I haven't seen any microphone integrated in the processor.
Yet
But this is a pretty extremist take. Just because a company doesn't push source code and you can't deterministically have 100% certainty, doesn't mean you can't make any assertions about the software.
To refuse to make any claims about software without source is as principled as it is lazy.
Imagine an engineer brought to a worksite, and they don't have blueprints, can he do no work at all? Ok, good for you, but there's engineers that can.
Which is to say, every system in actual widespread use. All such CPUs, GPUs, storage devices, displays, etc. run closed microcode and firmware. It'd be funny if it wasn't so profoundly sad.
And even if they didn't, the silicon design is again, closed. And even if it wasn't closed, it's some fab out somewhere that manufactures it into a product for you. What are you gonna do, buy an electron microscope, etch/blast it layer by layer, and inspect it all the way through? You'll have nothing by the end. The synchrotron option isn't exactly compelling either.
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/security/secbbd20b00b/...
Nor is there on any free system for which you didn't make every hardware component yourself, as well as audit the executable of the compiler with which you compiled every executable. (You did self-compile everything, hopefully?)
Reversing the software is table stakes for assurance work already so suggesting source is a requirement just doesn’t match reality.
SPEAKE(a)R: Turn Speakers to Microphones for Fun and Profit
It is possible to manipulate the headphones (or earphones) connected to a computer, silently turning them into a pair of eavesdropping microphones - with software alone. The same is also true for some types of loudspeakers. This paper focuses on this threat in a cyber-security context. We present SPEAKE(a)R, a software that can covertly turn the headphones connected to a PC into a microphone. We present technical background and explain why most of PCs and laptops are susceptible to this type of attack. We examine an attack scenario in which malware can use a computer as an eavesdropping device, even when a microphone is not present, muted, taped, or turned off. We measure the signal quality and the effective distance, and survey the defensive countermeasures.
(you also need to plug the speaker directly, mostly limiting it to headphones and laptop speakers)
https://mic-lock.com/products/copy-of-mic-lock-3-5mm-metalli...
This still doesn't stop a program from switching the input from external back to the internal mics though afaik
They are very low level input and generally need a pre-amp just to get the signal outside the microphone. However conceptually at least they are there and so maybe someone can get it to work.
I'll just highlight this excerpt of your own words for you, and usher you to evaluate whether your position is even internally consistent.
Not knowing much about how soundcards work, I imagine it would be feasible to flash some soundcards with custom firmware to use the speaker port for input without the user knowing.
Example https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1NNP6AFkpjs
:-)
What's notable about this paper is only that they demonstrate it as a practical attack, rather than just a neat fun fact of audio engineering.
As a fun fact, an LED can also be used as a photometer. (You can verify this with just a multimeter, an LED, and a light source.) But I doubt there's any practical attack using a monitor as a photosensor.
There are actual compromises caught this way too, it's not (entirely) just for show. A high-profile example would be Kaspersky catching a sophisticated data exfiltration campaign at their own headquarters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f6YyH62jFE
So it is definitely possible, just maybe not how you imagine it being done.
I use the -disu flags
Purchased music is DRM free. Streaming music was never DRM free, since you arguably do not "own" music that you have not purchased. Though I'm sure record labels would love if they could get DRM back on purchased music again.
That said the most sensitive information is what we already willingly transmit: search queries, interactions, etc. We feed these systems with so much data that they arguably learn things about us that we're not even consciously aware of.
Covering your camera with tape seems like a totally backwards assessment of privacy risk.
If the components follow standards and have multiple independent implementations, you can be reasonable confident it's not backdoored in ways that would require cooperation across the stack. At least you raise the cost bar a lot. Whereas for a vertically integrated system, made by a company headquartered in a jurisdiction with a national security law that permits them to force companies to secretly compromise themselves, the cost of compromise is so low that it would be crazy to think it hasn't been done.
Not only is it common knowledge it's how drive-thru kiosks work!
Source: I used to test microphone/speakers for a kiosk OEM.
If the attacker has little to lose (e.g. because they're anonymous, doing this massively against many unsuspecting users etc.), the chance of them eventually succeeding is almost certain.
Are there examples of using IMUs to get audio data you could point to? A quick search didn't reveal anything.
Trusting someone doing the right thing when you purchase is different from trusting them not tampering things remotely in the future. Companies can change management, human can change their mind. The time factor is important
Only outstanding individuals such as Jia Tan.
For video, it is extortion. For microphone, it's much harder.
There sure is a difference in threat model, but I don't think the person I was replying to appreciates that, which is kind of what triggered my reply.
For example, I completely trust Emacs maintainers, as I have yet to see any malice or dark patterns coming from them. The same applies to other free and open source software I use on a daily basis. These projects respect my privacy, have nothing to hide, and I have no problem trusting them.
On the other hand, I see more and more dark patterns coming from Apple, say when signed out of their cloud services. They pour millions into their privacy ads, but I do not trust them to act ethically, especially when money is on the table.
Does this not make sense?
That being said, I have seen "patterns" with open source software as well, so I'm hesitant to agree on trusting it. But that's a different problem.
I also know how little hardware, microcode and firmware can be trusted, so that doesn't help either.
And there's this post, which includes an audio clip: https://goughlui.com/2019/02/02/weekend-project-mma8451q-acc...
It depends on the person, I don't think you could gain much from me? I don't say credit card numbers out loud, I don't talk about hypothetical crimes out loud. I don't say my wallet seed phrases out loud. I also don't type in my passwords. Yes you could probably find out what restaurant I'm ordering delivery for, but other than that I suppose my conversations are really boring.
It did most likely physically damage it forever, but at least I now know it's OFF for good.
I've seen some theatrical DJs bring a cheap pair, snap them in half, and then use them like a "lollipop." Crowd eats it up. Even older school: using a telephone handset: https://imgur.com/a/1fUghXY
Also, on Qubes OS, everything runs in VMs and you choose explicitly which one has the access to microphone and camera (non by default). Admin VM has no network.
Depends on how you look in underwear.
For the mic, perhaps you could disable it by plugging in an unconnected trrs plug into the audio jack. I'm not sure how low level the switching of the microphone source is when you do this, so maybe it's not a good method.
if you have a case on your phone its a lot less destructive too since you can just stuff the sugru into the microphone hole in the case. the case i was using was soft rubber so it was easy enough to pop out the corner of the case to be able to use the microphone for a call.
that wasnt my daily phone at the time though so im not sure how well it would work in reality. i could see myself forgetting to pop out the case when i get a call and the other person just handing up before i realised what was going on.
it also doesnt work on every phone. i tried the same thing on a pixel 5 but blocking the mic hole did nothing, but that phone uses an under screen speaker so maybe there is something similar going on with the mic