months
5
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

Acoustic emanations of computer keyboards represent a serious privacy issue. As demonstrated in prior work, physical properties of keystroke sounds might reveal what a user is typing. However, previous attacks assumed relatively strong adversary models that are not very practical in many real-world settings. Such strong models assume: (i) adversary's physical proximity to the victim, (ii) precise profiling of the victim's typing style and keyboard, and/or (iii) significant amount of victim's typed information (and its corresponding sounds) available to the adversary. This paper presents and explores a new keyboard acoustic eavesdropping attack that involves Voice-over-IP (VoIP), called Skype & Type (S&T), while avoiding prior strong adversary assumptions. This work is motivated by the simple observation that people often engage in secondary activities (including typing) while participating in VoIP calls. As expected, VoIP software acquires and faithfully transmits all sounds, including emanations of pressed keystrokes, which can include passwords and other sensitive information. We show that one very popular VoIP software (Skype) conveys enough audio information to reconstruct the victim's input -- keystrokes typed on the remote keyboard. Our results demonstrate that, given some knowledge on the victim's typing style and keyboard model, the attacker attains top-5 accuracy of 91.7% in guessing a random key pressed by the victim. Furthermore, we demonstrate that S&T is robust to various VoIP issues (e.g., Internet bandwidth fluctuations and presence of voice over keystrokes), thus confirming feasibility of this attack. Finally, it applies to other popular VoIP software, such as Google Hangouts.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

5 selected excerpts · 5 total mentions

belter
Neutral mention · rule
No details about what specific study they are referring to. These attacks are possible for several years now. 2016 - "Don't Skype & Type! Acoustic Eavesdropping in Voice-Over-IP" - https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09359 2020 - "Behavioral Acoustic Emanations: Attack and Verification of PIN Entry Using Keypress Sounds" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7309150/ Maybe they mean this one... 2023 - "A Practical Deep Learning-Based Acoustic Side Channel Attack on Keyboards" - https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01074
jonathankoren
Neutral mention · rule
The dots are just there for shoulder surfing and to give a visual feedback to the user. If you want to steal a password, all the cool kids use a microphone or your phone's accelerometers. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09359 https://www.cise.ufl.edu/~traynor/papers/marq-ccs11.pdf https://phys.org/news/2017-04-criminals-pin-tracking-motion....
soulofmischief
Neutral mention · rule
I don't think the techniques and technology have become quite refined enough for this to be widely deployed, at most people are simply experimenting with the idea. But people are taking this seriously because it represents quite an attack vector once things fall into place. The thing is we won't know when we've reached that threshold until the first news stories about a widespread phishing scam using the technique emerge. It seems VoIP will be the first low-hanging fruit: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.09359.pdf
vardump
Neutral mention · rule
Your data will leak regardless because of typewriter keystroke acoustics [0]. So you better have a soundproof room for that purpose. Keep any electronics out of the room that might have a microphone. Like phones, laptops, or running mechanical hard drives [1]. [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09359 [1]: https://spqr.eecs.umich.edu/papers/Kwong-HDDphone-IEEE-SP-20...
wahern
Neutral mention · rule
Keystroke timing analysis has some solid research. See, e.g., Timing Analysis of Keystrokes and Timing Attacks on SSH (https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~daw/papers/ssh-use01.pdf), Don’t Skype & Type! Acoustic Eavesdropping in Voice-Over-IP (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.09359.pdf). Deciphering content from latencies in packetized speech is likely much more difficult, but I wouldn't put much stock in it being too difficult. Which is to say, if you're transferring high-value information assets over VoIP you should probably assume it's decipherable. That doesn't mean you should change what you're doing. You could simple say, "M'eh, I'll worry about it when it becomes a thing."…
Read the full comment
But I wouldn't assume it's confidential to someone willing to invest the time to target and capture the conversations. And I might leave a few choice comments in the source code and documentation so nobody could excuse imprudent reliance on confidentiality with, "But nobody warned me".

Keep following the thread.

More in Security & cryptography

More from the same topics.

2014arXiv

Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples

Ian J. Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, Christian Szegedy

Several machine learning models, including neural networks, consistently misclassify adversarial examples---inputs formed by applying small but intentionally worst-case perturbations to examples from the dataset, such that the perturbed input results in the model outputting an incorrect answer with high confidence.

1.5HN score