Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Making Sensitive Data Location Aware

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the sieve-of-permissions dept.

Cellphones 69

An anonymous reader writes "In a breakthrough that could aid spies, keepers of medical records, and parents who want to prevent their kids from 'sexting,' a team of Virginia Tech researchers has created software to remotely put smart phones under lockdown. The phones are given permission to access sensitive data while in a particular room, but when the devices leave the room, the data is completely wiped. A general, for example, could access secret intelligence while visiting a secure government facility without fear that his or her smart phone or tablet computer might later be lost or stolen, the team's lead researcher said. 'This system provides something that has never been available before. It puts physical boundaries around information in cyberspace.'" Unless the phone or other device can also take screenshots, or doesn't have that software installed.

cancel ×

69 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

like what happened with Anthony Weiner (2)

SendBot (29932) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749234)

a radio host just took a picture of the pictures on the phone's screen with his phone's camera

Re:like what happened with Anthony Weiner (1)

ifrag (984323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749302)

Of course this technology is probably supposed to be paired with something like External Transmitter Feature Disabler [slashdot.org]

Re:like what happened with Anthony Weiner (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749748)

The moment you allow other people or their devices to access the info then this technology becomes useless.

The External Transmitter Feature Disabler that'll really work is called a nuclear bomb.

Re:like what happened with Anthony Weiner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37752448)

Or a short range EMP.

First! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37749242)

I guess the comment system has been locked down?

Unless the phone can copy files (1)

reubenavery (1047008) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749256)

and/or create tarballs or similar

Re:Unless the phone can copy files (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749382)

The issue is not necessarily that it can be gotten around, so much as that it will make it harder for someone to use the information from an unauthorized location.

Re:Unless the phone can copy files (1)

jhigh (657789) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749480)

Right - there is not a security control available that doesn't have limitations. That's why we (should) employ defense in depth. The reality is that this device makes it harder for the bad guys to get your data, and that is the goal.

Re:Unless the phone can copy files (1)

Jbcarpen (883850) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749620)

Exactly. If someone who HAD access to that data wanted to break security it would be trivial. The point of this technology is that if they forget to delete the data when they're one with it, it will do it for them. It's for the benefit of non-technologically-inclined people.

This isn't new! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37749268)

Blackberry sells encrypted bluetooth smartcard devices that can be linked to your handheld.

When your blackberry loses the encrypted bluetooth signal, or the smartcard is removed, the handheld locks.

RIM markets them to governments & defense contractors.

sexting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37749272)

"parents who want to prevent their kids from 'sexting,'" - so they can only sext from a particular room?

Re:sexting (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749406)

I guess taking pictures would be allowed only in areas where other people are expected to be around. It's highly unlikely the kids would 'sext' there, and if they did, it certainly wouldn't go unnoticed.

Re:sexting (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749840)

The only way this would work if it was ubiquitous and mandatory. "No pictures here" signal in public bathrooms, changing rooms etc would be grand.

I don't see how this is related to "sexting", though.

Re:sexting (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 2 years ago | (#37750024)

The only way this would work if it was ubiquitous and mandatory. "No pictures here" signal in public bathrooms, changing rooms etc would be grand. I don't see how this is related to "sexting", though.

It's related in the "this is a buzzword that will get us in the newspapers". See "protect the children".

Re:sexting (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 2 years ago | (#37750004)

Ah, another engineer who thinks they can outsmart the combined hormones of every high school student in America.

Re:sexting (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37750014)

More like now they will find a "particular room" and just do it the old fashioned way.

Ah, I understand now... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749290)

If you can put 100% trust in a programmable device, and tell it to behave in a certain way, you can be sure that it will behave in a certain way!

It's Genius!

Re:Ah, I understand now... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37749344)

how has region encoding been working on DVD's for the mpaa?

Re:Ah, I understand now... (1)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749668)

I'm not sure but I think this may be at the kernal level. Still Android is just a modified nix platform so for most /. Users probably easily circumvented. On another note the article didnt really say much but I love the shameless school plug and marketing in the last TWO paragraphs.

Re:Ah, I understand now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37750984)

Hands up if you have an Android device that can play DVDs.

Re:Ah, I understand now... (1)

bad4u2 (1231876) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754830)

I do. Why do you want to know?

if you're already in a secure facility (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37749324)

why would you ever bother looking at information on your smart phone? the example given of a general viewing classified information inside a secure facility is idiotic. They're in a secure facility, with some sort of digital copy of the information present. Why would they ever transfer that information to their phone or tablet instead of just viewing it on a terminal in the facility?

Re:if you're already in a secure facility (2)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749370)

maybe because sometimes you want to be able to take those documents to a meeting with you...which may very well be in the same secure facility, but not near a terminal.

sometimes when i am at work i like carrying my laptop to a meeting so i can show others the stuff i was working on, so even in a facility with terminals all over the place it is still nice if the data can remain somewhat portable.

Re:if you're already in a secure facility (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749902)

Generally, classified data is not allowed on laptop computers, except under some quite strict conditions.

Re:if you're already in a secure facility (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751158)

And, assuming that the government approves this technology for handling classified materials, this will be included in among those strict conditions. Obviously there are procedural and regulatory hurdles to overcome here, but what you point out is precisely the problem that this technology seeks to solve. In the non-classified world, many of us carry some sort of laptop, tablet or phone with us all the time, and use it to take notes, respond to e-mail, etc in meetings and classes. this tech could give a limited form of that level of freedom in the classified world. I've been out of DoD contracting for less than three months and I'm still rediscovering all the conveniences of not having to deal with classified :-)

Re:if you're already in a secure facility (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751142)

Depends on what is "classified".

True classified/sec/TS/SCI stuff, no way.

However, company data like next model releases and such are a different story, and if leaked, may hit a rumor mill, but won't be as damaging as a list of agent names (and their families) winding up public.

I would love to see this implemented on servers in an encrypted HDD controller. If the server is moved, access to the data on the HDDs is lost until a proper smart card is inserted and a PIN given. This would help deter data loss if servers are stolen out of a server room (of course, collusion between the admin and physical thieves would mean this would be rendered pointless, but no security mechanisms are 100% -- you figure out how much good they do weighed by their cost and hassle.)

Prevent "sexting"? (2, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749342)

You mean it'll stop them taking pictures of themselves in the bathroom mirror?

Seriously, the prudish "adult" world needs to grow the fuck up and stop treating teens as children. They're exploring their sexuality, and they need guidance showing how their actions have repercussions, not a digital chastity belt. This arbitrary "16 and no younger" is great for protecting teens from predators, but crap for biology; Teens' hormones don't comply to the Whatever The Hell Law Makes "Sexting" a Crime Act.

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749506)

1) It's scientific fact their brians aren't as mature as you seem to think at 16.
2) It's up to the parent, not to you, me or anyone else, to determine what constitutes healthy sexual exploration and behavior..
3) There are plenty of people like you who will not use the software, you can all pat yourselves on the back, somehow liking sex means you're more intelligent than the rest of people... somehow..
4) There are plenty of people who will use this software and not bother you at all about what you do, so why do you care what they do?

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749654)

1) It's scientific fact their brians aren't as mature as you seem to think at 16.

But the day of their 16th birthday they magically become mature?

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749676)

bah, sorry, meant 18th.

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749952)

Technically it takes until after you are 21 for your brain to fully develop. However, what constitutes an adult mind when human beings used to only live to their 30's tops, most dying before the age of 18.

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37750930)

The myth that human used to only live to their 30's is totally false. Actually look it up. Most died in their infancy, but if you survived that then you could quite easily live to 50 or 60. Quite a few lived in their 80's.

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37750958)

No, it's more like 30 or 32. I'm not even there yet (almost, couple more years), and I know I have a long way to go, so stop kidding yourself. There's nothing magical about 16, 18, 21, or any other age. I'm still fairly resentful about how repressive my parents were. I got out in the real world and found out I had 10 years of catching up to do with my peers who'd been having sex the whole time I wasn't even allowed to have a girlfriend.

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752382)

No, it's more like 30 or 32. I'm not even there yet (almost, couple more years), and I know I have a long way to go, so stop kidding yourself.

You're kidding yourself by thinking you are still climbing the brain power totem pole. We are at the peak (27-28) right now, man... it's all downhill from a nuts and bolts perspective afterwords. :)

I can't learn quite a easily as I used to be able to, but hopefully the accumulated knowledge (wisdom?) makes up for it.

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751288)

Technically, there is a range of developmental progress for each individual at each age. This notion of "fully develop" is kind of cute, but it interferes with effective social policy decision making. Also, your second sentence makes absolutely no sense. Please think before posting.

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751438)

We have the likes of Scarlett Johansson sexting to whomever and she's 26, so NO - people do not magically catch a clue and realise that dodgy pictures taken (no matter how 'private' they are meant to be) can and will get out (if you are famous and/or attractive enough that is) Mind you goatse did the rounds (pardon the pun). You don't want naked pictures of yourself spread around the internet - don't take naked pictures of yourself. Could'nt be simpler.

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749784)

1) It's scientific fact their brians aren't as mature as you seem to think at 16.

I don't think they're mature at all; I've worked in secondary education, and know very well how teens often have very short term ideas regarding consequence. That is why they need education, not prohibition; To prepare them for later life when consequences can take years to manifest.

2) It's up to the parent, not to you, me or anyone else, to determine what constitutes healthy sexual exploration and behavior..

Yes. However, the parent is often, in this day and age, absent. They rely in daycare education to bring up their child, and this kind of technology is just the kind of thing they would grasp with two hands in order to avoid taking some responsibility for bringing up their child.

3) There are plenty of people like you who will not use the software, you can all pat yourselves on the back, somehow liking sex means you're more intelligent than the rest of people... somehow..

This isn't even related to my point.

4) There are plenty of people who will use this software and not bother you at all about what you do, so why do you care what they do?

It doesn't bother me a jott if they do or don't use this software, or what they use it for. I was pointing out the faulty logic of saying that this software will combat "sexting". It will do no such thing. Prohibition doesn't work.

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (2)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749850)

1) Its a scientific fact that people were popping babies out as early as 12, 2000 years ago.

2) Its a scientific fact that people are not totally monogamous

3) Its a scientific fact that people have been "doing it" before marriage for over 50,000 years

4) Its a scientific fact that people crave sex for reproduction of the human race

5) Its a scientific fact that STD's can be minimized significantly with protection

6) Its a scientific fact that during puberty, your hormones are encouraging sex more than as an adult

7) Its a scientific fact that you cannot prove there is some guy in the sky telling us not to have sex

Im not sure why "parents" get to have so many rights over what their children do at 16. Sure, they are there to protect them and provide for them, but why can they force them to make personal choices however the parent sees fit? When I was 14 I didn't need my parents around all the time, I made good decisions (i.e. didn't try drugs except a little pot but didn't use it again until college), made good grades, and I chose for myself to enter into advanced courses in school for the challenge. I was not encouraged to do so. I was routinely left at home to take care of my brother, and I was allowed to travel around town on my bike and do basically whatever I wanted. I could see rated R movies, my mom found my dirty magazines and left them on my bed (i.e. HAHA! Caught you, but you can keep them), and I played whatever video games I wanted. Pretty much the only rule was I had to be home by 10, and if I started missing school then I would perhaps be grounded if it wasn't for a good reason. When I lost my virginity I told my parents about it individually and they were OK with it, in spite of being Christians. They knew I was sort of in love with the girl, as much as a kid can be when they aren't used to feelings like that, and it was just what kids do when they start having feelings like that. Essentially, in spite of my childhood I am still a good person, I don't lie, cheat on my wife, or hurt people intentionally. 16 is more than old enough to either know better or to be able to learn from consequences. If you haven't taught your child this by now you are a fucking shitty parent, and locking your kids up with chastity belts and dog collars won't make them be well adjusted adults.

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (1)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751942)

Very similar experience. I simply do not comprehend the prohibitive tendencies, though, it seems to me, that these manifest themselves, more often than not, in the minds of ignorant people. Not necessarily stupid. For instance, my wife could not watch "The Simpsons" as a child, where as I could. The only difference between us was that she ended up watching it in secret anyway, and the whole thing was just pointless theatrics of "responsibility".

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37750106)

1) It's scientific fact their brians [sic] aren't as mature as you seem to think at 16.

.....WHAT?!? Have we fallen so far, that this isn't challenged immediately, by all angles? or ignored as the height of ignorance?

Not the spelling, fine; but you quote scientific fact with the metric being what you think that he thinks?

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (2)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#37750974)

The crime is there and in most cases is punished appropriately, meaning that the deterrent is there to stop repeated action. From what I can tell many of these cases get a slap on the wrist or some equivalent. At the basics, this is just child molestation which we have been dealing with for years. It often takes the form of an older boy having sex with a younger girl and then the girl claiming rape, or the parent freaking in general. Parents are going to pretend 'their kids' are saints, and only act badly because of the influence of 'other kids'.

What is new, as opposed to when I was a kid, is that a person can no longer just pay for their crime and then live relatively freely. Because of the sex offenders list a kid who commits these sex offenses, and these are sex offenses and should be punished as such, is now going to be labeled as a sex offender forever and everyone will know they committed a sex offense. It is like being convicted of stealing a car when on is 17, and having that follow you. It makes sense. I don't want to live next to someone who steals cars, but for some reason we have a list of child molesters, even when most children are molested by family members, less so neighbors, and not strangers, while cars are often stolen by strangers.

So it comes down to whitebread suburban families facing the realization that their kid is going to lose opportunity just because they don't have the sense to leave their bra on or zip up. In fact we don't know if such people are more likely to grow up to be child molesters or rapists. We don't know that they should not be proactively on a list. If the purpose of these lists is t save one child from being molested, it may be that such a child will be saved by putting these young potential perverts on a list. We don't know. What should not happen is that we begin to make exceptions to the list so that the 'good' people are given a second chance while the 'bad' people are not.

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37759412)

You do know that "sexting" is sending someone a lewd photo of yourself using a mobile phone, right? Nothing to do with actual physical contact between two people.

Your comment deals with issues which are not related to the subject at all. Important issues, but totally irrelevant here.

Re:Prevent "sexting"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37782632)

You mean it'll stop them taking pictures of themselves in the bathroom mirror?

Seriously, the prudish "adult" world needs to grow the fuck up and stop treating teens as children. They're exploring their sexuality, and they need guidance showing how their actions have repercussions, not a digital chastity belt. This arbitrary "16 and no younger" is great for protecting teens from predators, but crap for biology; Teens' hormones don't comply to the Whatever The Hell Law Makes "Sexting" a Crime Act.

What's your daughter's phone number?

naughty or nice (1)

epine (68316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749390)

Unless the phone or other device can also take screenshots, or doesn't have that software installed ... or ... or ... or ...

Santa just called. He wants his elf-master of the list back before this junket of free association into the infinite void permanently curls his toes into cranky hang nails. Santa's old experiment with CRM114 automation did not go well. Return the elf, now!

in related news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37749418)

In related news, a team at Harvard/MIT/(your favorite school here) has developed stupidity-aware smartphones. On detecting the low brainwave activity of a stupid person, the phone immediately shuts down. The device was invented last year, but public relations officials at the universities had been unable to get the news out by phone. They hit upon the strategy of using the internet only earlier this week.

Re:in related news (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749576)

Dang, no more pictures of naked cheerleaders!

There are some neat things you can do with GPS (1)

satuon (1822492) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749568)

The one I like the most is location-based reminders, where the alarm is activated when you go at a specific place, like 'don't forget to buy milk' when you go to the supermarket.

Re:There are some neat things you can do with GPS (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749688)

The one I like the most is location-based reminders, where the alarm is activated when you go at a specific place, like 'don't forget to buy milk' when you go to the supermarket.

In that case, don't forget about the alarm for "don't forget to go to the supermarket" when you are anyplace but the supermarket.

Re:There are some neat things you can do with GPS (2)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751018)

Thank you. This is just another GPS based program that deletes instead of reminds. Nothing to see here. 'Researchers' is probably euphemism for fourth year student project that the fourth year students think is cool or novel but really isn't. And if they are really researchers, then why the hell is the U.S. government and the university wasting money on researchers who can only come up with something a fourth year student is probably capable of? Or is this the state of schools now? *sigh*

Re:There are some neat things you can do with GPS (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755526)

fourth year students

Second-year students. It's the time when students know enough to do something but not enough to avoid doing it seriously wrong.

Won't work (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749574)

I'll just chime in like the rest. A system like this fails to appreciate that data is the thing and it is not executable.

Once data is made accessible, then the device accessing it, can do whatever it wants. Such software based systems rely on the integrity of the client which should never be relied upon.

All one would need is some means of capturing and copying the data once presented. After that, the game is over.

Would this work for 95% of all users? Probably... unless the purpose is restricting teens. Teens are quicker to overcome such obstacles when they are presented. (Not saying teens are smarter than adults, but I am saying they don't give up as easily when they want to do something.) So while it might prevent a high percentage of most users, in the case of teens, it is going to be a rate between 33% and 75% in my estimation depending on how difficult the solution is to implement. (If it's an android or iphone app, it'll be closer to the 33%.)

Re:Won't work (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749872)

I think the examples involving cooperative clients who WANT to protect themselves but might make an error made a lot more sense. This technology makes a great deal more sense in that context.

Re:Won't work (1)

quickgold192 (1014925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37750924)

in the case of teens, it is going to be a rate between 33% and 75% in my estimation depending on how difficult the solution is to implement.

Actually, they'll probably just do it the old fashioned way - pull her boyfriend into the bathroom and show him in person.

Entirely off topic, except for the VT part (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749672)

Don't bother watching this, unless you happened to click through from the main page because it had Virginia Tech in the headline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4LssHXZjIA [youtube.com]

I'm not sure whether to be excited that VT had made it so mainstream in the last 25 years, or saddened that it took football to raise the profile of a primarily academic/technical institution. Actually, now that I come to think of it, I don't give a shit - I'm just happy to see us on TV. :-)

More about that general. (2)

Insightfill (554828) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749698)

A general, for example, could access secret intelligence while visiting a secure government facility without fear that his or her smart phone or tablet computer might later be lost or stolen, the team's lead researcher said.

More likely: that general would leave the room, discover that the data he needed for his upcoming meeting had been removed from the phone, and then raise holy hell to have the damn system shut down forever.

Re:More about that general. (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751054)

A pointy haired boss is still a pointy haired boss... even if they wear a funny hat over it.

Location spoofing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37749838)

The OP doesn't mention HOW the location is being determined, but let's guess for now that it's the built-in GPS. First, there is the problem of receiving a GPS signal inside many buildings. Second, there is the issue of spoofing the location with something like a femtocell or picocell GPS transmitter.

Like anything, there's always a way around it.

Serious 3D Info Protection (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749876)

I don't have any idea how this works, but one of the biggest problems facing any company is information that "migrates" outside the company and most of it is confidential files.

They seemed to talk of phones and pads/tablets in the article, but I wonder if it extends to laptops and other computer equipment. More info is needed.

Obviously a photo from any camera can not be locked down as there is no electronic connection to an isolated camera.

Applications for Malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37749888)

There are all sorts of reasons that some people want other peoples' computers to work against the owners' interests, limiting their power. I don't blame people for that, because sometimes it really is you-vs-the-other-guy, so if you can trick/coerce/bargain the other guy into using a not-quite-loyal computer, why not do it? People will have a lot of sympathy for patients who don't want their doctors "stealing" their medical records. Nobody wants their general accidentally leaking secrets.

Nevertheless, trusting someone else to run malware still comes down to trusting the other person, because they might choose for their computer to not run the malware -- either completely, or by partially emulating it. You don't really know that the other person's computer destroyed its copy of the information after it left the room.

So while I'm empathetic to the pro-DRM crowd's stated goals, it is nevertheless doomed and in practice it ends up offering the world nothing but disadvantages.

Circular reasoning (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37749954)

Problem: You can't trust your device to reliably store information without leaking it.
Solution: Trust your device to reliably delete that data automatically.

Actual solution: Stop relying on untrusted blackbox devices. Particularly in the military, which can theoretically afford the technical manpower to scrutinize and audit source code, closed-source software should be banned. The general in the example is smart enough to know when to delete stuff from his phone, but he needs to be sure the information is actually gone and not stored in a cloud somewhere.

Re:Circular reasoning (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | more than 2 years ago | (#37750218)

I think the bigger problem is you don't trust the device. If you don't trust the device enough to let it have the data, why the fuck do you trust it enough to let it on your network? You don't know where that device has been or who it has been with.

Oh, this is a Software Solution..... (1)

jimpop (27817) | more than 2 years ago | (#37750032)

Oh, this is a Software Solution..... yeah, that will will work properly 100% of the time. Move along.

Previous work (1)

tylerni7 (944579) | more than 2 years ago | (#37750046)

I don't see too many details in this article, but there was something that sounds awful similar from Carnegie Mellon University a little while back called MULE (Mobile User Location-specific Encryption). http://sparrow.ece.cmu.edu/group/pub/studer_wisec10.pdf [cmu.edu] [pdf warning]

Re:Previous work (1)

flonker (526111) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752178)

I was thinking along the same lines. Why just transmit a binary in-range/not-in-range signal, when you can transmit a key instead (with proper anti-sniffing safeguards)?

Another possible solution to this problem is remote storage of the sensitive files; out of range, can't access the files.

Of course, all of these options require a modification to the device so that the application gets killed and memory gets wiped when you leave the range of the file.

another dodge (1)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 2 years ago | (#37750942)

or the phone can fake the location data. which I suspect isn't hard if you have a reason to do it.

Little behind at VT eh? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751592)

There is already software in the market place that does this? Even McAfee offers it in their mobile device management solution.

Implementation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751812)

What is the actual idea? The video does not describe it in any detail other than to say "it works." Prof Jules does not have any relevant publications to explain it either. If it is based on the list of visible MACs or something similar, or another attested location scheme, this has been published before at HotMobile (not by me). If they have something new, that's great, but it is not explained by watching the video or looking at his web page.

Missing the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37757448)

The real problem is that any information you give in ANY form to ANYONE who is carrying a smart phone is no longer secure, whether the smart phone is the delivery device or not. An uncontrolled device with the ability to capture, store, and transmit data (actively and passively, and sometimes without the user's knowledge) is the antithesis of security.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>