Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

SmartAttack: Air-Gap Attack via Smartwatches

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A smartwatch on the wrist can receive covert data from an air-gapped computer.

desk verdict Plausible new receiver vector for ultrasonic air-gap exfiltration, but the quantitative evaluation is internally inconsistent and the watch hardware is undisclosed; the qualitative core is credible, the numbers are not. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08866 v1 pith:JZXY6JNP submitted 2025-06-10 cs.CR

Mordechai Guri This is my paper
classification cs.CR
keywords smartwatchair-gapattackultrasoniccovertchanneldataexfiltrationacousticcommunicationwearablesecurityB-FSKmodulationWearOS
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a smartwatch worn on the wrist can act as a covert receiver for ultrasonic data exfiltration from an air-gapped computer. The proposed attack, SmartAttack, uses a compromised computer's speakers to emit binary frequency-shift keyed tones at 18.5 and 19.5 kHz, which are captured by the smartwatch's built-in microphone and decoded into a bitstream. The reported experiments show successful delivery over distances beyond 6 meters at rates up to 50 bits per second, with lower rates working at longer range. The point of caring is that air-gapped networks are supposed to be sealed, but a device people wear every day can bridge that seal without being noticed.

What carries the argument

The machinery is binary frequency-shift keying (B-FSK) at 18.5/19.5 kHz combined with a real-time decoding pipeline on the watch: a Butterworth bandpass filter for the 18–22 kHz band, spectral subtraction, overlapping Hamming-windowed FFTs, peak-frequency classification, preamble-based frame synchronization, CRC check, and Kalman filtering to smooth Doppler shifts from wrist movement. On the channel side, path loss models SNR(d) ∝ $d^{{-γ}}$ and attenuation A(f,d)=A0 $e^{{-α(f)d}}$ describe how distance and body tissue degrade the signal, and the experiments map which orientations and frequency ranges keep the link usable. This pipeline is what carries the argument from raw microphone samples to recovered bits.

What would settle it

Take a common Wear OS smartwatch, measure its microphone frequency response with a calibrated ultrasonic source at 18.5 and 19.5 kHz, and attempt the SmartAttack decode; if sensitivity at those frequencies is below the measured noise floor or the ADC aliases the tones into the audible band, the claimed distances and bit rates cannot be reproduced.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SmartAttack is a three-stage exfiltration: malware on an air-gapped machine gathers data and modulates it with B-FSK onto two ultrasonic tones (18.5 kHz for binary 0, 19.5 kHz for binary 1); a Wear OS smartwatch compromised beforehand samples the room with its microphone, filters the 18–22 kHz band, runs an FFT and peak detector to classify each symbol, and uses the preamble and checksum to reassemble the payload; the watch then forwards the data over Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or cellular. The paper's experiments report SNR and BER across active speakers, passive speakers, and laptop speakers at distances from 1 to 9 meters, and show that reception is orientation-dependent (strongest around 180–225 degrees, weakest at 0 and 270 degrees), that body occlusion adds 10–30+ dB of loss, that frequencies above 20 kHz degrade quickly, and that keyboard typing noise does not mask the ultrasonic band. The conclusion states that the attack successfully transmits data over distances exceeding 6 meters at up to 50 bits per second.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes, without the paper stating it, that the smartwatch's microphone and audio digitizer truly capture the 18–22 kHz band; if the hardware samples below 44.1 kHz or rolls off before 18 kHz, the reported reception would not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An attacker can exfiltrate data from an air-gapped computer without needing a phone: a watch already on the user's wrist receives the signal.
  • Lower bit rates (5 bps) remain reliable over longer distances, so the channel favors small payloads like keystrokes or keys over bulk file transfer.
  • Frequencies above 20 kHz are largely wasted on smartwatch microphones; the usable covert band sits at 18–19.5 kHz.
  • Defenders can exploit orientation and body occlusion: certain wrist angles cut the signal by 10 dB or more, and banning or disabling wearable audio hardware removes the channel.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the paper never identifies the watch model or sample rate, the practical reach of SmartAttack is probably hardware-dependent; an obvious next step is to survey microphone frequency response across Wear OS and other smartwatch lines.
  • The same ultrasonic link could likely be reversed (smartwatch as transmitter to a compromised computer) or combined with another covert channel to relay data out of the room, though the paper does not test this.
  • If keyboard typing noise is spectrally separated from 18.5–19.5 kHz, then other human-generated sounds such as speech may also fail to jam the channel, making detection harder; this is an inference from the spectral-separation argument rather than a measured result.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents SmartAttack, a proposed ultrasonic covert channel in which a compromised computer modulates data with B-FSK at 18.5/19.5 kHz and transmits it through its speakers, while a Wear OS smartwatch worn on the wrist acts as the receiver, capturing the signal through its built-in microphone and decoding it with an FFT-based pipeline. The authors report experiments across three transmitter types (active speaker, passive speaker, laptop), eight wrist orientations, varying distances up to 9 m, and bit rates of 5, 20, and 50 bps, and conclude that the attack can transmit data over distances exceeding 6 m at rates up to 50 bps. The paper also discusses smartwatch-specific factors such as wrist movement, body attenuation, directional microphone response, and mitigation strategies.

Significance. If the central feasibility claim is correct, the paper identifies a plausible and under-explored attack vector: a smartwatch, which may be worn continuously in a sensitive facility, can serve as a covert receiver for ultrasonic exfiltration from an air-gapped computer. The paper contributes a clear attack model, a pseudocode decoder, qualitative orientation and attenuation analyses, and a comparison across transmitter types. However, the empirical support is currently not trustworthy: the receiver hardware is never identified, and the SNR/BER tables are internally inconsistent with the paper's own channel model. Because the conclusion depends on these measurements, the result is not yet established. The work is sufficiently important that the evaluation should be fixed and re-reviewed rather than dismissed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.C and V] The receiver hardware is not disclosed: the watch is described only as a Wear OS smartwatch, Algorithm 1 says Initialize microphone and set sampling rate without giving a value, and no microphone part number, model name, or recording API configuration is provided. Since the claimed channel is 18-22 kHz, the microphone's frequency response, anti-alias filter, and ADC sampling rate determine whether those tones are captured at all. If the sampling rate is below 44.1 kHz, or if the analog path rolls off before 18 kHz, the spectrograms in Figures 3, 4, and 7 could reflect aliased or attenuated energy rather than genuine ultrasonic reception. The paper must name the watch model, sampling rate, and recording settings, and ideally include a frequency-response measurement, before the feasibility claim can be evaluated.
  2. [Section V.C, Table IV] The passive-speaker BER/SNR values contradict the model BER(d) = Q(sqrt(SNR(d))) stated in the same section. For 5 bps, the table reports 0% BER at 8 m with SNR 10 dB but 100% BER at 9 m with SNR 8 dB; for 50 bps, it reports 100% BER at 8 m with SNR 23 dB but 0% BER at 9 m with SNR 35 dB. These entries cannot all come from one monotone system with the stated Q-function relationship. The inconsistency is load-bearing because Table IV is the primary quantitative support for the claim of distances exceeding 6 meters in Section VII. The authors need to reproduce or correct these measurements and ensure that SNR and BER are coherent with the stated model.
  3. [Section V.D, Table VI] The laptop-speaker 50 bps rows are self-contradictory: the table reports 12.5% BER at 6 m (SNR 28 dB), 0% at 7 m (SNR 22 dB), 100% at 8 m (SNR 30 dB), and 0% at 9 m (SNR 25 dB). The accompanying text says BER increasing to 12.5% at 6 meters and reaching 100% at 8 meters, indicating a complete loss of data integrity, which the table itself contradicts at 9 m. This undermines the conclusion that data rates of up to 50 bps are achievable, and the data set must be reconciled or removed.
  4. [Section V and VII] The evaluation reports no experimental protocol: the number of transmitted messages per configuration, the method for computing BER (per bit or per packet), the duration of each trial, the environmental conditions, and the criterion for success are all unspecified. Without such details, the tables cannot be independently checked, and the concluding claim of distances exceeding 6 meters at data rates up to 50 bps is not reproducible. The authors should add a standard experimental methodology subsection describing trial counts, confidence measures, and the definition of a successful decoded message.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV.D] The paragraph beginning To efficiently decode ultrasonic transmissions, the smartwatch employs an optimized signal processing pipeline is duplicated verbatim; one copy should be removed.
  2. [Table IV] The 20 bps row at 9 m reports SNR as ?; this missing value should be measured or the entry should explicitly state not available with an explanation.
  3. [Tables V and VII] The SNR values in these tables are presented without units in the table headers; the headers should include (dB) to match the text.
  4. [Section V.F] The numerical example (initial power 60 dB, attenuation coefficient 5 dB/m) appears to be an illustrative calculation rather than a measured result; the text should clarify that these numbers are an example, not experimental data.
  5. [Figures 5 and 6] The text in Section V.E refers to Figure 5 and Figure 6, but the figures are not present in the supplied manuscript; please ensure they are included in the final submission.
  6. [Section IV.B] The expression d_max approximately equals (P_t/P_min)^(1/beta) is dimensionally unclear; the text should define whether P_t and P_min are power ratios or dB values, or explain that this is a heuristic relationship.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central feasibility claim rests on the paper's own Section V measurements, not on a fitted parameter, self-citation, or definitional equivalence.

full rationale

SmartAttack's central claim is empirical: the abstract and Section VII assert that the attack transmits data over 6+ meters at up to 50 bps, and the support is the measured SNR/BER tables (Tables III-VII) and spectrograms in Section V. No equation in the paper is fitted to those measurements and then renamed as a prediction. The path-loss expression SNR(d) proportional to d^-gamma and the BFSK relation BER(d) = Q(sqrt(SNR(d))) are standard textbook formulas stated as interpretive models, and no parameter is reverse-engineered to force the claimed distance/rate envelope. The related-work citations, including the author's prior ultrasonic-channel papers, are background and do not carry the smartwatch-specific feasibility result; the paper's own experiments are the load-bearing evidence. The main weaknesses are validity concerns rather than circularity: the receiver hardware is never named, Algorithm 1 instructs to 'set sampling rate' without stating a value, and the BER/SNR tables are internally inconsistent (e.g., Table IV shows 100% BER at 9 m with 8 dB SNR for 5 bps but 0% BER at 9 m with 35 dB SNR for 50 bps), so the quantitative envelope may not be reliable. Because the claim is not derived from its own inputs by construction, the appropriate circularity finding is none, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes measurements rather than a derivation. Its quantitative envelope depends on hand-chosen modulation parameters (18.5/19.5 kHz tones, 50 ms symbols), an unmeasured path-loss exponent, and asserted attenuation constants (Section V.F, which the paper itself declares out of scope). The threat model inherits two prior compromise steps (Section III). No new entities are invented.

free parameters (3)
  • Path loss exponent gamma (and beta) = Unmeasured; asserted as environment-dependent
    Sections IV.A and V.B-D state Sr proportional to d^-beta and SNR(d) proportional to d^-gamma but never fit gamma or beta to the measured SNR columns; the reported values (e.g., Table IV) do not follow any single exponent.
  • Attenuation coefficients for obstructions = 0.1-0.5 dB/cm (soft materials); 5 dB/m (example); 10-30 dB (obstruction scenarios)
    Section V.F, which the paper itself flags as 'beyond the scope of this paper', asserts these coefficients and works a numeric example (60 dB initial power, 1.5 m, 10-30 dB losses) without measuring any of them.
  • Modulation parameters f0, f1, Ts = 18.5 kHz, 19.5 kHz, 50 ms
    Hand-chosen design values in Section IV.B. All measured SNR/BER envelopes are conditional on this tone pair and symbol duration; no sweep over these values is reported, so the distance-rate results are specific to one configuration.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Binary FSK bit-error rate is BER = Q(sqrt(SNR)).
    Invoked in Section V.C to relate measured SNR to expected BER. The measured pairs in Tables IV and VI (e.g., 100% BER at 23-30 dB SNR) contradict this standard result, so the model does not describe the data.
  • domain assumption Attack requires both the air-gapped computer and the smartwatch to be compromised beforehand.
    Section III assumes network infiltration via supply chain, insider, or USB and smartwatch infection via apps or exploits. The paper contributes only the ultrasonic reception leg, so its practical value is conditional on a dual compromise inherited from prior incidents.
  • domain assumption Frequencies at and above 18 kHz are inaudible in the operational setting.
    Used throughout (Introduction, Section III.A, V.G). Human hearing sensitivity near 18-20 kHz varies with age and loud tones are perceptible to some individuals; the paper does not address this caveat.
  • domain assumption Acoustic path loss in the test room follows SNR(d) proportional to d^-gamma.
    Stated in Sections V.B-D as the expected trend. The paper's own Table IV SNR values are non-monotonic in distance, so this modeling assumption is contradicted by the measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SmartAttack: Air-Gap Attack via Smartwatches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JZXY6JNP

@misc{pith2026250608866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SmartAttack: Air-Gap Attack via Smartwatches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JZXY6JNP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08866}
}
read the original abstract

Air-gapped systems are considered highly secure against data leaks due to their physical isolation from external networks. Despite this protection, ultrasonic communication has been demonstrated as an effective method for exfiltrating data from such systems. While smartphones have been extensively studied in the context of ultrasonic covert channels, smartwatches remain an underexplored yet effective attack vector. In this paper, we propose and evaluate SmartAttack, a novel method that leverages smartwatches as receivers for ultrasonic covert communication in air-gapped environments. Our approach utilizes the built-in microphones of smartwatches to capture covert signals in real time within the ultrasonic frequency range of 18-22 kHz. Through experimental validation, we assess the feasibility of this attack under varying environmental conditions, distances, orientations, and noise levels. Furthermore, we analyze smartwatch-specific factors that influence ultrasonic covert channels, including their continuous presence on the user's wrist, the impact of the human body on signal propagation, and the directional constraints of built-in microphones. Our findings highlight the security risks posed by smartwatches in high-security environments and outline mitigation strategies to counteract this emerging threat.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08866 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the attack model. A programmer working in front [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of smartwatch orientations at different angles relative to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectrogram analysis of smartwatch response at different angles relative to the transmitting computer. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frequency intensity profiles for different smartwatch orientations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) comparison across different transmitters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectrogram analysis of ultrasonic transmission (18.5–19 kHz) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A survey of covert channels and countermeasures in computer network protocols,

    S. Zander, G. Armitage, and P. Branch, “A survey of covert channels and countermeasures in computer network protocols,” IEEE Communi- cations Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 44–57, 2007

    2007

  2. [2]

    Bridgeware: The air-gap malware,

    M. Guri and Y . Elovici, “Bridgeware: The air-gap malware,” Communi- cations of the ACM , vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 74–82, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Out-of-band covert channels—a survey,

    B. Carrara and C. Adams, “Out-of-band covert channels—a survey,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 1–36, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    A study on air-gap networks,

    M. R. Na and K. Sundharakumar, “A study on air-gap networks,” in 2024 5th International Conference on Innovative Trends in Information Technology (ICITIIT). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    On acoustic covert channels between air- gapped systems,

    B. Carrara and C. Adams, “On acoustic covert channels between air- gapped systems,” in Foundations and Practice of Security: 7th Interna- tional Symposium, FPS 2014, Montreal, QC, Canada, November 3-5,

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Vulner- ability analysis and exploitation attacks on smart wearable devices,

    S. A. Khan, H. R. Bajwa, J. Sundaram, B. Shanmugam et al., “Vulner- ability analysis and exploitation attacks on smart wearable devices,” in 2024 2nd International Conference on Advancement in Computation & Computer Technologies (InCACCT). IEEE, 2024, pp. 911–916

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Security threat on wearable services: Empirical study using a commercial smartband,

    M. Lee, K. Lee, J. Shim, S.-j. Cho, and J. Choi, “Security threat on wearable services: Empirical study using a commercial smartband,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics-Asia (ICCE-Asia). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–5

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Airhopper: Bridging the air-gap between isolated networks and mobile phones using radio frequencies,

    M. Guri, G. Kedma, A. Kachlon, and Y . Elovici, “Airhopper: Bridging the air-gap between isolated networks and mobile phones using radio frequencies,” in 2014 9th International Conference on Malicious and Unwanted Software: The Americas (MALWARE). IEEE, 2014, pp. 58– 67

    work page 2014

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Led-it-go: Leaking (a lot of) data from air-gapped computers via the (small) hard drive led,

    M. Guri, B. Zadov, and Y . Elovici, “Led-it-go: Leaking (a lot of) data from air-gapped computers via the (small) hard drive led,” in Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment: 14th International Conference, DIMVA 2017, Bonn, Germany, July 6-7, 2017, Pr...

    2017

  2. [10]

    Odini: Escaping sensitive data from faraday-caged, air-gapped computers via magnetic fields,

    ——, “Odini: Escaping sensitive data from faraday-caged, air-gapped computers via magnetic fields,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 15, pp. 1190–1203, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Exfiltrating data from air-gapped computers via vibrations,

    M. Guri, “Exfiltrating data from air-gapped computers via vibrations,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 122, pp. 69–81, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Bitwhisper: Covert signaling channel between air-gapped computers using thermal manipu- lations,

    M. Guri, M. Monitz, Y . Mirski, and Y . Elovici, “Bitwhisper: Covert signaling channel between air-gapped computers using thermal manipu- lations,” in 2015 IEEE 28th Computer Security Foundations Symposium. IEEE, 2015, pp. 276–289

    2015

  5. [13]

    Hanes and G

    D. Hanes and G. Salgueiro, Fax, Modem, and text for IP Telephony . Cisco Press, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    Recent developments in covert acoustical communications,

    M. Hanspach and M. Goetz, “Recent developments in covert acoustical communications,” 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Ultrannel: Ultrasound based covert communication chan- nel,

    J. Zhang, R. Wu, X. Li, S. Wang, Q. Jin, Z. Li, and R. Shi, “Ultrannel: Ultrasound based covert communication chan- nel,” in 2022 IEEE Smartworld, Ubiquitous Intelligence & Com- puting, Scalable Computing & Communications, Digital Twin, Pri- vacy Computing, Metaverse, Autonomo...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Crossing the air gap—an ultrasonic covert channel,

    W. Wong et al. , “Crossing the air gap—an ultrasonic covert channel,” Ph.D. dissertation, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Speaker-to-speaker covert ul- trasonic communication,

    M. Guri, Y . Solewicz, and Y . Elovici, “Speaker-to-speaker covert ul- trasonic communication,” Journal of Information Security and Applica- tions, vol. 51, p. 102458, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Near-ultrasonic covert channels using software-defined radio techniques,

    R. Sherry, E. Bayne, and D. McLuskie, “Near-ultrasonic covert channels using software-defined radio techniques,” in Proceedings of the Interna- tional Conference on Cybersecurity, Situational Awareness and Social Media: Cyber Science 2022; 20–21 June; Wales . Springer, 2023, p...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Vibrational covert chan- nels using low-frequency acoustic signals,

    N. Matyunin, Y . Wang, and S. Katzenbeisser, “Vibrational covert chan- nels using low-frequency acoustic signals,” in Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security , 2019, pp. 31–36

    2019

  12. [20]

    Mosquito: Covert ultrasonic trans- missions between two air-gapped computers using speaker-to-speaker communication,

    M. Guri, Y . Solewicz, and Y . Elovici, “Mosquito: Covert ultrasonic trans- missions between two air-gapped computers using speaker-to-speaker communication,” in 2018 IEEE Conference on Dependable and Secure Computing (DSC). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–8

    2018

  13. [21]

    Dolphinattack: Inaudible voice commands,

    G. Zhang, C. Yan, X. Ji, T. Zhang, A. V . Vasilakos, and Y . Fang, “Dolphinattack: Inaudible voice commands,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 2017, pp. 103–117. [Online]. Available: https: //dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/...

    2017

  14. [22]

    Surfingattack: Interactive hidden attack on voice assistants using ultrasonic guided waves,

    Q. Yan, X. Zhang, X. Ji, T. Zhang, K. Sun, and G. Zhang, “Surfingattack: Interactive hidden attack on voice assistants using ultrasonic guided waves,” in Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS). The Internet Society, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nds...

    2020

  15. [23]

    El-grillo: Leaking data ultrasonically from air-gapped pcs via the tiny motherboard buzzer,

    M. Guri, “El-grillo: Leaking data ultrasonically from air-gapped pcs via the tiny motherboard buzzer,” in 2023 20th Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–11

    2023

  16. [24]

    Inaudible sound as a covert channel in mobile devices,

    L. Deshotels, “Inaudible sound as a covert channel in mobile devices,” in 8th USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies (WOOT 14) , 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Shoutimei: Ultrasound covert channel-based attack in android,

    K. Pandya, B. Borisaniya, and B. Buddhadev, “Shoutimei: Ultrasound covert channel-based attack in android,” in Security, Privacy and Data Analytics: Select Proceedings of ISPDA 2021 . Springer, 2022, pp. 293–301

    2021

  18. [26]

    A survey on air-gap at- tacks: Fundamentals, transport means, attack scenarios and challenges,

    J. Park, J. Yoo, J. Yu, J. Lee, and J. Song, “A survey on air-gap at- tacks: Fundamentals, transport means, attack scenarios and challenges,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 6, p. 3215, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Analysis on hacking the secured air-gapped computer and possible solution,

    V . Sati and R. Muthalagu, “Analysis on hacking the secured air-gapped computer and possible solution,” Cybern. Inf. Technol, vol. 23, pp. 124– 136, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Stuxnet and the limits of cyber warfare,

    J. R. Lindsay, “Stuxnet and the limits of cyber warfare,” Security studies, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 365–404, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    A survey of smartwatches in remote health monitoring,

    C. E. King and M. Sarrafzadeh, “A survey of smartwatches in remote health monitoring,” Journal of healthcare informatics research , vol. 2, pp. 1–24, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Microphone frequency range guide,

    G. Sound and Vibration, “Microphone frequency range guide,” GRAS Acoustics , 2024, accessed: 2024-02-26. [Online]. Available: https://www.grasacoustics.com/microphone-guide/frequency-range

    2024

  23. [31]

    Soundwatch: Exploring the design space of real-time audio awareness for smartwatches,

    A. Ganesan, P. Jain, S. N. Patel, and J. Froehlich, “Soundwatch: Exploring the design space of real-time audio awareness for smartwatches,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 42–51, 2024, accessed: 2024-02-26. [Online]. Available: https: //cacm.acm.org/research/so...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Schools face challenges en- forcing cellphone restrictions,

    Government Technology, “Schools face challenges en- forcing cellphone restrictions,” 2023, accessed: 2025-02-

    2023

  25. [33]

    Security of ultrasonic sensors: Vulnerabilities and defense strategies,

    C. Security, “Security of ultrasonic sensors: Vulnerabilities and defense strategies,” 2023, accessed: 2025-02-27. [Online]. Available: https://cyansec.com/files/articles/18IoTJ-Ultrasonic.pdf

    2023

  26. [34]

    Available: https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/ schools-face-challenges-enforcing-cellphone-restrictions

    [Online]. Available: https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/ schools-face-challenges-enforcing-cellphone-restrictions

  27. [35]

    Sonicontrol: A mobile ultrasonic firewall,

    V . Mavroudis, M. Miettinen, M. S. Conti, and A.-R. Sadeghi, “Sonicontrol: A mobile ultrasonic firewall,” 2017, pp. 365–365, accessed: 2025-02-27. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1807. 07617

    2017

  28. [36]

    Privacy implications of ultrasonic tracking,

    V . Mavroudis, A. Kolias, G. Stringhini, F. Maggi, A. P. Keromytis, and I. Polakis, “Privacy implications of ultrasonic tracking,” 2017, pp. 21–30, accessed: 2025-02-27. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/ doi/10.1145/3139550.3139553

    2017

  29. [38]

    Air-gap computer network security - notary colorado springs,

    J. Lucas, “Air-gap computer network security - notary colorado springs,” December 2014, [Online; accessed 2025-02-27]. [Online]. Available: https://abclegaldocs.com/blog-Colorado-Notary/ air-gap-computer-network-security/

    2014

  30. [2014]

    Springer, 2015, pp

    Revised Selected Papers 7 . Springer, 2015, pp. 3–16

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.