Researchers in the UK claim to have translated the sound of laptop keystrokes into their corresponding letters with 95 percent accuracy in some cases.
That 95 percent figure was achieved with nothing but a nearby iPhone. Remote methods are just as dangerous: over Zoom, the accuracy of recorded keystrokes only dropped to 93 percent, while Skype calls were still 91.7 percent accurate.
In other words, this is a side channel attack with considerable accuracy, minimal technical requirements, and a ubiquitous data exfiltration point: Microphones, which are everywhere from our laptops, to our wrists, to the very rooms we work in.
I’m a touch typist who can reach 160wpm when I’m really flowing, I would guess the speed makes accuracy harder to distinguish individual keys than you pressing keys with three fingers.
I type an awful lot slower than you, and still it’s faster than I can think. How do you think of what to type fast enough to type at 160wpm?
Not the original person you responded to, but I type 120ish wpm. The trick is to try to tap into the same part of your brain that verbalizes words when you talk, rather than the part that composes stuff when you write.
That speed is usually transcription for me, I’m listening to someone and type what I hear. Actual writing and composing a thought typing speed is closer to 120wpm or so. I learned to type on a typewriter which is much slower, current low profile mech keyboard contributes to faster typing speed too.
That speed is something you only reach when using something like monkeytype.com, where it gives a continues list of words for you to type over some time, and then calculates the wpm. I manage about 140.
Yeah, the article mentions that exactly - the faster you type the more the accuracy plummets.
I could see that, makes sense.