Slashdot Log In
Cracking a Crypto Hard Drive Case
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Feb 19, 2008 01:29 AM
from the easy-button dept.
from the easy-button dept.
juct writes "A label on the box reading 'AES' does not ensure that your data are protected. heise examined a hard drive enclosure with an RFID key that is typical of many similar products. They found that the 128-bit AES hardware encryption claimed in advertisements was in fact a simple XOR encryption that they were able to break easily with a known plaintext attack." The manufacturer of the drive examined has announced that the product is being retooled and will be reintroduced later this year, presumably with actual AES encryption.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Funny)
Hah! That doesn't compare with DOUBLE-XOR encryption!
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Funny)
Quadruple-ROT-13 is twice as funny
Sextuple-ROT-13 is thrice as funny, and gets a two bonus points for the 's-e-x' string in it
Octuple-ROT-13 is twice twice as funny, and gets a bonus point for sounding a bit like the word 'octopus', which has 'p-u-s' in it, which sounds a bit like 'pussy', which is a synonym for 'vagina', which is related to 'sex'
Decuple-ROT-13 is twice plus thrice as funny
Duodecuple-ROT-13 is twice thrice as funny
After that it just gets lame.
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Funny)
After much work, I have proved that ROT forms a group under functional composition. I shall call it "the rotation group." This comment field, however, is simply too small to contain the proof.
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's
It's also NEVER a good idea to use any "crypto developed in-house". Manufacturers love to tell you since they developed it and their development is secret and such that their product is safe and secure, much more secure even since nobody knows how it works.
Cryptologists laugh at those claims, and everybody else should, too. These non-encrypting devices are a good reason as to why they do so.
If you want truly encrypted files and disks, don't rely on cheap external enclosures. TrueCrypt is not hard to use and offers a decent level of protection (forget Windows crypto, it's littered with backdoors unless configured JUST right, which is not an easy task and definitely not default). Under linux, it's decidedly easy to use AES encryption on block devices.
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Funny)
I agree completely - open source or nothing. But you would not BELIEVE the hassle I get checking into an airline when I refuse to let them close the door and take off until I've inspected all of their flight code. Bunch of unreasonable pricks.
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. If the machine you are using is compromised, anyone with access to it can access your data as soon as you unlock it, either with your physical key, or with a password. Doesn't matter if you use software or hardware encryption. If your text editor can read the file on the disk, so can any other program on the computer.
Parent
Re:Criminal prosecution? (Score:4, Informative)
NTFS encryption is secure if properly configured (or at least any weaknesses aren't yet known), but it's totally insecure by default, and this lack of security is not at all obvious.
Parent
It's not the company's fault... (Score:5, Informative)
They used a chipset from INNMAX, the IM7206 [innmax.com], believing it provided AES encryption to data. INNMAX's marketing [innmax.com] strongly implies that AES encryption is being used for data on disk.
According to the article, when confronted with this situation, INNMAX's response wasCheap Chinese Crap.
Parent
Re:It's not the company's fault... (Score:4, Insightful)
Definitely not anything unheard of. Sometimes you get a gem out of the Chinese stuff. Most of the time, though, you
get shoddy workmanship, which is what you expect. That's because the incentives are on cutting corners wherever you
can on the stuff over there. That's part of why I question any value in much, if not most, of the offshoring we keep
insisting upon doing here in the States.
Parent
How about a software solution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about a software solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How about a software solution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:How about a software solution? (Score:5, Interesting)
That won't help you. You need to read Reflections of Trusting Trust by Ken Thompson: http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html [bell-labs.com]
Parent
Re:How about a software solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially since compiling the code yourself is completely sufficient to prevent security flaws. Erm. You were planning to audit it, right? Since everyone knows that's sufficient [bell-labs.com].
Computer security is hard. Doing it right is really hard.
Parent
Re:How about a software solution? (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, even if you were able to make it work the Linux kernel on your machine, the new FUSE-based Truecrypt 5.0 series is only 1/20-1/10 of the speed I get from the 4.x series. From 20-40 MB/s, now I only get 1-5 MB/s.
I am now considering to switch to dmcrypt+luks.
Parent
Re:How about a software solution? (Score:5, Informative)
In the mean time I'm quite happy with the new 5.0.
Parent
Well, as others have noted (Score:5, Insightful)
However more importantly, what good does the source really do you? I mean I can get the Truecrypt source, and I can look at it, but it really isn't going to tell me anything other than that I'm not very good at C++. I'm not a programmer by trade, so I certainly can't trace through all the complicated code that makes up a program like Truecrypt (it even includes assembly).
What's more, even if you are a programmer, it doesn't necessairily do you any good. Cryptography is a pretty specialized field and a pretty complex one. So while you might be able to trace through all the code and see what it does, do you have all the cryptographic knowledge to know if it is doing everything right? Can you tell the different between a properly and improperly applied algorithm? Will you notice a minor bug in assembly where they put a JNA instead of a JNAE? You might conclude everything looks fine, but be wrong simply because you don't understand how it works well enough or because the error is non-obvious.
Now please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying I think Truecrypt is untrustworthy. Far from it, I use and trust it. I am just saying that there is the false warm fuzzy myth about OSS that tends to get thrown around on
Well, while that certainly can, and does, happen with OSS, it can happen with closed software as well. Being open doesn't make it inherantly secure, and doesn't mean a normal person can tell.
For that matter, to really check crypto software you don't just need a code audit, it is even more important to do a results audit. Basically you take data, you encrypt it, and then you look at the result and see if it is good. You treat the software like a black box because the question isn't "Is it producing the correct result based on the code," the question is "Is it producing the correct result based on the cryptosystem." If I wanted to audit Truecrypt I wouldn't so much be interested in how it did things internally. Heck, even if I was an expert it might easily have a bug I'd miss (since after all other experts had written it and missed said bug). What I'd be interested in is having it do encryption, then comparing the result against controls. Maybe another AES implementation I knew to be good, maybe one I wrote, maybe a bit of a test worked out by pen and paper, maybe just trying to do cryptographic attacks against the ciphertext..
Regardless of the method, what I'd want to do is verify operation, not design. I imagine that's what they did in this case. Drive claims "this is AES encryption" so they do a little compare and contrast and, what do you know, it isn't.
Parent
Re:Well, as others have noted (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not really inclined to trust some company that says product X is secure, but i'm far more likely to trust a string of unconnected individuals, especially if some of those individuals are recognised cryptography experts or have at least studied cryptography at a reputable establishment.
Sure it's not perfect, but its a huge step in the right direction. The only perfect solution would be to study cryptography and programming (in whatever language) yourself first.
Parent
So what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the mfg keep a list of serial #s and RFID keys so they can mail you/thief a replacement?
Re:So what happens... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:So what happens... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:So what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question you should be asking is "If somebody copies my key, can I change the lock ?"
Parent
Re:So what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
This has to be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, the case manufacturers should have tested the product themselves. They should at least offer returns / refunds.
Parent
Manufacturer link. (Score:3, Informative)
Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust is a precious resource that you must cultivate; it's not a boomerang. Never risk throwing it away.
Re:Trust (Score:4, Funny)
The precious resource of trust can only be grown slowly, fed by the nutrients of honesty, the rains of commercial and/or interpersonal interaction, and the sun-like rays of consistency. Like the noble crops of wheat that adorn the fields of the Great Plains, it is only finally harvested in the autumn of our lives. But, unlike those nutritious grains, its wholesomeness fills the belly of our souls every day of our lives.
Nay, trust is _not_ a boomerang.
Parent
Freecom equally bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. This is exactly what freecom did when they sold me a usb bluetooth adaptor with an antenna. I dropped it one day, and the little case popped open. OK, that happens; no big deal. What WAS a big deal though, was the antenna -- it was simply a bit of plastic, swinging from a hole in the case. There were no wires attached to this, nothing else near it that even suggested it might have accidentally been shipped with a "placeholder" or something like that. It was simple, unadultered fraud. The antenna might as well have been made by Tomy, which is a shame, as otherwise, it worked fine, and the antenna probably was unnecessary after all (I bought that model FOR it's antenna figuring it wouldn't hurt, and might help).
What do freecom gain from this? Something like $5, I'd guess, after the store etc. take their cuts.
What do they lose? Me, as a an IT industry purchaser, ever buying their products again. Me telling other IT people on slashdot what I think of Freecom.
What could they have done instead, to compete with manufacturer X's? "We're confident in our product's reception/transmission, and have no need for gimmicks like the antennas manufacturer X uses." I probably would have bought a lot more of their stuff after that.
Dumbasses.
Parent
XOR encryption can be good (Score:5, Informative)
Stream Ciphers [wikipedia.org] also use XOR, but are much more convenient to use and could very easily be used to encrypt a hard drive.
Re:XOR encryption can be good (Score:5, Interesting)
The only exception I've read about is SEAL [wikipedia.org] but IIRC that's still patented by IBM.
Parent
Re:XOR encryption can be good (Score:5, Informative)
It is also true that one can use AES (ignorantly) in a way that allows decryption as described in the article. Using Electronic codebook (ECB) [wikipedia.org], for example, with the same key for each block, would provide no security beyond what would be provided by a reused OTP. Sadly (though obviously insecure), this is still technically using AES as a block cipher -- it's just using an insecure mode of operation. My first thought was that the manufacturers used ECB, or a similar insecure mode of operation (trusting the claim of using AES).
From reading the article, though, it seems the manufacturers even admitted only using AES "when saving the RFID chip's ID in the controller's flash memory" and that "actual data encryption is based on an algorithm developed in-house." Just goes to show that if tried-and-true algorithms / ciphers are available, you should NEVER have to develop your own.
Parent
Re:XOR encryption can be good (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Perfect XOR encryption. (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed. I XOR the data with itself, making sure that it can never, ever be decrypted.
Parent
This is nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)
The good thing about crypto in a hard drive case (Score:4, Interesting)
WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
If I sell you a padlock, claiming that its made of steel, when actually its made of a Silly Putty and rubber bands, then I'm going have my day in court. Why Tech vendors seem TOTALLY immune to this kind of prosecution.
Puts me in mind of SecuLock (was that the name?), they were featured here a while back, they make "secure" USB memory sticks, they claimed AES encryption, killswitches and other bells and whistles, but if you were to have a quick look at one of the DLL's exports, you can see a an Unlock routine. You see, the user's password wasn't used as a key, Oh no, they had one global key and a simple IF to check the passwords.
Though this is much, much worse, it beggars the question; how can we berate employees for losing disks and laptops, when the vendors are happy to look us in the eye and lie to us, about standards that I was able to implement when I was about 16.
It's either government interferance (remember, the USA's law forcing vendors to embed backdoors for them), or its just plain lazy, either way, it's got to stop.
AES in counter mode? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, it's perfectly possible that they are not lying at all, they just are not very good at crypto.
Re:How about some product testing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, you are. You're thinking way too technical and way too little in marketing terms. If you want to make money, the easiest way is to find enough clueless users that will swallow your marketing babble hook, line and sinker and sell your stuff to them.
Parent