Listening to Mobile Calls: Maybe? Maybe Not
August 18, 2020
An online publication called Hitb.org has published “Hackers Can Eavesdrop on Mobile Calls with $7,000 Worth of Equipment.” Law enforcement and other government entities often pay more for equipment which performs similar functions. Maybe $7,000 is a bargain, assuming the technology works and does not lead to an immediate visit from government authorities.
According to the write up, you can listen to mobile calls using a method called “ReVoLTE”, a play on the LTE or long term evolution cellular technology. The article reports:
Now, researchers have demonstrated a weakness that allows attackers with modest resources to eavesdrop on calls. Their technique, dubbed ReVoLTE, uses a software-defined radio to pull the signal a carrier’s base station transmits to a phone of an attacker’s choosing, as long as the attacker is connected to the same cell tower (typically within a few hundred meters to few kilometers) and knows the phone number. Because of an error in the way many carriers implement VoLTE, the attack converts cryptographically scrambled data into unencrypted sound. The result is a threat to the privacy of a growing segment of cell phone users. The cost: about $7,000.
Ah, ha, a catch. One has to be a researcher, which implies access to low cost, highly motivated students eager to get an A. Also, the “researcher” words makes it clear that one cannot order the needed equipment with one click on Amazon’s ecommerce site.
How realistic is this $7,000 claim? DarkCyber thinks that a person interested in gaining access to mobile calls may want to stay in school. CalTech or Georgia Tech may be institutions to consider. Then after getting an appropriate degree, work for one of the specialized services firms developing software and hardware for law enforcement.
On the other hand, if you can build these devices in your bedroom, why not skip school and contact one of the enforcement agencies in the US or elsewhere. DarkCyber has a suggestion. Unlawful intercept can lead to some interesting learning experiences with government authorities. Too bad similar enforcement does not kick in for misleading headlines for articles which contain fluff. That sounds like I am pointing out flaws in Silicon Valley-style reporting. Okay, okay, I am.
Stephen E Arnold, August 18, 2020
Modern Technology Reporting: The New York Times Is Now a Pundit Platform
August 14, 2020
I was not sure if I would document my reaction to the August 13, 2020, page B5, as “Instagram Reels? No. Just No” and online under the title “We Tested Instagram Reels, the TikTok Clone. What a Dud.”
I reflected on an email exchange I had with another “real” journalist earlier this week. With plenty of time on my hands in rural Kentucky during the Rona Resurgence, I thought, “Yeah, share your thoughts, you Brontosaurian Boomer. “Real” journalists working for big name outfits need to have a social agenda, insights, wisdom, and expertise no other human possesses. Absolutely.
In my 50 year work career, I worked for three outfits with publishing interests. The first was CRM, the outfit which owned Psychology Today (edited by the interesting T. George Harris), Intellectual Digest, and a number of other properties. I did some project work for a marketing whiz who coined the phrase “Fotomat Where your photo matters” and John Suhler (yeah, the Suhler of Veronis Suhler). At meetings in Del Mar, Calif., a select group would talk and often drag in a so-called expert to hold forth on various topics. However, the articles which were commissioned or staff-written would not quote those at these meetings. Why? I have no idea. It was not a work practice. For me, it was how a reasonably successful magazine company operated.
Then I worked for Barry Bingham, Jr., who with his family owned most of the Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Company. There were other interests as well; for example, successful radio and TV stations, a direct mail operation, one of the first computer stores in Kentucky, a mail order business, and — believe it or not, the printing plant which cranked out the delightful New York Times Sunday Magazine. Plus, the NYT was then a family-owned operation. In my interactions with the NYT, my recollection is that the New York Times shared many of the old-fashioned work processes in use at the Courier-Journal. Was that the reason the Bingham papers won awards? One example is that the editorial writers wrote editorials. These were opinion pieces, personally vetted each day by Barry Bingham, Jr. The news people covered their beats. The reporters listened, gathered, analyzed, and wrote. No one quoted the man or woman across the desk in the alternately crazy and vacant newsroom. Also, the computer people (some of whom were decades ahead of systems people at other companies) did computery things. The printing people printed. Sure, there were polymaths and renaissance men and women, but people stayed in their lane.
My last publishing experience was in the Big Apple. I am not sure how I ended up on Bill Ziff’s radar, but I knew about him. He was variously described to me as a “publishing genius” and “Satan’s first cousin.” Dorothy Brown, the human resources vice president, eased my transition into the company from the Courier-Journal, telling me, “Just present facts. If Mr. Ziff wants your opinion, he will ask for it.” Good advice, Ms. Brown, good advice. (I heard the same thing when I did some consulting work for K. Wayne Smith, General, US Army.) The point is that management did management, which at Ziff included sponsoring a company race car. Advertising people collected money from advertisers dumped money in front of the building on Park Avenue South who wanted to appear in PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, and properties like PC Week. Once again, like the Ziff racing team, everyone stayed in their lanes. That meant that top flight reporters would report; executives dealt facts like Blackjack dealers in Las Vegas.
In these three experiences, I cannot recall an occasion on which the news people at these organizations interviewed one another.
The New York Times’ Brian X Chan interviewed the New York Times’ Taylor Lorenz. Now that’s interesting. Instead of picking up the phone and calling one of the wizards of punditry at a consulting firm, a firm developing short form video content, or an attorney monitoring Facebook’s interaction with regulators — the two ace reporters of “real” news interviewed themselves. Wow, that’s “real” work! Imagine. Scheduling a Zoom meeting.
It is one thing for a blog writer to take shortcuts. It is another thing for a newspaper which once generally tried to create objective news related to an event or issue to repeat office opinions. Was I annoyed? Nah, I think it is another indication that objectivity, grunting through the process of gathering information, sifting it, and trying to present a word picture that engages, illuminates, and explains is over.
In 2020, the New York Times runs inserts which are like propaganda posters stuck to the walls in my second grade classroom in Oxen Hill, Maryland, in 1950. The failure to present an objective assessment of the new Facebook knock off of TikTok was pure opinion. The reason? The New York Times’ “real” journalists see themselves as experts. Even the arrogant masters of the universe at an investment bank or a blue chip consulting firm try like the devil (maybe Bill Ziff) to get outsiders to provide “input.” A journalist may be a reporter, but the conversion of a reporter into an expert takes more than someone saying, “Wow, you guys know more about short form video than any other person within reach of a Zoom call” is misguided and a variant of what I call the high school science club management method. Yes, you definitely know more about Facebook’s short form video than anyone else within reach of a mobile phone or a Zoom connection.
I want to float a radical idea. Do some digging, some work. I think I can with reasonable confidence assert that John Suhler (my boss for my work at Veronis Suhler), Barry Bingham Jr. (the Courier-Journal owner), or Bill Ziff (the kin of Satan, remember?) would have the same viewpoint.
Just a suggestion, gentle reader: If a person wants me to respect their newspaper work as objective, informed, and professional, don’t replicate the filter-bubble, feedback loop of co-worker lunch room yip-yap: Research, sift, analyze, synthesize, and report.
Just my opinion, of course, but even Brontosauri can snort but that snort takes more effort than the energy expended presenting oneself as a wizard. Sorry, you pros are not in Merlin’s league.
Stephen E Arnold, August 14, 2020
Kiddie Computer Supports: Not Online But Related to Online
August 9, 2020
DarkCyber spotted “Best Affordable Desk Chair for Kids in 2020.” The write up presents mini commercials for eight desk chairs for the young WFH’er. Among the models are these remarkable solutions to lying on the floor, standing while shift one’s weight from leg to leg, and using a computing device at a kitchen table.
The wobble stool wobbles and teaches kids how to learn correct posture. I slump, and I don’t think the wobble stool would have been right for me.
A kids’ ball balance chair. This is a visual delight.
And the third chair I want to highlight is the classic desk chair. Yep, it looks like a standard desk chair with levers, wheels, and a flashy two tone color scheme, just smaller.
Observations:
- None of the chairs has a cup holder for essentials like Vitamin Water, a plastic animal filled with faux juice, or a frosty can of Mountain Dew.
- None of the chairs offers a snack shelf. Computing means eating junk food, right? Am I right?
- No Twitch or Zoom centric features like a built in mouse pad, brackets for connecting a mobile phone at eye level, or a connector for a ring light
- No semi recline mode, an essential posture for some would be professional streamers and gamers. I just call this slump mode.
We do love that green ball thing, however. That may turn a kid into a couch potato in less time than it takes a youthful computer user to level up.
Stephen E Arnold, August 9, 2020
A Recipe for Thinly Sliced Technology: Is the Pizza Still a Pizza?
July 30, 2020
I don’t want to wax philosophical. Amazon is associated with the concept of the two-pizza team. The idea is that when something crashes, get two people to fix it. Amazon is a two-pizza company, and it works well enough to make Mr. Bezos a star among stars when it comes to cash and risk of government regulation.
The write up “Many Small Teams” seems to be about an idea and a general business practice.
I noted this passage in the article:
Somewhere along the line, we forgot about “reducing communication” just started fixating on assigning independent teams to problem statements that were essentially tiny slices of business problems. As the problem space gets more finely sliced in hopes of achieving scale at each step, so does the number of teams. e.g. What might have been a “Data Delivery Team” charged with delivering fresh data to customers unfortunately becomes “Data ingestion Team”, “Data processing Team” and “Data Release Team” (real world example).
Is the author describing an Amazon vulnerability? When a pizza is sliced into thin pieces, is it still a pizza? What if the approach creates a dog’s breakfast?
Interesting question? The essay points out that an organic process takes place: Small teams grow. Then teams split. What’s the chief indicator of this condition? Perhaps documentation like Amazon’s explanations of its myriad cloud services. Little slices of pizza with more slicing taking place?
The author of the article works at Uber. Pizza delivery I get. But tiny pizza slices for a gig economy delivery outfit? Like I said philosophy.
Stephen E Arnold, July 31, 2020
2020: Reactive, Semi-Proactive, and Missing the Next Big Thing
July 27, 2020
I wanted to wrap up my July 28, 2020, DarkCyber this morning. Producing my one hour pre recorded lecture for the US National Cyber Crime Conference sucked up my time.
But I scanned two quite different write ups AFTER I read “Public Asked To Report Receipt of any Unsolicited Packages of Seeds.” Call me suspicious, but I noted this passage in the news release from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services:
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) has been notified that several Virginia residents have received unsolicited packages containing seeds that appear to have originated from China. The types of seeds in the packages are unknown at this time and may be invasive plant species. The packages were sent by mail and may have Chinese writing on them. Please do not plant these seeds.
And why, pray tell. What’s the big deal with seeds possibly from China, America’s favorite place to sell soy beans? Here’s the key passage:
Invasive species wreak havoc on the environment, displace or destroy native plants and insects and severely damage crops. Taking steps to prevent their introduction is the most effective method of reducing both the risk of invasive species infestations and the cost to control and mitigate those infestations.
Call me suspicious, but the US is struggling with the Rona or what I call WuFlu, is it not? Now seeds. My mind suggested from parts unknown that perhaps, just perhaps, the soy bean buyers are testing another bio-vector.
As the other 49 states realize that they too may want to put some “real” scientists to work examining the freebie seeds, I noted two other articles.
I am less concerned with the intricate arguments, the charts, and the factoids and more about how I view each write up in the context of serious thinking about some individuals’ ability to perceive risk.
The first write up is by a former Andreessen Horowitz partner. The title of the essay is “Regulating Technology.” The article explains that technology is now a big deal, particularly online technology. The starting point is 1994, which is about 20 years after the early RECON initiatives. The key point is that regulators have had plenty of time to come to grips with unregulated digital information flows. (I want to point out that those in Mr. Evans’ circle tossed accelerants into the cyberfires which were containable decades ago.) My point is that current analysis makes what is happening so logical, just a half century too late.
The second write up is about TikTok, the Chinese centric app banned in India and accursed of the phone home tricks popular among the Huawai and Xiaomi crowd. “TikTok, the Facebook competitor?’s” point seems to be that TikTok has bought its way into the American market. The same big tech companies that continue to befuddle analysts and regulators took TikTok’s cash and said, “Come on down.” The TikTok prize may be a stream of free flowing data particularized to tasty demographics. My point is that this is a real time, happening event. There’s nothing like a “certain blindness” to ensure a supercharged online service will smash through data collection barriers.
News flash. The online vulnerabilities (lack of regulation, thumb typing clueless users, and lack of meaningful regulatory action) are the old threat vector.
The new threat vector? Seeds. Bio-attacks. Bio-probes. Bio-ignorance. Big, fancy thoughts are great. Charts are wonderful. Reformed Facebookers’ observations are interesting. But the now problem is the bio thing.
Just missing what in front of their faces maybe? Rona masks and seed packets. Probes or attacks? The motto may be a certain foreign power’s willingness to learn the lessons of action oriented people like Generals Curtis LeMay or George Patton. Add some soy sauce and stir in a cup of Sun Tzu. Yummy. Cheap. Maybe brutally effective?
So pundits and predictive analytics experts, analyze but look for the muted glowing of threat vector beyond the screen of one’s mobile phone.
Stephen E Arnold, July 27, 2020
Disney and Face-Swapping: Real Actors Days Numbered
July 27, 2020
It took big bucks and a lot of time to insert virtual models of Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing into 2016’s Rogue One: a Star Wars Story, but Disney may soon pull off similar tricks much more easily. The Verge tells us, “Disney’s Deepfakes Are Getting Closer to a Big-Screen Debut.” The studio presented the technology at the recent Eurographics Symposium on Rendering 2020 in London. The article shares Disney’s video illustrating the studio’s latest developments and contrasting them with earlier face-swapping technologies. It is well worth the investment of four minutes for anyone who is at all curious. Reporter James Vincent writes:
“The deepfakes you’ve probably seen to date may look impressive on your phone, but their flaws would be much more apparent on a larger screen. As an example, Disney’s researchers note that the maximum-resolution videos they could create from popular open-source deepfake model DeepFakeLab were just 256 x 256 pixels in size. By comparison, their model can produce video with a 1024 x 1024 resolution — a sizable increase. Apart from this, the functionality of Disney’s deepfake model is fairly conventional: it’s able to swap the appearances of two individuals while maintaining the target’s facial expressions. If you watch the video, though, note how technically constrained the output seems to be. It only produces deepfakes of well-lit individuals looking more or less straight at the camera. Challenging angles and lighting are still not on the agenda for this tech. As the researchers note, though, we are getting closer to creating deepfakes good enough for commercial projects.”
Left unmentioned are such projects’ darker possibilities—false video evidence of a crime, for example, or faked fodder for political scandal. Still, it is fascinating to watch this technology evolve. It is not surprising Disney’s financial motivations have gotten them this far.
Whitney Grace, July 27, 2020
Honeywell: Yep, Our Sweet Quantum Computer Is the Blue Ribbon Winner
July 25, 2020
Who has the world’s fastest quantum computer? Is it IBM, Microsoft, Apple, or Google? No, none of these companies have that claim to fame. According to The Motley Fool that honor belongs to, “Honeywell Unveils The World’s Fastest Quantum Computer.” Quantum computers are still reserved for companies, universities, and governments with deep pockets, but Honeywell’s newest machine is making them one step closer to commercial use.
IBM used to own the fastest quantum computer, but Honeywell’s device has a process with 64 quantum volume. IBM’s machine only has 32 quantum volume capability. The Honeywell quantum computer processes six cubits. A cubit is a quantum computing unit that stores and processes more than ones and zeros. Most computers are still limited to the famous ones and zeros from binary code. Honeywell’s computer also has a 99.997% fidelity score, meaning it can compute simulations and calculations of high quality.
Quantum computers are still in a state similar to the behemoths that dominated basements last century. Ironically, quantum computers are large themselves:
“The Honeywell system is another step forward in a long and difficult process. Scientists expect quantum computers to handle problems that are essentially unsolvable with current technology in fields such as cryptography, weather forecasting, artificial intelligence, and drug development. However, that future lies many years ahead. These are very early days in the development of usable quantum systems.”
Honeywell does not claim to have the best quantum computer, only the fastest. At doing what exactly?
Whitney Grace, July 25, 2020
Intel: Distracted by Horse Ridge, Engineers Take Another Detour
July 24, 2020
My hunch is that you did not read “Intel Introduces Horse Ridge to Enable Commercially Viable Quantum Computers.” You probably don’t care about some of the hurdles quantum computers face with or without Horse Ridge; for example, cooling, programming, and stability. That’s okay. The magic of the “quantum” horse thing was news only a sparse pasture below the ridge can appreciate. I have in my files one snippet from the PR output, however:
Horse Ridge is a highly integrated, mixed-signal SoC that brings the qubit controls into the quantum refrigerator — as close as possible to the qubits themselves. It effectively reduces the complexity of quantum control engineering from hundreds of cables running into and out of a refrigerator to a single, unified package operating near the quantum device.
Yep, the quantum refrigerator.
Now flash forward to “Intel’s 7nm Is Broken, Company Announces Delay Until 2022, 2023.” The write up explains:
Intel CEO Bob Swan said the company had identified a “defect mode” in its 7nm process that caused yield degradation issues. As a result, Intel has invested in “contingency plans,” which Swan later defined as including using third-party foundries.
Perhaps Intel will consider shifting its R&D focus to refrigeration units. Serving the quantum computing sector seems to be a way to pivot from a business in which Amazon Gravitons, AMD chips, and Apple’s custom designed ARM silicon are making headway.
Is Intel’s future horse features. Ooops. I meant Horse Ridge. Is that a glue factory under construction on a site adjacent Intel’s new fabrication facility?
Stephen E Arnold, July 24, 2020
Physics Embraces AI: A Development for One Percent of the One Percenters
July 22, 2020
Say what you like about Newton. Teachers have made gravity “real” to indifferent students with the apple on the noggin metaphor.
Physics teachers today face a different challenge. The “old school” ideas are not going to win promotions, grants, or — even better — a prize. Cash! Fame! The cash thing may work among those who are work from home dads and colleagues without a tenure track ticket.
What can physicists who are the one percent of the one percenters? The answer is to combine esoteric mathematical concepts with the future forward concept “artificial intelligence.”
AI can do physics and “AI in Physics: Are We Facing a Scientific Revolution?” explains this shift. Now between you and me, there are a number of revolutions underway, but the “real life” stuff is of scant interest to physicists in my experience. Einstein anecdotes notwithstanding, physicists are an interesting chunk of the one percent’s one percenters.
Your homework? Verify the over density equation and show each step. No shortcuts! This is forward leaning physics with “real” representations, simulations, and predicted properties. No apple either.
The write up states with significant seriousness that symbolic regression:
can be used to derive mathematical formulas from the internally represented relationships in the network. Symbolic regression is carried out as a genetic algorithm. Equipped with variables and mathematical operators, the algorithm searches for the simplest mathematical formula with which known data can be reproduced.
Like many helpful mathy statements, this statement illuminates the process:
Their result clearly shows that the mixture of data, neural graph networks and symbolic regression is actually suitable for extracting mathematical formulas – in this case an already known natural law – from data with AI.
I enjoy the “clearly.”
But the future is not the stuff one can see, touch, feel, sniff, or think about in substantive ways. The future is tackling Dark Matter with AI.
I learned:
The researchers used the neural grapheme network again. Each node contains information about a dark matter halo such as position, speed and mass and is connected to other halos at a distance of 50 Mpc / h. The network was trained with data from the Quijote Dark Matter Simulation , a collection of generated dark matter structures.
And there is a payoff. Ready?
After the training, the GNN was able to predict the desired property of the halos more accurately than previous models. Using symbolic regression, the researchers were then able to produce a previously unknown mathematical formula that has a lower error rate than the currently most commonly used human-made formula for the same task. The resulting formula was also better able to deal with previously unknown data. For Cranmer, this is a clear sign that the mathematical formula generalizes much better than the neural graph network from which it was derived. This coincides with our previous experience in physics, says Cranmer: “The language of simple symbolic models describes the universe correctly.”
Forget the apple falling on Newton’s slightly addled brain carrier. Think in terms of this metaphor:
If AI is like Columbus, computing power is Santa Maria
And Big Data? Of course, of course. One percent of one percenters know this.
Stephen E Arnold, July 22, 2020
Jargon Alert: Direct from the Video Game Universe
July 22, 2020
I scanned a write up called “Who Will Win the Epic Battle for Online Meeting Hegemony?” The write up was a rah rah for Microsoft because, you know, it’s Microsoft.
Stepping away from the “epic battle,” the write up contained a word from the video game universe. (It’s a fine place: Courteous, diverse, and welcoming.)
The word is “upleveled” and it was used in this way:
Upleveled security and encryption. Remote work sites, especially home offices, have become a prime target for a surge in cybersecurity attacks due to their less hardened and secure nature.
A “level” in a game produced the phrase “level up” to communicate that one moved from loser level 2 to almost normal level 3. That “jump” is known as a “level up.”
Now the phrase has become an adjective as in “leveled up.”
DarkCyber believes that the phrase will be applied in this way:
That AI program upleveled its accuracy.
Oh, and the article: Go Microsoft Teams. It’s an elephant and one knows what elephants do. If you are near an elephant uplevel your rubber boots. Will natural language processing get the drift?
Stephen E Arnold, July 22, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
