Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

No, I'm pretty sure they used a real recording.

They link the actual recording in section 3.1: http://bit.ly/2JciYB6

What they are saying is to find their target keys, they physically modelled 330,424 candidate keys, generated an acoustic simulation and then ran the acoustic simulation of clicks though the tool described in sections 3.1 to 3.6. They used the insertion speed of 1 inch per second for this physical simulation of candidate keys.

Then they compared the output of the tool on all the candidates to the output from the original real recording to see which ones lined up the best.




Thanks for looking deeper, I was hoping someone would. You're right about the purpose of the simulation.

What I'm confused about is, I would expect them to say that they ran that recording through SpiKey, and it output 3 (or however many) candidates, and the actual key was (or wasn't) one of the three. But instead, that bit.ly link is provided for "better understanding", and the rest of the section it's in is about the tool in general, rather than a specific test of it.

Was it one actual recording they tested, you think? Do they say whether the actual key was among the candidates?


Are you suggesting the authors failed to get their theoretical attack to work, yet left that detail out of the paper?

Pretty shady if so...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: