ArsTechnica explains about a malware that they have named "badBios" which was supposedly able to infect other computers via high ultrasound frequencies.

I find this, not an impossibility by itself, but my guess is that this only would be possible in the case that the computers had some type of sound processing software that got to process the sound and was programmed precisely to interpret that sound for causing malware effects.

But what I'm skeptic about is that it was only achieved by that sound emission and reception, without that additional software.

Did such a malware (with only that emission and reception) exist?

PD: There's also some extra explanation here. There it clearly states its done by sound transmission.

  • 1
    I don't see where the article clearly claims that the infection is flowing via sound. Rather, it claims that infected machines are communicating with each other via sound, not a particularly difficult task. The infections apparently flow via USB sticks, something of a "Duh!" – Daniel R Hicks Nov 13 '18 at 2:40
  • @DanielRHicks, in the article it says "We had an air-gapped computer that just had its [firmware] BIOS reflashed, a fresh disk drive installed, and zero data on it, installed from a Windows system CD,", the software I'm describing shouldn't exist in such a machine, so it could only be infected by sound. – user2638180 Nov 13 '18 at 2:45
  • 3
    But they go on to say that the infection is flowing via USB sticks. They were using USB sticks to configure the refreshed machine. (Why it took them so long to recognize this obvious mode of contamination I can't fathom.) – Daniel R Hicks Nov 13 '18 at 2:53
  • 1
    Your new link does not "clearly state" that the infection is done by sound transmission. It suggests that sound is utilized to assist in the propagation, but that's about it. Understand that there's a difference between infecting a computer and harnessing the infection for malicious activities. – Daniel R Hicks Nov 13 '18 at 3:00
  • We have a rule that only widely-held beliefs are in scope for this site. You are quoting a 2013 ArsTechnica article that admits it is from one researcher and hadn't been verified. By the time we get to 2018, this is old news and I can find no evidence that anyone currently believes this claim, so I don't think it is notable. – Oddthinking Nov 13 '18 at 3:22

Browse other questions tagged .