this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
316 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

71922 readers
5961 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Bluetooth chipset installed in popular models from major manufacturers is vulnerable. Hackers could use it to initiate calls and eavesdrop on devices.

Source

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 hours ago

Unchecked consumer-grade RF signals that are broadcast in every direction are insecure??

Color me shocked!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Hah, jokes on them, I managed to fuck my earbuds' microphones so they're useless now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

I am the sweaty balls man and this happens often

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

So glad I use wired earbuds and refused to buy a phone that didn't support them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Same. I can't find any Bluetooth headphones whose batteries don't die in 4 or 5 months anyway. Meanwhile my Moondrop wired headphones have been going strong for almost 3 years.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

My sony earbuds lasted 5 years before I decided to replace the batteries in them, which cost me $20 and 30 min. I would hope other earbuds wouldnt die in only half a year

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

To be fair I kept buying models that cost $20 to $30 so maybe the higher end ones would last longer. That said, my Moondrops wired headphones cost the same but are way more reliable.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

The site wants to share info with advertisers. I found this to be refreshingly honest.

We and our up to 185 partners use cookies and tracking technologies. Some cookies and data processing are technically necessary, others help us to improve our offer and operate it economically...

Anyway, can we get an archive link?

[–] [email protected] 32 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It’s strange to think about how complicit the public has become with this. You mean to tell me that 185 separate connections to other companies are required for me to… read an article?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Well yeah, they have to hoard your advertising data somehow. How else can they advertise things that you don't need to buy?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 hours ago

You can get/make your own archive link by going to archive.ph and entering the article's URL.

Here's the link for this one: https://archive.ph/wUAQn

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 hours ago

Instead of hacking Bluetooth, sounds more effective to be an "advertising partner".

[–] bridgeenjoyer 3 points 5 hours ago

Yep I only use wired...

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

Sounds like the attack scenario is very sophisticated and targeted, and only works within the range of Bluetooth low energy (BLE) connectivity, so 10-15 meters under best circumstances. At that point they might as well eavesdrop on my calls in person.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 44 minutes ago)

I think BLE is only required for the initial compromise (extracting the pairing key). After that the attack can be performed over classic BT, and can impersonate either part (headphones or phone) to the other.
It's still very targeted and sophisticated, so no reason to panic unless you have reasons to think someone with the resources could target you.
Regarding the attacks, they go way beyond eavesdropping calls, since BT headphones usually have access to contacts and smart assistants, that you can use to extract a lot more information

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 hours ago

10-15 meters might be good enough to conduct the attack from a neighboring office or apartment, while actual eavesdropping is not so easy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 hours ago

Honey i got to go there is a man outside our window with a lapton and an radio antenna "Ignore the man outside your window and just read off your credit card number

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 hours ago

Directional antennas exist and are very inexpensive

[–] [email protected] 39 points 11 hours ago

Wired headphones stay winning

[–] underline960 4 points 7 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 100 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (6 children)

And this is why people wanted headphone jacks... and also why corporations didn't want them.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 hours ago

I'm not really sure that is the reason. I'm not saying I would put it past them, just that I really don't think it's necessary. Smart phone manufacturers have a million other ways they could spy on you if they wanted to. The U.S. Government already has the ability to know each and every thing you do on your phone, even if you never use Bluetooth. I think it's greed pure and simple. It probably cost's them a few pennies to add a physical jack and most people would lose their shit if a phone came out without Bluetooth capabilities, so they save those couple of pennies and put them into their greedy ass pockets.

That being said I have never bought a phone without one and never will as long as I have a choice. I do love my wireless headset though but I am also not too worried about being spied on (yet).

I'm 100% convinced that is why they stopped making batteries user replaceable though. In 2019 Edward Snowden did an interview with Wired magazine where he made the interviewer remove the battery from his phone as a condition of the interview. He explained that the U.S. Government can make it seem as if your device had been 'powered down' when in fact they can still listen to your conversations and transmit them back to the CIA or whatever other spooks that want to listen in. Shortly after than almost all manufactures stopped allowing you to remove the battery. Coincidence?

My current phone doesn't have a removable battery, because I literally couldn't find one in my price range that allowed you to do so.

The best advice if you don't want to be spied on is not to use a smartphone altogether or just do whatever you want to be kept secret away from the phone at the very least. Buy a Faraday bag and keep your phone in there if that's not an option.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (6 children)

I mean, there were legitimate technical issues with the standard, especially on smartphones, which is where they really got pushed out. Most other devices do have headphones jacks. If I get a laptop, it's probably got a headphones jack. Radios will have headphones jacks. Get a mixer, it's got a headphones jack. I don't think that the standard is going to vanish anytime soon in general.

I like headphones jacks. I have a ton of 1/8" and 1/4" devices and headphones that I happily use. But they weren't doing it for no reason.

  • From what I've read, the big, driving one that drove them out on smartphones was that the jack just takes up a lot more physical space in the phone than USB-C or Bluetooth. I'd rather just have a thicker phone, but a lot of people wouldn't, and if you're going all over the phone trying to figure out what to eject to buy more space, that's gonna be a big target. For people who do want a jack on smartphones, which invariably have USB-C, you can get a similar effect to having a headphones jack by just leaving a small USB-C audio interface with a headphones jack on the end of your headphones (one with a passthrough USB-C port if you also want to use the USB-C port for charging).

  • A second issue was that the standard didn't have a way to provide power (there was a now-dead extension from many years back, IIRC for MD players, that let a small amount of power be provided with an extra ring). That didn't matter for a long time, as long as your device could put out a strong enough signal to drive headphones of whatever impedance you had. But ANC has started to become popular now, and you need power for ANC. This is really the first time I think that there's a solid reason to want to power headphones.

  • The connection got shorted when plugging things in and out, which could result in loud sound on the membrane.

  • USB-C is designed so that the springy tensioning stuff that's there to keep the connection solid is on the (cheap, easy to replace) cord rather than the (expensive, hard to replace) device; I understand from past reading that this was a major reason that micro-USB replaced mini-USB. Instead of your device wearing out, the cord wears out. Not as much of an issue for headphones as mini-USB, but I think that it's probably fair to say that it's desirable to have the tensioning on the cord side.

  • On USB-C, the right part breaks. One irritation I have with USB-C is that it is...kind of flimsy. Like, it doesn't require that much force pushing on a plug sideways to damage a plug. However


and I don't know if this was a design goal for USB-C, though I suspect it was


my experience has been that if that happens, it's the plug on the (cheap, easy to replace) cord that gets damaged, not the device. I have a television with a headphones jack that I destroyed by tripping over a headphones cord once, because the headphones jack was nice and durable and let me tear components inside the television off. I've damaged several USB-C cables, but I've never damaged the device they're connected to while doing so.

On an interesting note, the standard is extremely old, probably one of the oldest data standards in general use today; the 1/4" mono standard was from phone switchboards in the 1800s.

EDIT: Also, one other perk of using USB-C instead of a built-in headphones jack on a smartphone is that if the DAC on your phone sucks, going the USB-C-audio-interface route means that you can use a different DAC. Can't really change the internal DAC. I don't know about other people, but last phone I had that did have an audio jack would let through a "wub wub wub" sound when I was charging it on USB off my car's 12V cigarette lighter adapter


dirty power, but USB power is often really dirty. Was really obnoxious when feeding my car's stereo via its AUX port. That's very much avoidable for the manufacturer by putting some filtering on the DAC's power supply, maybe needs a capacitor on the thing, but the phone manufacturer didn't do it, maybe to save space or money. That's not something that I can go fix. I eventually worked around it by getting a battery-powered Bluetooth receiver that had a 1/8" headphones jack, cutting the phone's DAC out of the equation. The phone's internal DAC worked fine when the phone wasn't charging, but I wanted to have the phone plugged in for (battery hungry) navigation stuff when I was driving.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 hours ago

Honestly I'd be happy with a phone sporting two USB C ports, one centered and one off to the side where the headphone jack used to be, both fully functional.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 12 hours ago

I’d rather just have a thicker phone, but a lot of people wouldn’t

I think this is a case where the corporations were telling people what they wanted rather than people really asking for thinner phones. Same thing with bezels, I don't know anyone who asked for the screen to go all the way to the edge (or worse, curve around onto the sides). Apple and Samsung said 'this is what people want' when in fact it was what their marketing department wanted because they wouldn't be able to sell the iGalaxy N+1 if it was slightly thicker or heavier than the iGalaxy N.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I know someone who works somewhat high up at Apple and he told me another reason was that they really wanted to improve the water proofing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

That's great and all but I'm not switching to Bluetooth headphones and I'm definitely not going to fiddle around with dongles every time I switch between listening on my phone and my PC. Phones are gigantic anyways; let my have my headphone jack. I don't think it's a coincidence that all these smartphone manufacturers that ditched the old standard will happily sell you shiny expensive disposable wireless earbuds.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

and also why corporations didn't want them.

Exactly! So they can spy on us more!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

No, the real reason is it saves a few pennies per phone. They can already spy on us through the internal mic.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago

It’s always about the money. Everyone else yelling about them spying, they’ll only do that if it makes them more money.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

What is that site asking me to agree to? No thanks

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 hours ago

GDPR. First time opening a European website? German ones like this are particularly transparent (by law, not choice).

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

... and this is why I don't use bluetooth on anything.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I never have it enabled unless I am in the car driving and need driving directions or listening to music/podcasts. I prefer wired headphones, but manufacturers are making that difficult.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago

Because they can't sell you more Bluetooth crap if they give you a choice.

Stop buying no-Jack phones.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

I had a neighbor about 6 years ago that blasted rap at full volume every evening.

rap booming in the background

one fine day

"hmmm, what were these headphones on bt again? wait... soundbar. I don't have a soundbar.

hmmm, I wonder"

device paired

Jellyfin>Artists>..... Meshuggah

Obzen

Combustion

play

Volume 100%

"I think I'll go to the store for a while!"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

My old FM BT transmitter that let me connect to my car had a surprising range, bout about a 100ft in every direction which as I understand it they aren't supposed to be that strong. (Scosche brand from Best Buy)

Used to tune it to the popular country station and jam everyone around me from listening to that station, which made me happy. Couple times when there was a particularly loud or obnoxious driver...I definately didn't blast porn hub with my stereo off in my car..

Tangent.

One of my last concerts I went to was Meshuggah

Had a great time.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

There's lots of money to be made by inserting a hardware back door in your product then later disclosing it as an unfixable vulnerability and force your customers to buy new hardware which has the same but different backdoor. Repeat.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 hours ago

Thanks, I hate it. Vulnerable to your competitor red teaming it tho...

[–] [email protected] 24 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

Every spy in my vicinity is going to be dancing to The Meters - Cissy Strut.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 12 hours ago

They said I was mad when they removed the headphone jack - well who’s mad now??! AHAHahahahaaaaaaahhhhcrap it’s me.

I’m still mad. Fuckers.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

Even if these attacks seem frightening on paper, the ERNW researchers are reassuring: many conditions must be met to carry out an eavesdropping attack. First and foremost, the attacker(s) must be within range of the Bluetooth short-range radio; an attack via the Internet is not possible. They must also carry out several technical steps without attracting attention. And they must have a reason to eavesdrop on the Bluetooth connection, which, according to the discoverers, is only conceivable for a few target people. For example, celebrities, journalists or diplomats, but also political dissidents and employees in security-critical companies are possible targets.

I guess they didn’t point this out because it’s kind of obvious, but it sounds like they also have to actually be on to be exploited. So it’s not going to turn on and start listening to you at least. Definitely concerning, but I’m still gonna be listening to my audio books and podcasts with my wireless headphones.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›