Anonymous ID: 13c863 Jan. 12, 2019, 9 a.m. No.4725746   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5804 >>5902

>>4725521

IMO, the antenna would be quite a bit different for wireless charging. Also, do those batteries say they support it? My guess is 'no'. It would be pretty darn easy to communicate through the power line on these phones if this is an intentional hardware exploit.

Anonymous ID: 13c863 Jan. 12, 2019, 9:03 a.m. No.4725785   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>4725581

Yes, yes, we know all that. Just about any electronics guy who knows much about how phones works is aware of this.

 

The question is what kind of exploit (if at all) this is. I'm tempted to go buy a Samsung battery and see for myself.

Anonymous ID: 13c863 Jan. 12, 2019, 9:08 a.m. No.4725852   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>4725625

Yes. In this case, it sure looks like the antenna is hooked directly to power. I'm guessing there's a chip in that antenna (like RFID) that can be talked to to enable/disable the antenna for bidirectional communication. Looks like roughly around 600Mhz or so based on the antenna, so it would have some range, especially if it draws from the battery and amplifies it.

 

Note that with this circuit, the phone itself would be completely unaware of the transmission (except for the code that uses it, which would be an exploit.) Also, this means the radio chip (CPU; which can see the power line) could be responsible for the exploit, meaning the normal CPU would be 100% unaware of the exploit.

 

Have a nice day.

Anonymous ID: 13c863 Jan. 12, 2019, 9:16 a.m. No.4725954   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>4725804

Maybe. It could have a different function. That's clearly a "Samsung" branded battery, so we need to find it. Aftermarket batteries don't count because they could be built-in amplifiers for cell signals (cell boosters.)

 

But Samsung isn't going to put that in a battery and not charge more for it or advertise it. We shall see.