![Security Security](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/security_64.png)
![Wireless Networking Wireless Networking](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/wireless_64.png)
![Hardware Hardware](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/hardware_64.png)
New Way To Crack Secure Bluetooth Devices 137
moon_monkey writes "Cryptographers have discovered a way to hack Bluetooth-enabled devices even when security features are switched on, according to a report from New Scientist.com. The discovery may make it even easier for hackers to eavesdrop on conversations and charge their own calls to someone else's cellphone. From the article: 'Our attack makes it possible to crack every communication between two Bluetooth devices, and not only if it is the first communication between those devices,'"
Show me the code (Score:2, Interesting)
where are these cryptographers and their code ?
and why isnt this mentioned on Butraq or Full Disclosure ?
Re:Show me the code (Score:3, Informative)
Well, here [tau.ac.il] might be a good place to look. The article doesn't actually tell you where to find the research, but it was posted on Schneier's blog this morning.
Cheers,
Brendan
Funny quote (Score:4, Insightful)
At bottom of Slashdot screen
The truth (Score:2)
Freedom Above All
Really? (Score:1)
How old are you?
Article is missing an important detail (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's a manual step, then it'll require education of the users to not pair their phones in public.
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:3, Informative)
So, it's an automatic and remote attack which doesn't rely upon any cooperation from either of the two original Bluetooth devices.
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:2)
Thanks for the clarification.
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:4, Insightful)
They imply that part of the pairing process is inputting the 4 digit PIN. If this is the case, user intervention would be required for re-pairing. Maybe the article wasn't as precise as possible regarding the process, but it distinctly uses the above terminology which, to me, implies manual input.
Perhaps the devices remember the PIN if the link-key is forgotten, thus removing the need for user intervention? That would explain the bit in the article about trying every PIN (a 4-digit PIN seems pretty ridiculously small, regardless).
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:2)
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:3, Insightful)
The article mentions a manual process for inputting a 4 digit PIN to seed the pairing process. Then goes on to state that bluetooth devices can send a 'whoops - forgot our secret key. Sorry. Can we pick a new one?' message that is honored without any intervention by, or alerting of, the user(s) involved. Just having that message - without any authentication or encrytion it seems - defeats the entire security process. WTF?
The sec
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:2)
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:2)
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:2)
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:5, Informative)
If the attack is successful, the Bluetooth user will need to enter the PIN again - so a suspicious user may realize that his Bluetooth device is under attack and refuse to enter the PIN.
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:2)
So I really am safe as long as I'm not entering my PIN in a place where I can be eavesdropped upon. No worries! Whew.
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:2)
How does this work with headsets? Where do you enter the PIN on the headset? Or do you ONLY have to do it with the phone?
Also, I hear that some phones do an autonegotiation that doesn't require a PIN at all. It would seem that these would be the most vulnerable to the attack, although what happens when the legitimate device tries to pair at the same time as the spoofer?
Regardless, at the very least this looks like it could be a DOS.
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:3, Informative)
Now a headset has only a limited set of functions it can perform -- they can't dial digits without a keypad, so they're usually res
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:1)
Re:Article is missing an important detail (Score:2)
man this ain't very good news (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:man this ain't very good news (Score:2)
Three words.... (Score:2)
Re:Three words.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Two Words... (Score:2)
Why, oh why ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Guys, what about hiring ONE competent cryptographer to design a wireless protocols ?
Re:Why, oh why ? (Score:2)
As with most paid employees, a cryptographer's competence decreases as his job security increases.
It's only a hacker who has nothing legitimately to gain that would find an exploit like this. Unless he's a crazy researcher who put his life on hold to find some obscure flaw with hyperthreading processors.
Re:Why, oh why ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bluetooth in and of itself is a fairly decent protocol for what it was originally designed for (ca. 15m range personal networking). It encounters a lot of limitations in the capabilities of how it is implemented (i.e. static shared PINs, etc.)
And you're mistaken about crazy hackers; I know of quite a few pretty top-end cryptographers still doing good research while employed as pe
Re:Why, oh why ? (Score:2, Informative)
Now, if they maybe wanted to use more encryption so the key isn't as breakable, that would be an idea...but it would probably mean more expensive hardware, and longer PINs.
My boss always says security and ease of use are on two opposite ends of a line, and with any system you have to put the 'x' somewher
Re:Why, oh why ? (Score:1)
I'd be more worried if I could see the display when the phone was up to my ear.
Re:Why, oh why ? (Score:1)
panic! Fear! Oh no! (Score:3, Funny)
Further, it's extremely rare that I even SEE Another bluetooth device on the bos or train. While the phones may be popular, not a whole lotta people are using bluetooth, it seems.
Additionally, the phones I've got default to a Bluetooth radio-off mode...ya can't see them unless you a) turn them on (v600) or b) are already paired (nokia 9820)
Lastly, at 15 feet, there's not a large number of people around you that can pull this off (except that poindexter across the aisle with the laptop and dish antenna pointed at you)
Now, if you're being shadowed at less than 20 feet by a guy with a BT headset, get worried...or turn off your phone...or ignore it, you've got a blue bajillion minutes anyway.
Re:panic! Fear! Oh no! (Score:1)
Or, maybe not...
Re:panic! Fear! Oh no! (Score:2)
You can't hack a bluetooth easily unless you are within 15 feet of a person who also has bluetooth.
Is that a fact? [tomsnetworking.com]
Re:panic! Fear! Oh no! (Score:2)
The article says it can be done. The odds of it happening are _Vanishingly_ small.
Re:panic! Fear! Oh no! (Score:2)
And there are exactly HOW many 'Toothers out there with a gun shaped antenna?
That information is classified. What's your security clearance, Citizen?
The article says it can be done. The odds of it happening are _Vanishingly_ small.
The odds of being struck by lightning are small, too, but sensible people still refrain from golfing in thunderstorms.
Re:panic! Fear! Oh no! (Score:2)
Re:panic! Fear! Oh no! (Score:2)
> ya can't see them unless you turn them on
Wouldn't you have to leave it on (and vulnerable) in order to use one of those
fancy wireless headsets tho?
Re:panic! Fear! Oh no! (Score:1)
Grandparent is a bit off on the v600. Bluetooth itself needs to be on to use headsets and so forth, but discovery is turned off by default (and can only be turned on for 60 seconds at a time, after which it turns back off).
This means that under usual operating conditions, only devices that have previously paired with the phone can talk to it.
Re:panic! Fear! Oh no! (Score:1)
If that gets slashdotted, just UTFSE--bluetooth sniper hack gets you tons of relevant info.
Yes, that's pretty visible on a bus, but what if I stand by the window of my 11-floor office and snipe the mindless drones walking the streets?
Re:panic! Fear! Oh no! (Score:2)
Re:panic! Fear! Oh no! (Score:2)
The Paper: Cracking the Bluetooth PIN (Score:2, Informative)
Cracking the Bluetooth PIN [tau.ac.il]
This paper describes the implementation of an attack on the Bluetooth security mechanism. Specifically, we describe a passive attack, in which an attacker can find the PIN used during the pairing process. We then describe the cracking speed we can achieve through three optimizations methods. Our fastest optimization employs an algebraic representation of a central cryptographic primitive (SAFER+) used in Bluetooth. Our results show that a 4-digit PIN can be cracked in less th
Finally... (Score:4, Funny)
...an excuse for my "adult" calls on my phone bills.
__free funny videos [laughdaily.com]
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finally... (Score:2)
No, but my nosey girlfriend with a headache does. Grrrrrrr.
__free funny videos [laughdaily.com]
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Funny)
(thank goodness for the 'Post Anonymously' option)
Mastercard Comercieal? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Funny)
(thank goodness for the 'Post Anonymously' option)
Doh!
What about keyboards (Score:2, Insightful)
The article doesn't seem to say.
Yes, sorta. (Score:1)
Essentially, yes, although it's a bit complex. Basically, they can send out a packet that forces your keyboard to stop working. At this point you have to re-pair your keyboard, so you type in the PIN and re-pair it.
Now, the PIN is never actually sent, but by capturing what *is* sent between your machine and your keyboard in setting up that secured connection, and then running a program to brute for
Serious Flaw (Score:2)
It's like your online bank site giving someone else your password, just because they said they forgot it.
While I doubt this is a widespread serious issue with the small number of bluetooth devices now, it could be an issue on something like a train, where there are a lot of business co
Re:Serious Flaw (Score:1)
Re:Serious Flaw (Score:1)
Re:Serious Flaw (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA. The hackers device tells the other device that it forgot the key. The pairing is deleted. The user has to re-pair the devices if he wants to use them again. The hacker can listen to that second pairing and use the previously discovered techniques to get the key.
Re:Serious Flaw (Score:1)
This has to be Microsoft's fault somehow.
Re:Serious Flaw (Score:2)
It still isn't good, but at least it's not as bad as I thought.
Re:Serious Flaw (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Serious Flaw (Score:2)
It's all a case of "be careful what you wish for..."
Apparently a senior security researcher, in an effort to get an overzealous junior security researcher out of his hair, set him to the task of solving the problem of social engineering, and just to make sure he was occupied until nearly the end of time, told him he had to do it enti
4-digit PIN is the heart of the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
A longer alphanumeric PIN might be a first step to making this exploit much less practical -- increasing the PIN search time from a fraction of a second to hours or days.
This looks like another classic example of the fundemental tradeoff between usability and security.
Re:4-digit PIN is the heart of the problem (Score:2)
Re:4-digit PIN is the heart of the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that you record the negotiation process, during which the unknown PIN is exchanged. You can then go offline and figure out which PIN number would have resulted in the particular set of data exchanged during the negotation. Then, you can go back online, having bruted the correct PIN, and Bob's your uncle.
Victim can't stop this type of brute force attack (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually the "brute force" is not done by communication so the victim cannot stall the attack. The brute force attack is entirely computed in software by the attacker's PC. The attacker simulates all 10,000 combinations until he/she gets a match with what was sniffed during listening to the re-pairing processes. The att
Re:4-digit PIN is the heart of the problem (Score:2)
In order to get that kind of security you would need to change the pairing protocol to use EKE, SPEKE or similar protocol that which is resistant to offline attacks even with weak passwords. These algorithms are patented by Lucent and Phoenix Technologies.
Not such a big threat (Score:4, Informative)
With this, you can force them to re-form at will.
Even so, you still need to bruteforce the PIN. The "PIN" is really a 16-byte field, and is not really limited to numeric (or even alphanumeric) characters.
So what can be done:
1) Start using long PIN codes (if your device is limited to numbers, at least use the maximum length)
2) Software update that notifies user of the "forced re-pairing"
3) Allow users to use PIN's beyond the numeric space or possibility to use some pre-shared secret keys.
This affects those of you who use "1234" or similar keys for pairing process for convenience.
Amazing... (Score:2)
Re:Amazing... (Score:1)
Re:Not such a big threat (Score:1)
Right now, it appears that:
First pairing: Request PIN -> Have stored PIN -> Make that long internal code
Subsequent pairing: Have stored PIN -> Make that long internal code
If they just removed the optimisation of storing the PIN, then it would be more secure. Plus since there'd be no need to store it, then if you lost your phone no one could extract the PIN, which may well be the same as your
Just take today's story... (Score:3, Informative)
Mmm... phreaky...
What would John Conner have to say about this? (Score:1)
Re:What would John Conner have to say about this? (Score:1)
Whitehouse? (Score:2)
He must be a relative to the Whitehouse family in Cryptonomicon and The Baroque Trilogy - everyone in that family was supposed to be a hacker, after all.
Re:Whitehouse? (Score:2)
Too much staring at the tube, too little rest for the poor brain.
P4-eneabled (Score:1)
I wonder how long it would take with Pentium 4 disabled.
Re:P4-eneabled (Score:2)
ALL RIGHT!!! (Score:1)
Time to get more Paris Hilton pics!
I was gonna ... (Score:1, Funny)
Maybe a crack - but not really useful (Score:2)
- With the Logitech keyboard, you actually have to type in the PIN from the keyboard in order for it to pair.
- The motorola must be told to pair specifically - so if it loses connection with a device, it won't automatically re-pair because I haven't made my phone pairable. To make the phone pairable requires a specific menu sequence and
Re:Maybe a crack - but not really useful (Score:1)
Re:Maybe a crack - but not really useful (Score:1)
Re:Maybe a crack - but not really useful (Score:2)
Security should not optional (Score:1)
Why does everything come with security 'features'? Shouldn't everything be as secure as possible out of the box? If it was made inherently secure, it wouldn't need 'features'.
flaw in the article (Score:2)
Pin length isn't fixed in bluetooth.
It can be anything between 1 to 16 numbers.
Sure it's easy to crack if you use one or two digit length,
but with 8 digits or more, it will take much longer to crack using brute force.
Besides, bluetooth always requires authorization before allowing network/dialup access from the modem device, even if it's already paired with the client machine.
Annoying, but g
Re:flaw in the article (Score:2)
You can, however, set up your phone so that this extra auth step is required. But this exposes you to exactly the vulnerability mentioned in the paper [tau.ac.il]:
Paper describing the attack (Score:2, Informative)
Mike
I didn't know anyone took bluetooth security... (Score:2)
Solution is longer PIN lengths (Score:1)
Just by making the pin 8 digits, this crack would take over 12 minutes.
And then there's this little tid-bit:
"Note that the attack, as described, is only fully successful against PIN values of under 64 bits. If the PIN is longer, then with high probability there will be multiple PIN candidates, since the two SRES values only provide 64 bits
Longer PIN length not a panacea (Score:2)
Also, the attack is trivially parallelisable (it's bruteforce, hence the exponential curve). Even without additional caching à la MD5, the amount of data describing the data is extremely small, and could easily be sent over the internet. 64 or 128 P4s aren't exactly hard to come by. Moreover, it seems like the researchers haven't used
Re:Solution is longer PIN lengths (Score:1)
ok, so what (Score:1)
With the relibility of bluetooth, peer reconnect is uncommon unless a guy w/a big antenna is sitting right next to you trying to disrupt your connection (as mentioned). It's n
Didn't Apple invent Bluetooth 2.0? (Score:2)
Few people realize how Apple's responsible for many of the technologies that plague personal computers today. For example, the first computer virus recorded came out in 1982 on Apple hardware [wikipedia.org] and exploited flaws in Apple's early operating system. Apple also had a key role in the development of the MIME attachemnt protocol (via their NeXT subsidiary) that allowed malicious executable software t
Re:Didn't Apple invent Bluetooth 2.0? (Score:2)
And don't forget, Apple is also responsible for both 400Mb/s and 800Mb/s firewire, along with the best ZefoConf protocol there is, Rendezous/Bonjour. And made the 3.5" floppy disk standard....in fucking 1984. Original mac also shipped with a real sound processor and speaker, instead of that boop/bee
Re:Didn't Apple invent Bluetooth 2.0? (Score:1)
And NeXT was never a subsidiary of Apple. NeXT broke away from Apple, started by Steve Jobs, and later bought to form Rhapsody and then completely re-written (but with the same ideals) to form OS X.
And Bluetooth 2.0 is a standard. Apple doesn't make the standard-- they comply with the standard. Like I could make a web browser that whe
"Secure" Bluetooth devices... (Score:1)
quick question to /. (Score:1)
hmm (Score:1)
Re:A fix... (Score:5, Informative)
Then not only didn't you RTFA, but apparently you haven't used Bluetooth, either. Bluetooth is an extremely useful mechanism for many of us. It lets my PDA get on line; and when I hop in my vehicle, my car stereo magically becomes my car phone whenever it rings.
I just wish more devices were Bluetooth enabled (and that this security hole didn't exist.) As is, I'm not losing sleep over this as I don't have a public-transit commute (the sort of place where breaks seem most likely to happen.)
Re:A fix... (Score:2)
Re:A fix... (Score:1)
Well, as long as you don't get stuck in heavy traffic, you'll probably be OK. I can imagine guys right now, imagining and designing automated systems so they can drive around, hijacking devices, doing nefarious things. Basically a money machine, ala:
1) Create Automated Bluetooth Hack Box
2) ????
3) PROFIT!!!
Re:A fix... (Score:2)
The first phase of the attack requires me, the human victim, to go through several steps. First and most important, I have to notice that Bluetooth isn't working. I then have to read the tiny screen of the phone to see what the error is, and decide that pairing is necessary. I th