Talk:Van Eck phreaking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 cleanup 2 LCDs 3 telephones 4 Dutch voting machines 5 Hardware info 6 "Limitated Use"

[edit] cleanup

Can someone please add the date when van Eck published his paper? Also the description of the process, particularly the section about CRTs, reads very spottily. Could it perhaps be made a bit more straightforward? I'd love to make these changes myself, but I lack the technical familiarity to do so confidently. --user: Trinite

[edit] LCDs

"Van Eck phreaking is the process of eavesdropping on the contents of a CRT or LCD display by detecting its electromagnetic emissions."

The way the article describes the process is that some CRT components not present in an LCD (the electron beam and associated components) are required to eavesdrop. The external sources listed at the bottom don't describe LCD or TFT monitors either. Did someone just assume it would work for these and add them to that line, or is this actually possible? And are there sources to confirm or negate this?

-- MiG 09:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

TEMPEST treats the subject in a more comprehensive fashion, and explains that flat panel monitors are susceptible as well, by the same procedure — picking up stray electromagnetic emissions) — but from different sources of radiation. The actual display hardware seems unaffected, and consequently flat panel monitors should be easier to secure. JRM · Talk 12:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I've added a few links to the main article ('see also' section)!

-- MiG 12:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like TEMPEST says "With modern flat-panel displays, the high-speed digital serial interface (DVI) cables from the graphics controller are a main source of compromising emanations." It doesn't say what else can anything beyond DVI cables. I think this is missleading. LCD monitors are resistant to Van Eck phreaking and should be listed as so. Anyone disagree? If so please educate me.

-- Electiontechnology 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I take back some of what I said, but this article grossly underestimates the complexity of this concept. The results of this method are extremely different between LCD and CRT monitors. Overall, this article is woefully inaccurate.

-- Electiontechnology 18:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] telephones

"Phreaking is the process of tapping into phone lines, used here because of its connection to eavesdropping."

This is false. Phreaking encompasses much more than just "tapping into phone lines." I'm sure the entire phreaking culture would be pretty upset at their activity being summed up as just eavesdropping. I have changed this line to "Phreaking is the process of exploiting telephone networks..."

[edit] Dutch voting machines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B05wPomCjEY

This is linked at the bottom of the page saying it was Van Eck phreaking, but watching the video it doesn't seem like that's the case, or at least it's not obvious that it is. Can anyone confirm that the video is of Van Eck phreaking, or am I missing something? Cdills 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is not Van Eck phreaking; the video just shows the detection of the changed refresh frequency of a LCD display (the frequency dropped for special characters like the è in Christen Democratisch Appèl), not reconstruction of the display. I've taken out the link. Oliphaunt 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The confusion here is that two different types of vulnerable voting machines have been used in the Netherlands. The above youtube video shows an eavesdropping demonstration by wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl against the Nedap ES3B machine (were it was possible to count the number of non-ASCII characters in the display), whereas the problem with compromising VGA video emanations related to the Sdu NewVote machines. I believe the latter problem was discovered by a government laboratory (AIVD) when they examined both types of machines after the youtube demonstration for the Nedap one was published. I don't think there is any youtube demonstration of an attack on the Sdu NewVote machine. Markus Kuhn (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hardware info

I had done this hardware for my University project. It is a very simple hardware. You only need to know the basics of electronics, electromagnetics and antenna concepts.

But the limitation is about the range and usage.

And the output is highly dependent on the target hardware(monitor, cpu) manufacturer.

Some monitors send it out to more than 100m range. Some monitors, less than 10m.

We tried it on LCD. But was not successful.

And dont believe what is said in fiction novels and movies. Unless you dont know the display characteristics of target monitor, it will be very difficult to do a phreaking suddenly from the dark.

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/1436/newindian2sp.jpg http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/1381/afinal8uk.jpg http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/7083/b28ck.jpg

Can disclose more info about this hardware ? I am willing to do.. But dont know the rules, since this is a hacking related one.

--Koroth 07:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For wikipedia the rule here would probably be Original research. If you know of somewhere else it is published you could put it in, but if it is all your own work, leave it out. But also wikipedia is not a 'how to' manual. So you can describe how things work, what is in the equipment, techniques used etc, but no a step by step instruction on how to do it. Also you should not be doing anything illegal, such as encouraging hacking, or releasing trade secret or classified information. GB 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Limitated Use"

However, the practical applications are likely to be limited, unless substantial breakthroughs occur in operability.

Sorry to put this so bluntly, but what the FUCK does "operability" mean in this context? Is specialized training necessary? Is it time-intensive? Does the picture quality suck? Just what, pray tell, is the nature of this alleged limitation? --Lode Runner 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)