EM Eye investigates a cybersecurity attack where the attackers eavesdrop on the confidential video data of cameras by parsing the unintentional electromagnetic leakage signals from camera circuits. This happens on the physical/analog layer of camera systems and thus allows attackers to steal victim’s camera data even when perfect software protections (e.g., unbreakable passwords) are all in place. Exploiting the eavesdropped videos, attackers can spy on privacy-sensitive information such as people’s activities in an enclosed room recorded by the victim’s home security camera. […]
$250 per camera that you have to be within meters of best case. That doesn’t include the packaging cost to make this look innocuous so probably significantly more money if you wanted this to be stealthy and reliable. Add in the money for the distribution and “installation” of such devices.
This doesn’t scale at all.
Well within the budget of a private investigator or burglar or peeping-tom or abusive ex-partner.
No need to scale; plenty of privacy/security incursions don’t require mass-surveillance.
That said, I’d suggest that the attack does scale economically . Think war-driving but with one of these setups – cruising around in a van through a dense neighbourhood collecting short clips of cctv footage looking for something of interest.
Yeah, I’d agree with that.
The point I was making was for people who thought this was cellphone cameras and that it would somehow work even if the camera wasn’t actively running.
As far as war driving with an sdr you’d probably occasionally find something interesting, but the vast majority would be cameras just pointed back out at the street. I think you’d mostly see stuff where if you wanted to spy it would make more sense to hide your own camera because it’s already public.
All that said, I would lose my shit if Hollywood did something believable for once and used this for a heist movie.