skip to main content
10.1145/3230833.3234690acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaresConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Accuracy Enhancement of Electromagnetic Side-Channel Attacks on Computer Monitors

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 August 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Electromagnetic noise emitted from running computer displays modulates information about the picture frames being displayed on screen. Attacks have been demonstrated on eavesdropping computer displays by utilising these emissions as a side-channel vector. The accuracy of reconstructing a screen image depends on the emission sampling rate and bandwidth of the attackers signal acquisition hardware. The cost of radio frequency acquisition hardware increases with increased supported frequency range and bandwidth. A number of enthusiast-level, affordable software defined radio equipment solutions are currently available facilitating a number of radio-focused attacks at a more reasonable price point. This work investigates three accuracy influencing factors, other than the sample rate and bandwidth, namely noise removal, image blending, and image quality adjustments, that affect the accuracy of monitor image reconstruction through electromagnetic side-channel attacks.

References

  1. Stephen Butterworth. 1930. On the Theory of Filter Amplifiers. Wireless Engineer 7, 6 (1930), 536--541.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Fürkan Elibol, Uğur Sarac, and Işin Erer. 2012. Realistic Eavesdropping Attacks on Computer Displays with Low-cost and Mobile Receiver System. In Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), 2012 Proceedings of the 20th European. IEEE, 1767--1771.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Daniel Genkin, Adi Shamir, and Eran Tromer. 2014. RSA Key Extraction via Low-bandwidth Acoustic Cryptanalysis. In International Cryptology Conference. Springer, 444--461.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Robin Getz and Bob Moeckel. 1996. Understanding and eliminating EMI in Microcontroller Applications. National Semiconductor (1996).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Yu-ichi Hayashi. 2016. State-of-the-art Research on Electromagnetic Information Security. Radio Science 51, 7 (2016), 1213--1219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Arie Kouwen, Mark Scanlon, Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo, and Nhien-An Le-Khac. 2018. Digital Forensic Investigation of Two-Way Radio Communication Equipment and Services. Digital Investigation 26S, 1 (07 2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Markus Guenther Kuhn. 2002. Compromising Emanations: Eavesdropping Risks of Computer Displays. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Martin Marinov. 2018. TempestSDR Remote Video Eavesdropping using a Software-defined Radio Platform. (2018). https://github.com/martinmarinov/TempestSDR, Last accessed on 2018-02-01.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Samuel Joseph O'Malley and Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo. 2014. Bridging the Air Gap: Inaudible Data Exfiltration by Insiders. In 20th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS). Association for Information Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Michael Ossmann. 2016. Software Defined Radio with HackRF. Great Scott Gadgets, https.V/greatscottgadgets.com/sdr (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Henry W Ott. 2011. Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering. John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Asanka Sayakkara, Nhien-An Le-Khac, and Mark Scanlon. 2018. Electromagnetic Side-Channel Attacks: Potential for Progressing Hindered Digital Forensic Analysis. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Speculative Side Channel Analysis (WoSSCA 2018). ACM, Amsterdam, Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Wim Van Eck. 1985. Electromagnetic Radiation from Video Display Units: An Eavesdropping Risk? Computers & Security 4, 4 (1985), 269--286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. 2004. Image Quality Assessment: From Error Visibility to Structural Similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing 13, 4 (2004), 600--612. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Alenka Zajic and Milos Prvulovic. 2014. Experimental Demonstration of Electromagnetic Information Leakage from Modern Processor-memory Systems. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 56, 4 (2014), 885--893.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Accuracy Enhancement of Electromagnetic Side-Channel Attacks on Computer Monitors

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ARES '18: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security
      August 2018
      603 pages
      ISBN:9781450364485
      DOI:10.1145/3230833

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 August 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      ARES '18 Paper Acceptance Rate128of260submissions,49%Overall Acceptance Rate228of451submissions,51%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader