Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Former student destroys 59 university computers using USB Killer device

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 224 posts

Re: Former student destroys 59 university computers using USB Killer device

#191

Post by mirimir »

miahi wrote: post #79
mirimir wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vaguely recall the argument (maybe buried in the USBKill site) that manufacturers could ~easily limit maximum voltage across the data lines. Maybe using a resettable fuse? I know that Raspberry Pi limit USB input voltage to ~5V, for example.

Raspberry Pi limits the input voltage with a Zener diode across the input. In a Zener used this way, the current flow through the diode varies with the voltage difference between the input and the output - so with enough voltage input you can still make it fail, as you can exceed the max power dissipation of the diode and then it will burn - and after that, your circuit is not protected anymore.

OK, so is there any other purely electronic protection method? Or are optoisolators the only option?

Re: Former student destroys 59 university computers using USB Killer device

#192

Post by binarymax »

roel_v wrote: post #160

What is a "computer-enhanced podium"? Why would I ever plug a usb stick into a podium?

Likely just a podium with a dedicated laptop already connected to and optimized for the A/V system. Allows you to put a powerpoint on a USB and stick it into the machine and present from that, rather than messing with dongles and cords and A/V compatibility.

Re: Former student destroys 59 university computers using USB Killer device

#193

Post by pvaldes »

stadeschuldt wrote: post #5

I am looking at https://usbkill.com/ . What is the purpose of the device? The manufacturer calls it an "ESD tester" yet there is an "anonymous" version available: https://usbkill.com/products/usb-killer-v3?variant=447760856...

Maybe could be handy to distroy terminator robots and inactivate war weapons in the future. Who knows?

Re: Former student destroys 59 university computers using USB Killer device

#194

Post by gattilorenz »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #80
mackal wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In one class we we're building a custom circuit to talk to a custom 8-bit computer over the ISA bus. I accidentally put one chip upside down (it was some off brand and I mistook a scuff on one end for the marker for which way is up) and killed the DOS PC :P The custom 8-bit computer was fine though.

Classic was inserting an old 16k DRAM backwards. Hmm... something smells hot... touch touch touch sound of screaming

Or inverting the two halves of the AT power connector

Re: Former student destroys 59 university computers using USB Killer device

#195

Post by cannonedhamster »

simias wrote: post #174
ProblemFactory wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> plausible deniability. Why would that be necessary? Jackhammers are tools to destroy pavement. But nobody sells jackhammers as "ground strength testing tools". These are tools to destroy computers. Both are completely legal as long as you are not destroying someone else's property without permission.

It's easy to come up with a legitimate use case for destroying pavement, not so much for USB ports. Testing the ESD resistance of computer equipment on the other hand might be a legit use case.

Secure destruction of equipment you're discarding is a valid use case. Depends on how much of the board actually gets fried.

Re: Former student destroys 59 university computers using USB Killer device

#196

Post by mindslight »

michaelt wrote: post #171
SeanLuke wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me highly skeptical. Every reference I've seen to this claim seems to point back to usbkill.com making it itself. The problem is: optoisolators are very slow. Building one which goes faster than 12Mbps would be nontrivial; I do not think such a thing existed in 2014 (which usbkill is claiming). This implies that Apple has alien technology. I think it's something else.

The problem is: optoisolators are very slow. Many are but they don't have to be - an optoisolator is just a zero-length fiber optic cable. Ain't much higher bandwidth than a fiber optic cable. Not saying apple laptops ever had optoisolated USB though.

IMHO the problem with isolating USB is the 480Mbit ("USB 2.0") bidirectional signal.

12Mbps/1.5Mbps is easy. ADI has an integrated magnetic isolator chip. For hobbyist use you can get this assembled on a board ready to use as an ebay special.

The 5Gbit of USB3 is two unidirectional links and so is also easy (monoprice and elsewhere sell optical USB3 cables).

And lest you think you'll isolate at 5Gbit and then use a hub to translate to 480, USB3 doesn't work that way - the backwards compatibility is provided by a complete USB 2 bus in parallel.

For general isolating (say an electronics workbench), it's easiest to consider the USB host floating (eg a dedicated bench computer), and rely on ethernet (T or SX) for the isolation.

Re: Former student destroys 59 university computers using USB Killer device

#197

Post by jrockway »

brirec wrote: post #88
jrockway wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethernet will probably do fine. The differential pair ends in a transformer, so unless you pump so much current in that it physically melts the transformer or wire, you'll be fine. USB should be similar, but apparently is not. (In the case of the USB killer, the amount of time where 200V is applied to the circuit is probably very tiny. I imagine it's just a charge pump that charges a tiny capacitor and discharges it.…

Oh dear god, why did you connect your iMac’s Ethernet port to mains? Did you expect it to survive?! The fact that Ethernet functions the same with a voltage bias across the leads is exploited for PoE — power over Ethernet.

> Oh dear god, why did you connect your iMac’s Ethernet port to mains?

Because I was 15 and bored.

Re: Former student destroys 59 university computers using USB Killer device

#198

Post by everyone »

vonseel wrote: post #106
everyone wrote: post #64

Someone brought this up in an older thread about this device.. Why use this? You could just use a hammer, or pour water into them. It seems bizarre that he paid money for this device when there are many completely free ways to trash a pc.

I imagine it’s much easier psychologically for a vandal to do this than anything obvious with a hammer or water. Also, you would think he’d probably get caught after the first or second monitor if he walked into a library and started smashing shit.

Yeah good points, I guess it is fairly discreet + also its novel so most people may not cog what hes doing very quickly. Is there not a pretty intense burning smell from the fried components though? .. So, its extremely situational. Use when you want to trash some running pc's in an occupied public area and not have people notice immediately maybe.

Re: Former student destroys 59 university computers using USB Killer device

#199

Post by mrguyorama »

vortico wrote: post #153
gduplessy wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to throw out a guess and say it's because selling you an item after you called it a bong is admitting that it's indeed a bong.

Ah, that makes sense, question answered. My second question is that if bongs and water pipes are the same thing, why does the law distinguish their purpose by their name? It seems like given " I want to buy a water pipe for smoking the marijuana " and " I want a bong to smoke tobacco ", the second should be legal to request, not both.

I'm pretty sure it's CYA more than anything. The DEA is very aggressive and raids like it's going out of style

Re: Former student destroys 59 university computers using USB Killer device

#200

Post by jelder »

ProblemFactory wrote: post #131
gruez wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The manufacturer calls it an "ESD tester" yet there is an "anonymous" version available plausible deniability. selling devices specifically for committing crimes is illegal. that's why all the bong shops say it's "for tobacco use only".

> plausible deniability. Why would that be necessary? Jackhammers are tools to destroy pavement. But nobody sells jackhammers as "ground strength testing tools". These are tools to destroy computers. Both are completely legal as long as you are not destroying someone else's property without permission.

Everyone recognizes that jackhammers are necessary for the built environment that supports our civilization. The understanding that “hacking tools” and the like are necessary for our online civilization is less common.
Post reply on HN