this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
52 points (91.9% liked)
Hardware
479 readers
84 users here now
All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.
Rules (Click to Expand):
-
Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about
-
Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.
-
No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.
-
Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.
-
Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).
-
If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.
Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:
- AMD
- Gaming Laptops
- Laptops
- History of Computing Hardware
- Linux Hardware
- Mechanical Keyboards
- Microcontrollers
- Monitors
- Single Board Computers
Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't really love this preprint from at least an academic perspective. They don't really talk at all about the specs of the monitor, cable, or target machine. When you're talking about emi interception then discussion of the test conditions is kinda important in a paper. What's the base emi leakage for the system? What's the range in commonly available cables. Is this affected by shielding?
Also I really don't see why they're using a hough line transform to detect the blanking interval. Those two things are not really related (in that probabilistically or exhaustively fitting lines to an image does not easily result in an estimate of blanking interval, and is horribly inefficient in realtime applications too.)
Basically in my opinion this is a cool idea with a pretty mediocre preprint attached, and one where a bunch of the sources are other preprints too. Not damnable but I'd expect more.
If you wanna see a much better paper containing more of what I'd expect from a physical attack vector paper, I'd look at the original Rowhammer paper from 2014
(also the use of the term AI in the actual article is irritating. It's a basic CNN, it's not incredibly complex stuff. Just call it ML guys...)
Agreed, it's a pretty high level overview.
I think this particular battle has been lost a long time ago.
That's ok, at least ML makes you sound like someone who knows that they're talking about and hasn't fallen for marketing BS