Thursday, June 15, 2023

hardware hacking to bypass BIOS passwords

Hardware Hacking to Bypass BIOS Passwords

Summary 

This article serves as a beginner’s hardware hacking journey, performing a BIOS password bypass on Lenovo laptops. We identify what the problem is, how to identify a vulnerable chip, how to bypass a vulnerable chip, and finally, analyse why this attack works and ways that it can be prevented. 

In rolling out new consultant laptops at CyberCX, several Lenovo laptops were retired from primary business use. The process involves wiping each device and deciding if the hardware still operates correctly. If the hardware is still workable, then it can be added to the pool of available devices for research or specific jobs that require an additional laptop. However, in this instance, most of our internal team had conveniently forgotten their BIOS passwords. BIOS passwords are designed to prevent unauthorized access to the hardware systems and their configuration. However, when these passwords are forgotten or misplaced, it can mean the inability to perform device wiping or hardware changes. 

If you have not already, I would highly recommend including capturing BIOS passwords as part of the laptop setup process (it is in ours now). 

As we did not want to waste the hardware, I started investigating how to get around the BIOS password for these Lenovo laptops. 

It should be an easy fix, right? 

An old approach to resetting the BIOS would be to remove the coin cell battery and wait 5-10 minutes. This resets the BIOS configuration to factory defaults. This may have worked previously; however, on modern systems the configuration is stored in non-volatile storage on the motherboard. A different approach would need to be taken with these laptops. 

A vulnerability identified with the BIOS of these laptops is that the Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM) is separate from the BIOS chip itself. This means that if we can intercept or interrupt this communication, then the prompt for a BIOS password may be bypassed. This vulnerability is publicly well known; the best writeup I have found is an article by David Zou (Zou, 2016). My research intends to build on this work in order to allow CyberCX to repurpose these retired laptops. 

How to Identify Vulnerable Chips? 

As mentioned previously, the Lenovo laptops that were being retired have a separate BIOS chip to where the BIOS settings are stored. This setup is not unique to Lenovo as other manufacturers have the same implementation problem. 

For Lenovo laptop motherboards, the EEPROM is an 8-Pin Thin Shrink Small Outline Package (TSSOP). This can come in several configurations, as shown in Figure 1. 

 

A picture containing electronic component, circuit component, passive circuit component, electronics

Description automatically generated

 Figure 1 ABLIC Inc. (Eeprom_fig051, 2013) 

Looking carefully at each chip on the laptop motherboard allows us to identify several SOP, TSSOP, and TMSOP-8 packages. The way that the EEPROM communicates is over the Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C or I2C) protocol. The pinout diagram shown below (Figure 2) is for the TSSOP, however the pinout remains the same for each of the EEPROM packages. 

 

8-pin Serial EEPROM Pins

 Figure 2 Zou, D. (8pinEEPROM, 2016) 

 

Using this information we will identify the BIOS EEPROM on a Lenovo laptop, then perform an attack against the Serial Clock (SCL) and Serial Data (SDA) pins to modify or interrupt the communication.

 

How to Bypass BIOS Password? 

The volunteer in this instance is a Lenovo L440, as shown already torn down in Figure 3. 

A picture containing electronics, computer

Description automatically generated

 Figure 3 Lenovo L440 Laptop Target 

 

To perform a successful attack against the BIOS password of this laptop the following process will be followed:  

  1. Locate the correct EEPROM chip. 
  2. Locate the SCL and SDA pins. 
  3. Short the SCL and SDA pins at the right time. 

On the Lenovo L440 there were three chips that kind of fit the package and pinout criteria we are looking for. 

The easiest way to identify if the chip is a candidate is to search for the serial number and the word EEPROM. Often it will be quickly obvious if the chip is or is not an EEPROM based off the search results. However, it should be noted that many manufacturers do not put the actual serial number in place. They all have their own standards and versioning systems, which can make the process of identifying components difficult. The following figures show three candidates identified on the Lenovo L440 that could be the EEPROM we are looking for.

 

A close-up of a circuit board

 Figure 4 Possible Candidate #1 An 8-Pin SOP 

 

 

Figure 5 Possible Candidate #2 An 8-Pin TSSOP 

 

 A close-up of a circuit board

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 6 Possible Candidate #3 An 8-pin TMSOP 

 

The first candidate (Figure 4) has the serial MXIC MX 25L6473E, which appears to be a 64 MB Flash CMOS. So, while part of the BIOS, is not the chip we are looking for. 

The second candidate (Figure 5) has the serial 4835D AC W56C, which appears to be a metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) of some sort. Useful for power delivery and smoothing but not for storing data. 

The third candidate (Figure 6) has the serial L08-1 XH and appears to be the EEPROM we are looking for. This is where the configuration is stored by the BIOS. 

For those looking close enough, I did originally perform this attack against the wrong chip. The ground pin of the 64 MB Flash CMOS was the unlucky victim in the process, the laptop still powers on and works, though. 

A quick demo of the attack working is shown below, this is performed on a Lenovo X230, but the same attack process still applies.

 

 

I identified the EEPROM as shown in the top right. I can get into guest mode of the BIOS without knowing the password, but no changes can be made. 

Remember, we are interested in the SCL and SDA pins. All we will need to do is short these at the correct time and they will bypass the password prompt. 

As you can see in the demo, I power the laptop on, then I use the ‘elite’ technique of jamming a small screwdriver across the SCL and SDA pins to short them until entering the BIOS. 

An interesting note is you could bypass the password, make changes to the BIOS, for example change the boot drive, and then not perform the short on next boot. You could then load into a new OS, do what you need to do, then re-short the pins again, changing the setting back. This still leaves the existing password in the EEPROM so a victim’s laptop would not have any evidence of tampering.

 

Why does this attack work? 

Let us dig further into why this attack works. The first thing to do is to hook up the SCL and SDA pins to an oscilloscope. The model I used is shown in Figure 7.

A picture containing text, indoor

Description automatically generated

 Figure 7 Siglent SDS 1202X-E Oscilloscope 

 

The first attempt at connecting the EEPROM chip failed as the smallest TSSOP 8-pin clip that we had in the workshop was too big (indicating that this is either a smaller version, or a TMSOP). This issue is shown in Figure 8. 

 

Figure 8 8-pin TSSOP Clip 

 

However, our workshop has acquired a PCBite set that allows probing the tiniest of pins on a board. Figure 9 shows just how small these “legs” are of the EEPROM. 

 Figure 9 PCBite Pins attached to the EEPROM. 

 

Figure 10 shows the pinout mapped to the EEPROM on the motherboard. 

 

Figure 10 Showing the pin layout of the identified chip. 

 

With the correct pins now hooked up to the oscilloscope, we can attempt to view the communication between the BIOS and the EEPROM when booting. 

It had been a very long time since I had used an oscilloscope; I found the following from Siglent to be useful for getting the correct configuration. Additionally, the model of oscilloscope we have in the workshop supposedly comes with automatic serial communication decoding! 

These two videos from Siglent and MyVanitar helped setup and understand how to configure each setting to be able to read the correct information. 

(Siglent Technologies, 2017) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXJN7FwpKHg 

(MyVanitar, 2020) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzcia8C-Y7Y 

Additionally, the following specifications are from a Mouser datasheet that match the EEPROM chip we are attacking. 

 

Figure 11 Snippet from Microchip (2003) Datasheet 

 

The Bus Characteristics description includes the following definition for the communication protocol which can explain our attack. “Data transfer may be initiated only when the bus is not busy” (Microchip, 2003). Along with the Bus not Busy definition, “Both data and clock lines remain high” (Microchip, 2003). 

Additionally, the datasheet provides a visual representation of the communication protocol. The start and stop mechanism: the BIOS would perform a start command, send the data, then send a stop signal to signify the end of communication. 

 

Figure 12 Start/Stop (Microchip, 2003) 

 

What should be noted here is that the BIOS requires the start signal or the laptop will not boot. This is why we cannot just short the pins before turning the laptop on. 

Looking at the output of our fancy oscilloscope in the following figure, we can see that the start signal is sent approximately 5.32 microseconds after the power button has been pressed. It should be noted that for the oscilloscope readings, the yellow line is SCL (Clock), and the purple line is SDA (Data) unless stated otherwise.

 

 

Figure 13 Output of oscilloscope showing start signal. 

 

From the figure we can see the start condition happening and then the first 0x06 DATA Write operation. Notice the time difference here: 5.3 microseconds from power on, the first operation happens, then a read and write, then nothing until about 6 milliseconds after the power has been turned on. 

This initial power on appears to be the BIOS performing a check on the EEPROM. As discussed earlier this check must happen, otherwise the BIOS will prevent the system from booting any further. This prevents us from shorting the EEPROM pins before the power is applied. 

 

Figure 14 Oscilloscope View when pins are shorted. 

 

Figure 14 shows the view on the oscilloscope once I short the SCL and SDA pins. Note that the timing X axis is out by a bit between the two images. The short happens approximately between the 470 microsecond and 5.8 millisecond points. This shows SDA is low while SCL is high, which according to the protocol description indicates a busy line. 

While testing this bypass, the timing for shorting the pins does not have to be quite this tight. If the pins are shorted slightly later, this still results in a successful bypass. Additionally, the password must be read by the BIOS later in the sequence as the short must remain until entering the BIOS configuration. 

To add to the complexity, some BIOS use the TPM, or encrypt or hash the BIOS password. Every model, even within the same manufacturer, is different and of course this process is not documented. 

In my instance, with the Lenovo laptops, I could not get the Read/Write bytes to repeat (after the Write, Read, Write startup check process). The bytes that were returned did not appear to decode into any discernible format. 

If I had access to the documentation for the communication bytes, or if I read off the entire EEPROM, then it is possible that I may have been able to grab the BIOS password in plaintext. 

 Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

Figure 15 Example of captured Bytes being read from the EEPROM. 

 

I am almost certain that it is possible to read the data from the EEPROM, possibly I have hooked up something wrong, or used the wrong decoding. We will have to leave that for future research. For now, the bypass works consistently, and we now have a fairly good understanding of why this vulnerability exists.

 

How can this be prevented? 

When attempting to model this particular threat, it is important to keep in mind that this requires complete physical access for possibly a minimum of a few hours. Additionally, the use of full disk encryption (with a Passphrase and TPM) would prevent an attacker from obtaining data from the laptop’s drive. 

In order to increase the difficulty of this type of attack, manufacturers could include the BIOS and EEPROM packages into one Surface Mount Device (SMD). This would require performing a chip-off attack to intercept the same communications. Some motherboard manufacturers already use this process, either on purpose or unintentionally, for modern or higher-end systems.

 

 

References 

 

Author: Dajne Win – Principal Security Consultant 

Back to Blog

Saturday, June 10, 2023

Sucralose, a chemical in Splenda, is found to cause 'significant health effects' in new study

 

Sucralose, a chemical in Splenda, is found to cause 'significant health effects' in new study

Ingredient is linked to DNA damage, elevated cancer risk and leaky gut, but sweetener industry maintains safety

Sucralose, a chemical found in the popular zero-calorie sweetener Splenda, has been shown to cause damage to DNA, raise the risk of cancer and cause leaks in the gut lining, according to a new study from North Carolina State University.

Splenda is used as a sugar substitute in thousands of foods, beverages, desserts and candies. The product contains 1.10% sucralose. It is made by Tate & Lyle in the U.K.

The study, published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, found that a metabolite of sucralose, called sucralose-6-acetate, is "genotoxic." 

POPULAR ARTIFICIAL SWEETENER, ERYTHRITOL, COULD RAISE RISK OF HEART ATTACK AND STROKE: STUDY

That means it breaks down the genetic material that makes up DNA, explained Susan Schiffman, Ph.D., senior author of the study and an adjunct professor at North Carolina State University.

When DNA strands break and are then rearranged and repaired, that can increase the risk of cancerous cells forming, previous studies have shown.

Sweetener in coffee

Sucralose, a chemical found in the popular zero-calorie sweetener Splenda, has been shown to cause significant health effects, a new study from North Carolina State University found. (iStock)

In addition, both sucralose and sucralose-6-acetate were shown to cause damage to the "tight junctions" that hold together the intestinal barrier, leading to a "leaky gut."

"A leaky gut is problematic because it means toxins that would normally be flushed out of the body in feces are instead leaking out of the gut and being absorbed into the bloodstream," Schiffman told Fox News Digital. 

The researchers conducted eight separate experiments to measure the safety and risks of both sucralose and sucralose-6-acetate, which is a chemical byproduct of sucralose and is considered an impurity.

"Consumers have a right to know what they are consuming."

"An important point is that even if the contaminant sucralose-6-acetate is totally removed from sucralose products, it is still generated by bacteria in the gut," Schiffman warned.

This isn’t the first research to flag potential dangers related to sucralose.

"Previous studies have shown a wide range of adverse effects from sucralose, including dysbiosis (including damage to good bacteria in the gut) and alteration of blood glucose and insulin," Schiffman said.

"Consumers have a right to know what they are consuming," she added.

Dietitian shares sucralose concerns

Michelle Routhenstein, a New York-based heart health dietitian at EntirelyNourished.com, was not involved in the sucralose study but said she was not surprised by the findings.

Splenda

Splenda, made by Tate & Lyle in the U.K., is used as a sugar substitute in thousands of foods, beverages, desserts and candy. (Hannah Songer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

"In the last couple of years, we have been seeing more and more research studies pointing to the inflammatory nature of artificial sweeteners, primarily impacting the gut microbiome," she told Fox News Digital.

Routhenstein recommends avoiding sugar substitutes as much as possible because of the association between underlying inflammation, oxidative stress and cardiovascular disease, she said. 

SUGAR SUBSTITUTES NOT ADVISED FOR WEIGHT LOSS OR DISEASE PREVENTION, SAYS WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

"Sucralose and other sugar substitutes are also considered ultra-processed foods, which have been linked to increased risk of subsequent cardiovascular events in individuals who have had a heart attack," Routhenstein added.

Those who are at risk of cardiovascular disease, have cancer or suffer from any inflammatory conditions could be particularly susceptible to risks, the dietitian noted.

"While artificial sweeteners may be tolerable in generally healthy individuals, they should be eliminated if there are any signs of bloating, indigestion, constipation or diarrhea," she said.

New findings may refute earlier safety studies: toxicologist

Kelly Johnson-Arbor, M.D., a medical toxicologist and co-medical director at the National Capital Poison Center in Washington, D.C., reviewed the study findings and advised caution.

Broken DNA

When DNA strands break and are then rearranged and repaired, this can increase the risk of cancerous cells forming, previous studies have shown. (iStock)

"Although artificial sweeteners like sucralose were promoted as healthy alternatives to sugar for decades, improvements in medical technology have allowed scientists to perform more extensive testing on these chemicals and their potential toxicities," she said in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

"The results of these studies show that these compounds may be associated with significant health effects," she added.

While the short-term consumption of sucralose and other artificial sweeteners is unlikely to cause harmful side effects, Johnson-Arbor said, this particular study found that sucralose can accumulate in tissues after continued exposure, suggesting that chronic or long-term consumption of the sweetener may be more dangerous than previously thought.

"These compounds may be associated with significant health effects."

When the earlier safety studies were performed, the identification of sucralose-6-acetate as an impurity may not have been fully realized, she pointed out.

"These results are concerning because they show that such impurities may have significant — or even greater — toxicity than the original compound," the toxicologist said.

Sweetener industry maintains safety of sucralose

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved sucralose for use in 1998 in 15 food categories. A year later, the agency approved the chemical as a general-purpose sweetener. 

After reviewing this latest study from North Carolina State University, the Calorie Control Council in Washington, D.C., defended sucralose as a safe product that has been "extensively tested."

The Council also called into question the reliability of the new study.

SUGAR SUBSTITUTES MAY INTERFERE WITH LIVER’S ABILITY TO DETOXIFY, RESEARCHERS SAY

"This study was conducted in a laboratory environment, which cannot mimic the complex mechanisms of the human body, even when human cells are used," said Robert Rankin, president of the Calorie Control Council, in a statement sent to Fox News Digital.

(Study author Schiffman maintained that "the study was done in human tissue, so it is directly relevant to potential human health issues.")

Woman holding gut

Both sucralose and sucralose-6-acetate were shown to cause damage to the "tight junctions" that hold together the intestinal barrier, leading to a "leaky gut." (iStock)

"For the millions of people who rely on low- and no-calorie sweeteners to help manage body weight and reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases like diabetes and obesity, it is important to know the facts, which is that sucralose has been rigorously studied by scientific and regulatory authorities around the world and is safe to consume," Rankin added.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

The International Sweeteners Association, based in Brussels, also said it stands behind sucralose.

"Sucralose, like all other low/no calorie sweeteners, plays an important role in providing consumers choice with sweet-tasting options with low or no calories," wrote an ISA spokesperson in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Sucralose has undergone one of the most extensive and thorough testing programs conducted on any food additive in history, resulting in consensus on its safety throughout the global scientific and regulatory community," the spokesperson added.

Fox News Digital also reached out to Tate & Lyle, the maker of Splenda, but the company had not provided comment by publication time.

Monday, June 5, 2023

The machines that law enforcement uses to monitor your phone’s data

The National Security Agency’s spying tactics are being intensely scrutinized following the recent leaks of secret documents. However, the NSA isn’t the only US government agency using controversial surveillance methods.

 

Monitoring citizens’ cell phones without their knowledge is a booming business. From Arizona to California, Florida to Texas, state and federal authorities have been quietly investing millions of dollars acquiring clandestine mobile phone surveillance equipment in the past decade.

 

Earlier this year, a covert tool called the “Stingray” that can gather data from hundreds of phones over targeted areas attracted international attention. Rights groups alleged that its use could be unlawful. But the same company that exclusively manufacturers the Stingray—Florida-based Harris Corporation—has for years been selling government agencies an entire range of secretive mobile phone surveillance technologies from a catalogue that it conceals from the public on national security grounds.

 

Details about the devices are not disclosed on the Harris website, and marketing materials come with a warning that anyone distributing them outside law enforcement agencies or telecom firms could be committing a crime punishable by up to five years in jail.
 
These little-known cousins of the Stingray cannot only track movements—they can also perform denial-of-service attacks on phones and intercept conversations. Since 2004, Harris has earned more than $40 million from spy technology contracts with city, state, and federal authorities in the US, according to procurement records.

 

In an effort to inform the debate around controversial covert government tactics, Ars has compiled a list of this equipment by scrutinizing publicly available purchasing contracts published on government websites and marketing materials obtained through equipment resellers. Disclosed, in some cases for the first time, are photographs of the Harris spy tools, their cost, names, capabilities, and the agencies known to have purchased them.

 

What follows is the most comprehensive picture to date of the mobile phone surveillance technology that has been deployed in the US over the past decade.

 

 

“Stingray”

 

cellphone_surveillance_stingray_spyshopllc

 

The Stingray has become the most widely known and contentious spy tool used by government agencies to track mobile phones, in part due to an Arizona court case that called the legality of its use into question. It’s a box-shaped portable device, sometimes described as an “IMSI catcher,” that gathers information from phones by sending out a signal that tricks them into connecting to it. The Stingray can be covertly set up virtually anywhere—in the back of a vehicle, for instance—and can be used over a targeted radius to collect hundreds of unique phone identifying codes, such as the International Mobile Subscriber Number (IMSI) and the Electronic Serial Number (ESM). The authorities can then hone in on specific phones of interest to monitor the location of the user in real time or use the spy tool to log a record of all phones in a targeted area at a particular time.

 

The FBI uses the Stingray to track suspects and says that it does not use the tool to intercept the content of communications.

 

However, this capability does exist. Procurement documents indicate that the Stingray can also be used with software called “FishHawk,” (PDF) which boosts the device’s capabilities by allowing authorities to eavesdrop on conversations. Other similar Harris software includes “Porpoise,” which is sold on a USB drive and is designed to be installed on a laptop and used in conjunction with transceivers—possibly including the Stingray—for surveillance of text messages.

 

Similar devices are sold by other government spy technology suppliers, but US authorities appear to use Harris equipment exclusively. They’ve awarded the company “sole source” contracts because its spy tools provide capabilities that authorities claim other companies do not offer. The Stingray has become so popular, in fact, that “Stingray” has become a generic name used informally to describe all kinds of IMSI catcher-style devices.

 

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Stingray was first filed in August 2001. Earlier versions of the technology—sometimes described as “digital analyzers” or “cell site simulators” by the FBI—were being deployed in the mid-1990s. An upgraded version of the Stingray, named the “Stingray II,” was introduced to the spy tech market by Harris Corp. between 2007 and 2008. Photographs filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office depict the Stingray II as a more sophisticated device, with many additional USB inputs and a switch for a “GPS antenna,” which is likely used to assist in location tracking.

 

Cost: $68,479 for the original Stingray; $134,952 for Stingray II.

 

Agencies: Federal authorities have spent more than $30 million on Stingrays and related equipment and training since 2004, according to procurement records. Purchasing agencies include the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Internal Revenue Service, the Army, and the Navy. Cops in Arizona, Maryland, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and California have also either purchased or considered purchasing the devices, according to public records. In one case, procurement records (PDF) show cops in Miami obtained a Stingray to monitor phones at a free trade conference held in Miami in 2003.

 

 

“Gossamer”

gossamer-cellphone-surveillance

 

The Gossamer is a small portable device that can be used to secretly gather data on mobile phones operating in a target area. It sends out a covert signal that tricks phones into handing over their unique codes—such as the IMSI and TMSI—which can be used to identify users and home in on specific devices of interest. What makes it different from the Stingray? Not only is the Gossamer much smaller, but it can also be used to perform a denial-of-service attack on phone users, blocking targeted people from making or receiving calls, according to marketing materials (PDF) published by a Brazilian reseller of the Harris equipment. The Gossamer has the appearance of a clunky-looking handheld transceiver. One photograph filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office shows it displaying an option for “mobile interrogation” on its small LCD screen, which sits above a telephone-style keypad.

 

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Gossamer was first filed in October 2001.

 

Cost: $19,696.

 

Agencies: Between 2005 and 2009, the FBI, Special Operations Command, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement spent more than $1.3 million purchasing Harris’ Gossamer technology and upgrading existing Gossamer units, according to procurement records. Most of the $1.3 million was spent by the FBI as part of a large contract in 2005.

 

 

“Triggerfish”

 

Triggerfish-cellphone-surveillance

 

 

The Triggerfish is an eavesdropping device. It allows authorities to covertly intercept mobile phone conversations in real time. This sets it apart from the original version of the Stingray, which marketing documents suggest was designed mainly for location monitoring and gathering metadata (though software can allow the Stingray to eavesdrop). The Triggerfish, which looks similar in size to the Stingray, can also be used to identify the location from which a phone call is being made. It can gather large amounts of data on users over a targeted area, allowing authorities to view identifying codes of up to 60,000 different phones at one time, according to marketing materials.

 

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Triggerfish was filed in July 2001, though its “first use anywhere” is listed as November 1997. It is not clear whether the Triggerfish is still for sale or whether its name has recently changed, as the trademark on the device was canceled in 2008, and it does not appear on Harris’ current federal price lists.

 

Cost: Between $90,000 and $102,000.

 

Agencies: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the DEA; and county cops in Miami-Dade invested in Triggerfish technology prior to 2004, according to procurement records. However, the procurement records (PDF) also show that the Miami-Dade authorities complained that the device “provided access” only to Cingular and AT&T wireless network carriers. (This was before the two companies merged.) To remedy that, the force complemented the Triggerfish tool with additional Harris technology, including the Stingray and Amberjack, which enabled monitoring of Metro PCS, Sprint, and Verizon. This gave the cops “the ability to track approximately ninety percent of the wireless industry,” the procurement documents state.

 

 

“Kingfish”

 

kingfish-cellphone-surveillance

 

The Kingfish is a surveillance transceiver that allows authorities to track and mine information from mobile phones over a targeted area. The device does not appear to enable interception of communications; instead, it can covertly gather unique identity codes and show connections between phones and numbers being dialed. It is smaller than the Stingray, black and gray in color, and can be controlled wirelessly by a conventional notebook PC using Bluetooth. You can even conceal it in a discreet-looking briefcase, according to marketing brochures.

 

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Kingfish was filed in August 2001. Its “first use anywhere” is listed in records as December 2003.

 

Cost: $25,349.

 

 

Agencies: Government agencies have spent about $13 million on Kingfish technology since 2006, sometimes as part of what is described in procurement documents as a “vehicular package” deal that includes a Stingray. The US Marshals Service; Secret Service; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Army; Air Force; state cops in Florida; county cops in Maricopa, Arizona; and Special Operations Command have all purchased a Kingfish in recent years.

 

“Amberjack”

 

amberjack_cellphone_surveillance

 

The Amberjack is an antenna that is used to help track and locate mobile phones. It is designed to be used in conjunction with the Stingray, Gossamer, and Kingfish as a “direction-finding system” (PDF) that monitors the signal strength of the targeted phone in order to home in on the suspect’s location in real time. The device comes inbuilt with magnets so it can be attached to the roof of a police vehicle, and it has been designed to have a “low profile” for covert purposes. A photograph of the Amberjack filed with a trademark application reveals that the device, which is metallic and circular in shape, comes with a “tie-down kit” to prevent it from falling off the roof of a vehicle that is being driven at “highway speeds.”

 

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Amberjack was filed in August 2001 at the same time as the Stingray. Its “first use anywhere” is listed in records as October 2002.

 

Cost: $35,015

 

Agencies: The DEA; FBI; Special Operations Command; Secret Service; the Navy; the US Marshals Service; and cops in North Carolina, Florida, and Texas have all purchased Amberjack technology, according to procurement records.

 

“Harpoon”

 

harpoon_cellphone_surveillance

 

The Harpoon is an “amplifier” (PDF) that can boost the signal of a Stingray or Kingfish device, allowing it to project its surveillance signal farther or from a greater distance depending on the location of the targets. A photograph filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office shows that the device has two handles for carrying and a silver, metallic front with a series of inputs that allow it to be connected to other mobile phone spy devices.

 

First used: Trademark records show that a filing for the Harpoon was filed in June 2008.

 

Cost: $16,000 to $19,000.

 

Agencies: The DEA; state cops in Florida; city cops in Tempe, Arizona; the Army; and the Navy are among those to have purchased Harpoons since 2009.

 

 

“Hailstorm”

 

The Hailstorm is the latest in the line of mobile phone tracking tools that Harris Corp. is offering authorities. However, few details about it have trickled into the public domain. It can be purchased as a standalone unit or as an upgrade to the Stingray or Kingfish, which suggests that it has the same functionality as these devices but has been tweaked with new or more advanced capabilities. Procurement documents (PDF) show that Harris Corp. has, in at least one case, recommended that authorities use the Hailstorm in conjunction with software made by Nebraska-based surveillance company Pen-Link. The Pen-Link software appears to enable authorities deploying the Hailstorm to directly communicate with cell phone carriers over an Internet connection, possibly to help coordinate the surveillance of targeted individuals.

 

First used: Unknown.

 

Cost: $169,602 as a standalone unit. The price is reduced when purchased as an upgrade.

 

Agencies: Public records show that earlier this year, the Baltimore Police Department, county cops in Oakland County, Michigan, and city cops in Phoenix, Arizona, each separately entered the procurement process to obtain the Hailstorm equipment. The Baltimore and Phoenix forces each set aside about $100,000 for the device, and they purchased it as an upgrade to Stingray II mobile phone spy technology. The Phoenix cops spent an additional $10,000 on Hailstorm training sessions conducted by Harris Corp. in Melbourne, Florida, and Oakland County authorities said they obtained a grant from the Department of Homeland Security to help finance the procurement of the Hailstorm tool. The Oakland authorities noted that the device was needed for “pinpoint tracking of criminal activity.” It is highly likely that other authorities—particularly federal agencies—will invest in the Hailstorm too, with procurement records eventually surfacing later this year or into 2014.

 

No one’s talking

 

The FBI has previously stated in response to questions about the Stingray device that it “strives to protect our country and its people using every available tool” and that location data in particular is a “vital component” of investigations. But when it comes to discussing specific surveillance equipment, it is common for the authorities to remain tight-lipped because they don’t want to reveal tactics to criminals.

 

The code of silence shrouding the above tools, however, is highly contentious. Their use by law enforcement agencies is in a legal gray zone, particularly because interference with communications signals is supposed to be prohibited under the federal Communications Act. In May, an Arizona court ruled that the FBI’s use of a Stingray was lawful in a case involving conspiracy, wire fraud, and identity theft. But according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), when seeking authorization for the use of the Stingray tool, the feds have sometimes unlawfully withheld information from judges about the full scope of its capabilities. This means that judges across the country are potentially authorizing the use of the technology without even knowing what it actually does.

 

That’s not all. There is another significant issue raised by the Harris spy devices: security. According to Christopher Soghoian, chief technologist at the ACLU, similar covert surveillance technology is being manufactured by a host of companies in other countries like China and Russia. He believes the US government’s “state secrecy” on the subject is putting Americans at risk.

 

“Our government is sitting on a security flaw that impacts every phone in the country,” Soghoian says. “If we don’t talk about Stingray-style tools and the flaws that they exploit, we can’t defend ourselves against foreign governments and criminals using this equipment, too.”