Slashdot Log In
Wireless Keyboard "Encryption" Cracked
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Dec 04, 2007 05:47 AM
from the hardly-needs-a-brute dept.
from the hardly-needs-a-brute dept.
squidinkcalligraphy writes "While everyone is going on about wireless network security, it seems few have considered that increasingly common wireless keyboards can be vulnerable to eavesdropping. Particularly when the encryption is pitifully weak. All that's needed is a simple radio receiver, sound card, and a brute-force attack on the 8-bit encryption used. Passwords galore! Bluetooth, it seems, is safe for the moment."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Why a soundcard ! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why a soundcard ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
but was there any need to reply to that kind of retarded question? Why not just let him continue in his ignorance.. obviously he has no interest in knowing, otherwise he would have RTFA.
Well, I didn't read the white paper, but I did RTFA and that doesn't mention anything why the sound card was used. And I assumed that the simple radio receiver was a simple pci card like radio device (I had a TV signal receiver card that u just digitized the TV signals and u could watch broadcast TV on your computer .. so I was thinking of that when I asked the question), for some reason I didn't realize that they meant a radio with a audio output. Does that make me a bit slow.. yes; ignorant/retarded ...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your basic radio-to-PCM device doesn't have a sufficiently flexible tuner to reach below the 85MHz FM lower limit into the depths of 27MHz. An analog FM tuner can be easily hacked to do this, but you'd basically have to rip out the capacitor DAC that a fu
Re:Why a soundcard ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, because the less you share information with the apparently ignorant, the more ignorant society at large is.
If I ask a question, even if it's a dumb one, I desire an answer. As such, I respond to questions I have the answers to. Be the change you want to see in the world, and all.
Parent
Re:Why a soundcard ! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why a soundcard ! (Score:4, Funny)
I think this paper needs to be peer reviewed by Crash Override.
Parent
Re:Why a soundcard ! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
urm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Others suggested dish antennas. For 27Mhz, no way.
Re:urm (Score:5, Informative)
So you might need to worry about it in say, an office or school environment.
Parent
Re:urm (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:urm (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Under my desk (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Under my desk (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Under my desk (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
A decent arial can make a massive difference to reception - directional antennas, like those used by people trying to sniff your wifi, can extend the range 10x.
Radio reception can be highly influenced, and non-linear, due to local conditions. Try moving your receiver...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Under my desk (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't much matter. Someone who would actually go out and purchase for a low ID for nothing more than the sake of the number warrants comparable Geek Cred as someone who just happened to stumble across Slashdot early enough to snag a low ID. Both methods are Geek-significant in their own way, and both methods are absolutely meaningless in their own way. It's a wash.
-
Gimme a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone concerned about security doesn't use a wireless keyboard....Durrrr
Re:Gimme a break (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Gimme a break (Score:5, Interesting)
That might seem like a trivial concept to you but I saw a wireless keyboard in use at a doctors office some years ago. When I mentioned to the staff that I didn't want them typing my personal details on that particular keyboard, they looked at me like I was wearing an actual tin foil hat.
Geeks need to realize that geeks aren't the only people who work in IT. Sensationalizing this sort of story hurts nobody and might actually spread awareness.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The conversation went something like this:
Me: You don't have a pop-up blocker then?
Dr: No. What's that?
Me: How about security software, anti virus?
Dr: No. What's that?
Me: How many patient records are stored on that thing?
*sigh*
Re:Gimme a break (Score:5, Interesting)
It does make it easier to deploy our systems in our operatories because of the distances between the dental chairs and the computer bays. I would need 12 to 18' long cords on keyboards (and mice) and that would be a massive pile of shit to deal with in a hygiene or doctor's operatory due to how our system works. Not just our system, but the majority of dental practices (and I've seen a lot of medical practices setup the same or similar) are arranged the same way. The air space is so great between where the keyboards and mice need to sit and where the computers are located that it would not be practical to run cabled keyboards and mice. Plus, the chances of someone monitoring our wireless keyboards is so slim that I felt the risk was minor. I still do.
On the other hand, I believe the chances of someone trying to get into a wireless network are much greater and even with newer encryptions and firewalling/controlled access I would never allow such a network to be installed in this building. If they tried to push that agenda, I'd have my personal lawyer draw up a contract for the owners to sign absolving me of all responsibility for any break-ins that might happen and guaranteeing me a position with the company after any breach (or a VERY large golden parachute clause so I would have a lot of time to find a new position). That would probably get their attention and shut down the wireless network chatter but, as I said above, I still do not think there is enough of an issue with wireless keyboards to warrant more than a slight increase in watch status.
Of course, a couple of high profile theft of identity/information cases involving wireless keyboards will change my (and everyone else's) mind about that. Natch.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BTW, there is a way to use wireless keyboards and have good security. Use bluetooth devices that support long, configurable PINs, and choose PINs that are 12+ digits long, randomly-generated. I believe there are a few devices on the market that use 128-bit PINs, randomly generated on every reassociation, and automatically reassociate when the keyboard is placed on the charging stand. Those seem ideal -- highly secure and very easy to reassociate.
I don't have any specific brands or models to suggest, thou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
EU versions operate nearly universally on 2.4. I wrote this pissed off coming back from a shop looking for guess what - a keyboard with decent crypto layer. 5 wireless wankoffs, all with an wankoff encryption and all tossing all over the 2.4 band. 1 MSFT, 1 Logitech, 3 Chinese nonames. All 2.4
Just Mess with the Listener! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just Mess with the Listener! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Shocked (Score:5, Interesting)
Any news on other manufacturers? I'm particularly concerned about Cherry (the only wireless keyboard I own, soon to be replaced with a bluetooth Logitech) for my HTPC.
P.S. for the nay-sayers - yes, I too have endless problems with the range of wireless keyboards but I dare say a proper antennae (as opposed to the tiny ones used in the standard receiver) you could probably get a clear signal from up to 10-15m away (25MHz = ~11.5m wavelength, no? ~5m aerial is easy enough to conceal). That's easily enough to snoop someone's keypresses from outside, even off-property.
As an aside, I'm aware that Bluetooth is an open standard, hence probably peer reviewed, hence probably having an association/encryption method that wasn't dreamt up by a crackhead. Can anyone here speak on its relative resilience in its current form, notwithstanding all of the vulns there've been in shoddy stack implementation?
Re:Shocked (Score:4, Interesting)
The summary ended sort of ominously, didn't it? "Bluetooth, it seems, is safe for the moment."
I feel relatively safe with my bluetooth Logitech keyboard (which I wouldn't give up for the world), but my worry is that the bluetooth implementation is not necessarily up to scratch. My particular keyboard is designed to be used with the USB dongle that came in the box, and Logitech don't officially support the keyboard's use with other bluetooth devices, which makes me wonder why (although it will work with my Apple laptop's built-in bluetooth receiver for basic functions).
Parent
Re:Shocked (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Shocked (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Shocked (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
I'll never trust those things (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years ago, the company I was working at decided to upgrade a few favoured individuals with a wireless keyboard/mouse combo. There was no good reason for them to have it, other than looking cool, but they got it anyway.
The first one was installed, and was a great success. The user loved being able to move their keyboard and mouse without, uh, being limited by a cable. They didn't actually move it, but they liked the fact that they could. Or maybe it was the fact that their desk didn't have any wires cluttering it up. Whatever it was, they loved it.
So the second one was installed, on a desk maybe ten metres away from the first.
It was a disaster. The two sets of devices conflicted with each other. Basically, the first one to switch on in the morning got control of both computers. When the second one was turned on, it found the devices on the other desk instead of its own ones, and then anything the first user did was echoed on the second machine as well.
It didn't take the engineering team long to fix the problem -- the two sets of devices were set to the same ID -- but it did nothing to inspire confidence. What that incident tells me is that if I want to hack these devices, all I need is a computer with a compatible receiver with the same ID, and hide it somewhere in range of their desk.
Things may have improved since then, but frankly I don't see the need for these devices to be wireless (especially on a desktop computer); no matter how good they make them, they'll still be an open security hole because the signals will always be available outside of your control.
This applies to any wireless device. But some wireless devices are more useful than others. For example, a mobile phone is a good use of wireless technology because it provides significant usability improvement over a wired phone. But for me a device like a wireless keyboard really doesn't provide enough of an improvement over a wired one to justify the security implications from using it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's half a dozen wireless keyboards operating OK in my current office room, which is probably about ten metres long. They're mostly things people have brought in from home as we also just get standard wired stuff by default. Maybe this helps as
Wireless keyboards have encryption? (Score:5, Interesting)
In a high security enviroment I could see the need. Even if the intuitive guess would be that a wired keyboard might be safer, this is not necesarry the case; the unshileded wire used on most keyboards acts an an antenna (see TEMPEST [wikipedia.org] on Wikipedia). I've seen demonstrations where the keystrokes have been picked up by sensitive antennas 50m away thru a normal wall. A highly encrypted wireless keyboard might be safer; I'm not sure if such a product even exists today. A simpler option might be to place the computer and keyboard in a faraday cage...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if the intuitive guess would be that a wired keyboard might be safer, this is not necesarry the case; the unshileded wire used on most keyboards acts an an antenna
QFT
You're the first response I've read here that has been anti wired (or at least nuetral to both) and for a legit reason!! The rest of these fanboys are shouting about wireless sucks beause its unencrypted, forgetting this small detail which would allow you to "hack" into a wired keyboard at a larger distance.....given of course you have a decent line of site lol.
For ANY security measure, or lack there of, there is ALWAYS a way in. The only issue in gaining access is where you look and how hard you'v
No encryption mybe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Encryption is weak, signal is weak (Score:2)
Antenna Crack? (Score:2, Funny)
Smooth your face
Bounce signal back
Lower power
Avoids attack
Burma Shave
Bluetooth safe? (Score:5, Informative)
Bluebag Project [computer.org] can crack any bluetooth device in some 6 hours. The current form of it has a potential to increase the speed 8 times (currently it uses 8 dongles to scan possible 64 channels in paralell. If you use 64 bluetooth dongles to scan one channel each, you gain a lot of speed).
This was only for select Microsoft Keyboards (Score:3, Informative)
The Slashdot article is very misleading.