Is it unnecessary to cover one's webcam on Linux?
Is it unnecessary to cover one's webcam on Linux?
Cross-posted to: https://sh.itjust.works/post/15859195
From other conversations that I've read through, people usually say "Yes, because it's easy on Windows", or "Yes, because they simply don't trust the webcam". But neither of these arguments are enough for me. The former I feel is irrelevent when one is talking about Linux, and the latter is just doing something for the sake of doing it which is not exactly a rational argument.
Specifically for Linux (although, I suppose this partially also depends on the distro, and, of course, vulnerabilites in whatever software that you might be using), how vulnerable is the device to having its webcam exploited? If you trust the software that you have running on your computer, and you utilize firewalls (application layer, network layer, etc.), you should be resistant to such types of exploits, no? A parallel question would also be: How vulnerable is a Linux device if you don't take extra precautions like firewalls.
If this is the case, what makes Windows so much more vulnerable?
I do, for three reasons:
- Hackers. It's unlikely that anyone would hack my webcam, but there's always a chance. Maybe I'm paranoid, idk.
- Hardware exploits. Three of my laptops are too old for me to update the firmware with
fwupd, so I cover the webcams in case there's some critical hardware-level vulnerability which could be exploited; or in case one of the three-letter agencies are in there. - Consequences. Despite the incredibly low chances of anything happening whatsoever, the possible consequences are too bad for me to want to risk it.
I'm paranoid, aren't I...
And for me: 4. It makes it a lot harder to accidently turn my camera on in meetings (a different form of privacy)
Also, it's incredibly low effort to cover it. There's no subscription plan for covering a webcam.
Security is always applied in layers. If you aren't inconvenienced by it, it's a really solid layer to use. Doesn't matter how 'paranoid' you are, it's a good strategy.
Is it unnecessary to cover one's webcam on Linux?
No. Please cover your webcam.
how vulnerable is the device to having its webcam exploited?
Every bit as much as Windows minus their proprietary spyware.
How vulnerable is a Linux device if you don’t take extra precautions like firewalls.
Depends on what links you like to click.
what makes Windows so much more vulnerable?
Fewer eyes on the source code. Effort to reward ratio, the 80-20 rule. 20% of the effort nets your 80% of the reward. Literally. Develop exploits for one platform, target 80% of average computer users. Or write exploits for hundreds of different distros for *checks notes* ... 4%. Unless you like servers. There there's a coin toss. 50% linux, 50% Windows.
Keep yourself safe, there's malware for Gnu-Linux too. Install your patches when you can. Remove software you don't use. Practice good cyber hygiene.
If this is the case, what makes Windows so much more vulnerable?
As with most exploits: they go for where the most and easiest targets are.
As a Linux user it is very unlikely that anyone will try to hack your webcam, even if Linux were similarly vulnerable as Windows.
The device is vulnerable. The webcam is one way that gets exploited.
If it makes you feel safer, cover the camera when you’re not using it. I can’t comprehend why a person wouldn’t cover it up when it’s not in use. It takes one second.
Stay patched up.
Wash your cyber hands, use good quality, cyber soap, cyber shower regularly 👌
It's really cool how a lot of Laptops nowadays (including mine) have a feature built-in that covers and disables the webcam with a button press. I can have it disabled most of the time and when I need it, I just press the button to enable it.
just buy a little stick-on privacy slider. They're like 3 for $10
If I had a nickel for every time I bought a privacy slider for a laptop that already had one, or one with a hard-to-notice hardware switch. I would have 2 nickels which isn't a lot but it's weird it happened twice.
these sliders are very thin, but not thin enough. neither of my laptops close correctly with one equipped. :(
Ah well. Masking tape suffices.
yeah for my macbook, i use gaffer's tape.
My take: if your camera is spying on you, there is a big chance that your entire device has been compromised. Ig that happens, it's game over and me masturbating to bdsm furry porn is the least of my problems. Especially now that AI video exists anyway.
It's all about reducing the surface area for an attack — if you do become compromised, it's one less thing to have to worry aobut. It would be preferable to not have to worry about your data and someone bribing you with some video footage.
It’s a hardware issue not a software issue. If your laptop can run its webcam and not have the light turn on then it’s bad hardware. Software might get around one exploit, but that doesn’t fix what’s a hardware issue.
Honestly, I don’t think anyone can actually say 100% for sure that your webcam can’t be accessed. We don’t know what we don’t know—new exploits are discovered every day—thus it’s worth the extra 2 seconds to cover and uncover it.
All software has bugs, including Linux. Some bugs can lead to security escalation. Those bugs are called vulnerabilities. Like bugs, all software has vulnerabilities - including Linux.
Your webcam can be accessed by hackers on Linux, on Windows, on MacOS, on BSD, it doesn't matter.
If they have that level of access you are in trouble
Uh, yes? It always seemed a bit silly to me. If they have that level of access you are in trouble
"you're already* in trouble"
Thanks
Linux is not magically more resilient than Windows. If an exploit on windows exists, a similar exploit could also exist on Linux.
You can't hack a piece of electrical tape. But there are classier webcam covers which you can slide to close available for sale.
If you are running zoom, teams, skype or similar software, cover it.
Better yet, use them in a VM or don't use them at all.
This question really begs the point that cam and mic need kill switches that physically disconnect these things with a simple switch.
One of you go make a wall mounted light switch thing with a red LED for Workstations and sell it -- I could see this becoming standard.
Laptop world is going to take more inroads from slacker hackers scratching their own itch.
The way I would look at it is:
- If you aren't sure you can trust your computer, you should probably cover your webcam.
- Your level of risk tolerance can vary, so what a person would consider trustworthy may differ from person to person. (For some, maybe any proprietary software makes the computer untrustworthy. For others, maybe they feel smart enough to make good decisions about what software is trustworthy and they just don't download anything that sets off their spidey sense. Or whatever.)
- If you're taking extreme measures to ensure your machine is trustworthy, you're probably going much further out of your way than covering your webcam anyway. If you've picked a lot of the higher branches clean anyway, you probably ought to go ahead and pick that remaining low-hanging fruit.
- Regarding Windows specifically, some would probably call Windows systems less trustworthy on some combination of that a) Microsoft is assholes that might themselves use webcam data in evil ways and/or b) Windows is more targeted by crackers and malware.
If you trust this source, it turns out that it is pretty easy to see your camera feed even if your camera is off: https://techxplore.com/news/2024-02-camera-hackers-spy-cameras-walls.html
I read about it on lemmy, too. I guess I -- or one of us -- should have cross posted it here from its .world source: https://lemmy.world/post/12081766
Edit to add excerpts:
Results vary on how far away someone would have to be in order to eavesdrop on these different devices. For some, a peeping Tom would have to be less than 1 foot away; for others, they could be as far away as 16 feet.
For consumers, Fu says a plastic lens cover might not be guaranteed to protect you—infrared signals can still get through them––but it is a good first step to battling this kind of cyberthreat.
The thing about exploits is that they can exist without there being a wider knowledge of them; that's the nature of the beast. So I play it safe.
Plus, for 5 cents' worth of masking tape you've solved the problem, so why bother even thinking about it.
It's better to be proactive than being reactive. Take preventive measures that fit your threat model.
One of the key tenets of keeping something computerised secure is 'Defence in Depth' - i.e. having multiple layers of defence, so that even if one layer is breached, the next layer (which you thought was redundant and unnecessary) prevents the attack.
Running a fully patched kernel and services / applications should protect you unless someone has a 0-day (i.e. not disclosed) exploit. Reducing the surface area by minimising what services / applications are running, using software (firejail etc...) and firewalls to limit permissions of applications / services to what is needed, etc... serves as another layer of defence. Disconnecting or physically blocking peripherals that might allow for spying is another layer; it serves its purpose if all the other layers are breached.
Most malware is writen for Windows, but Linux malware exists, and has been found in the wild. The most common infection method, like with windows is running a trojan, theoretically things like browser exploits could also be used, but these are unlikely unless you are a high profile target like a head of state or CEO.
I would personaly be much more worried about someone evesdropping through my microphone. All they would get from my camera is my face and some glances of the room my computer is in, but my microphone would reveal all sorts of private conversations.
It is. I run a virtual camera for blurred backgrounds that logs when clients connect and noticed one of my web conferencing type apps like to take a photo ever second. Haven't taken time to investigate which (likely candidates: slack, zoom, webex, discord).
I dont think the covering of webcams with tape on windows is necessarily about a malware or an exploit watching you, but more about windows itself monitoring and selling off everything you do.
If you use Qubes then USB devices and mics are by default not attached to any VMs.
If this is the case, what makes Windows so much more vulnerable?
What the hell. They are same vulnerable.
No. It's necessary
Especially if you own a smartphone. You're carrying 4x+ cameras and a wiretap with you at all times.
I thought about this one day when I was in the bathroom and used autorotate with face detection. I practically had the camera facing towards my crotch while it was on.
There's this youtuber that goes around and films people in public, its funny because people get mad but most people in cities are already being filmed hundreds of times a day.
The message is the same, if you are worried about X vector you should really think about YZ first for it to make sense.
Doesn't Pegasus spy on you from the hardware?
I wouldn't put it past Microsoft trying to spy on you, just changing some line in that 11 pages thing you click "OK" to because you don't have an alternative.
That wouldn't hold up in court, not even in the fucked up pro corp system the US has.
Besides, they don't need to take any photos, they already know pretty much all your habits and interests without taking a major risk.
The Windows threat comes from other places
I never really understood the obsession to cover cameras. While yes you don't want someone to hack it and yes I do cover mine. What are they going to do? Watch you fap? I really don't care. I personally am much more concerned with the mic. I would hate for someone to record me saying something well not so pleasant. You can use your imagination. I rarely see people mention the mic. I see it mentioned a few times here but not much. I much rather have a kill switch for my mic.
Cool, then respond to this post with a video of you masturbating. It would be helpful to the scenario to include your full birth name, address, and employer, since that is the scenario that folks who would be blackmailed would be facing.
Since you really don't care.
It is possible that you mean what you say, but I believe its more likely you lack imagination to what impact the above scenario would actually feel like once you're in it.
That silly proposition aside, I agree with you about the microphone killswitch. Certainly overlooked.
That's a rather self-centered statement, imo. Just because you may not be bothered by the idea, does not mean that it does not have merit for others. That line of thinking is in a similar vein to saying "We don't need freedom of speech because I have nothing to say.".
Well? We’re waiting for the first lemmy fap video. Go on, OP.
So sending a video of you fapping to your employer and family isn't a problem? It still wouldn't be a problem if you were a teenager or a young adult at the beginning of their career?