Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Handhelds Hardware

Cellphone Could Crack RFID Tags 138

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the let-the-wardriving-begin dept.
diverge_s writes "Adi Shamir of RSA is at it again. This time pointing out flaws in RFID systems. From the article: 'I haven't tested all RFID tags, but we did test the biggest brand and it is totally unprotected,' Shamir said. Using this approach, 'a cellphone has all the ingredients you need to conduct an attack and compromise all the RFID tags in the vicinity.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cellphone Could Crack RFID Tags More

Cellphone Could Crack RFID Tags

Comments Filter:

  • Link to the dude itself, dude! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @05:38AM (#14723063)
    Here's the cryptographer's panel:
    http://media.omediaweb.com/rsa2006/1_5/1_5_High.as x [omediaweb.com]

    Prof Shamir comes on at 6:15, but I recommend watching the whole hour through.

  • Shamir (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Remember though that Shamir (the S of RSA) was one of the first people to apply for a software patent for the RSA patent, and hasn't been shy of enforcing it. Thus, he shall be shamed and loathed by the slashdot community.

    • Re:Shamir (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2@earthsh ... .co.uk minus bsd> on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @06:04AM (#14723133)
      The patent should never have been awarded in the first place. For one thing, mathematics should never be patentable. For another, there was already Prior Art invented at GCHQ in the UK -- but because of its nature, it was kept hushed-up.

      The patent was never applicable in the UK nor the EU.

      • Re:Shamir (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ObsessiveMathsFreak ( 773371 ) <obsessivemathsfreak.eircom@net> on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @06:25AM (#14723185) Homepage Journal
        For one thing, mathematics should never be patentable. For another, there was already Prior Art invented at GCHQ in the UK -- but because of its nature, it was kept hushed-up.

        This "prior art" did not count as it was unpublished. However the point about the mathematics is exactly correct. Shamir is one of the the greatest trinity of conmen to ever plauge the computer industry.

        If you ever want to know why you still don't have encrypted email, this guy is 33.33333....% of the reason.

        • Re:Shamir (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jonwil ( 467024 )
          From what I understand, the RSA patent has expired now.
          So, why havent we seen people working on a simple to use way to do encrypted email now that they dont have to pay RSA for the patent?

          • Re:Shamir (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Vainglorious Coward ( 267452 )

            From what I understand, the RSA patent has expired now.

            I well remember the party I attended to celebrate the patent expiry, in September 2000

            So, why havent we seen people working on a simple to use way to do encrypted email now that they dont have to pay RSA for the patent?

            Ever used Outlook? Or Thunderbird? Those email clients (and many others) do have a simple way to encrypt (and sign) email using S/MIME. The problem never was patent restrictions, rather the difficulties associated with key manag

            • The problem with S/MIME is that you need to buy a certificate which costs $$$.
              PGP (or GPG) is a better option, you dont need to buy anything
              I want to see PGP/GPG support in email programs.
              Or, at least, something that can layer on top of all major email programs and can handle PGP/GPG.

        • Re:Shamir (Score:2, Informative)

          by MadMidnightBomber ( 894759 )

          This "prior art" did not count as it was unpublished. However the point about the mathematics is exactly correct. Shamir is one of the the greatest trinity of conmen to ever plauge the computer industry. If you ever want to know why you still don't have encrypted email, this guy is 33.33333....% of the reason.

          Dude, 2000 called. They want their excuse back.

          The first copy of PGP was released in 1991 [1] [vie-privee.org]

          The RSA patent expired in 2000. If you're in the US. I don't believe it was patented elsewhere. [2] [daemonnews.org]

          • Not to mention the fact that there were plenty of other public key encryption schemes available... Sure, few of them had been analyzed like RSA had, and a few proved to be flawed over time (as RSA itself might someday), but they were there. E.g. Rabin and El Gamal were unpatented (and the tenuous Diffe-Hellman claim to El Gamal expired in 1997).
          • Want to think of another reason why no one is encrypting email?

            Because unencrypted standards are firmly entrenched... thanks to RSA!

      • this thread (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        At the last DefCon...people were able to remotely read RFID tags from a distance of approximatly 49 feet...I knew this was a bad thing to implement so soon.

        • Re:this thread (Score:2, Informative)

          by ajs318 ( 655362 )
          As I understand it, there is a serious issue with selectivity when reading RFID tags, due to the fact that they all have to use the same frequency. Passive RFID tags work by absorbing less or more energy from a radio transmitter to send zeros and ones. Real-life reading ranges are of the order of a few centimetres. Longer ranges are theoretically possible but create difficulties in practice. The "real" reader {i.e. the one which is actually supposed to be reading the tag} can't be too sensitive, lest

      • Re:Shamir (Score:5, Insightful)

        by p2sam ( 139950 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @09:20AM (#14723601)
        Good bye karma, this post SUPPORTS patenting mathematics and software. Moderators, please read full post before moderating ...

        I disagree. Many non-trivial and ingenious algorithms in math ought to be as patentable as other fields. Developing an algorithm to perform a useful task, or significantly improving an existing algorithm to perform a useful task, is no different than other fields. It requires time, resources, effort, and ingeniouty.

        The thing that I object to is the blanket patent period of 17 years that apply uniformly to all patents. The situation does not call for a one size fill all solution. The period of 17 years was probably decided a long time ago, and did not envision how rapidly the world had evolved. Even for other fields of engineering, 17 years may not always to be the most appropriate amount of time.

        In the computing world, 17 years is WAY too long. That's the equivalent of probably 5 or 6 revolutions in technologies. If patents for mathematics and computing was limited to say 2 or 3 years, then I can fully support it.

        • As a mathematician ... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Bazzalisk ( 869812 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @09:35AM (#14723657) Homepage
          I heartily disagree. If someone creates an algorithm, and patents it, do I then have to get their permission before using it to prove something in a paper? You want to give people a 2 year patent on something software related (an implementation, not an algorithm) then I can see that - but for a mathematical construct that's just silly. It would be like patenting not the steam-engine, but the concept that steam expands when heated.

          • Re:As a mathematician ... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by p2sam ( 139950 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @09:57AM (#14723785)
            I'm talking about algorithms that performs non-trival useful tasks. I'm NOT talking about the theorems/lemmas/etc.

            Quicksort ought to be patentable, sorting numbers should not.
            Algorithms for solving Linear Programs ought to be patentable, duals should not.
            RSA ought to be patentable, public key crypto should not.

            In order for something to be patentable, it has perform a useful task.

            To address your point about implementation vs algorithm, in software and mathematics, the implementation is often trivial (hence not deserving of a patent). The real innovation happens in the algorithm.

            Perhaps patents is a thing of the past, but I still wish to reward innovation to inventors of complex non-trivial algorithms which advance the state of the art. And patents are the closest thing we have.
            • Patents are not primarily a mechanism for rewarding innovation. The purpose of patents is to encourage innovation subject to the understanding that whatever is invented will eventually be released to the Public Domain. But the whole of mathematics is already in the Public Domain -- including the bits that have not yet been written down formally. Even before Napier published the first ever book of log tables, the relationship (a ** b) * (a ** c) == a ** (b + c) still held.

              The idea of patenting an algori
              • Even before Napier published the first ever book of log tables, the relationship (a ** b) * (a ** c) == a ** (b + c) still held.

                And astonishingly enough, even before [insert patented physical device here] was invented, the physics that allowed it to work the way it does still held. But you think that combining Widget A and Widget B to produce Result C is somehow more patentable than combining Number A and Number B to produce Result D?

                Why? Because you can touch them?
          • We already have such a monopoly on implementation of ideas: it is called copyright. Thanks to disney-dollars and the tendency of the us to use trade-agreements to bypass local gouvernment it usually is valid for much too long already.

            I will welcome the time when the US's power has shrunken so much that those copyright and patent agreements will be broken unilaterally.
      • The patent should never have been awarded in the first place. For one thing, mathematics should never be patentable.

        The claim is that what was patented was not a mathematical algorithm. It was an cryptography system that USED a mathematical algorithm. (It's like the difference between patenting a process for building a car that happens to use a stamping press versus patenting the stamping press.)

        I, too, happen to think that the patent should not have issued, because it can be argued that the cryptography

  • Good thing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by agent dero ( 680753 )
    It's a good thing our government wants to embed these things in our passports...something we should have on us at all times when traveling outside the country...

    So wait, besides inventory tracking, why do we use RFID at all?

    • It's a good thing our government wants to embed these things in our passports

      I knew this was coming the second I saw the headline.

      Biometric passports and most other applications that need secure tokens utilize smart cards.

      RFID [wikipedia.org] tags are not the same as smart cards [wikipedia.org]. The difference is huge. Please do your homework.

      So wait, besides inventory tracking, why do we use RFID at all?

      Besides inventory tracking, we usually don't. It is just confusion and FUD.

      • Smart cards are a reasonable alternative, but I've played with smart card readers as well, most people just assume "it's electronic, it must be secure"

        Which means, a good amount of companies really don't. Of course the same applies for magstrips, etc.

        The problem is not just RFID centric, that wasn't the point I was making. It is the trade off of security for convienence.

      • Re:RFID != Smart Card (Score:3, Informative)

        by armb ( 5151 )
        > Biometric passports and most other applications that need secure tokens utilize smart cards.

        Except for the ones which really are planed to use RFIDs.

        Here's some homework for you:
        http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/08/rfid _passport_s_1.html [schneier.com]
        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/30/burnham_rf id_evasions/ [theregister.co.uk]
        http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.98.html#subj7.1 [ncl.ac.uk]
        http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.87.html#subj5.1 [ncl.ac.uk]

      • Re:RFID != Smart Card (Score:3, Informative)

        by peragrin ( 659227 )
        I hate to break this to you, but any card that has a contactless interface(ie hold the card near the reader) is an RFID setup. it should be RFRC Radio frequency responder chip. which the USA and the UK want to use in passports. hence why they are coming with faraday cage style bags.

        A smart card still needs to be swiped. I have one in my american express card. My roommates new debit card has an RFRC in it as well. As he can simple place his card on a special sign and have it read it.
        • Please see my other comment [slashdot.org] about this.

          any card that has a contactless interface(ie hold the card near the reader) is an RFID setup

          A smart card still needs to be swiped.

          A smart card does not have to have contacts. It does not have to be swiped. It can be contactless, and more and more of them are these days. In fact, a single smart card chip can have both methods of communication.

          Again, you may argue that it's RFID if it's contactless, but this is confusing as RFID generally refers to RFID tags,

          • How can a smart card which contains ID information that transmits via RF not be an RFID tag? It may be enhanced above a normal tag, it may be encrypted, but the underlining tech is still the same.

            Hence why I said it should be called RFRC basically an RFID chip is a radio frequency tag that transmits an ID number when activated. a smart card transmits more information. The difference between a barcode model number and a full page of "product information".

            It relys on the same basic technology and thus is
      • RFID tags are not the same as smart cards. The difference is huge. Please do your homework.


        The funny thing is that the link you give for RFID tags contains this:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID#Passports [wikipedia.org]


        It's always fun to do homework, right?

        M.

        • Re:RFID != Smart Card (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CortoMaltese ( 828267 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @09:45AM (#14723711)
          It is always fun to do homework with Wikipedia... Biometric passports don't use RFID tags. Period.

          My reference? I work on smart cards, including biometric passports. In this field, no one in their right mind would use RFID tags for passports, or anything requiring security. Ever.

          It is sad that the web is full of stuff about RFID security, or the lack of it, and people then make the assumption that anything contactless is RFID, and thus insecure. It it really hard to try to set the facts straight, when the correctness of your facts can be questioned with a bunch of links to FUD. (And damn, even the links you provide yourself prove to contain incorrect or misleading information! Argh.)

          I guess I should just give up. It'll give me a warm and fuzzy feeling to know I'm right, after all.

          • Yes, but are you saying that contact-less smart cards are NOT vulnerable to attacks where the smart card power draw is measured as the article discusses?

            --jeffk++
          • I work on smart cards, including biometric passports. In this field, no one in their right mind would use RFID tags for passports, or anything requiring security. Ever.

            The problem here seems to be terminology (and clueless moderators).

            You are incorrectly assuming that "RFID" means a simple tag with no crypto.

            RFID is a generic term for any device that uses RF and identifys it's presence or absense. A resonant circuit without a chip that is used
            to tag library books is an RFID. A contactless smartcard that use

    • Re:Good thing (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 24-bit Voxel ( 672674 )
      I cannot think of a use for it other than surveillance/tracking. I tried.

      I have heard people mention that it can help rescue teams find you if you are lost in the woods, or buried in a snowdrift. Sure, I guess it could. Considering that the majority of people don't have this happen to them on a regular basis, I concluded that was not it's intended purpose.

      Maybe the RFID makers greased lawmakers to make more money. Could happen. Maybe we are all getting tagged so that we can be 'found' easily. Could al
      • Responding to my own thread, how tacky.

        Upon reflection, the officer comment I made above gave me an idea. If they could see who was driving a vehicle with the RFID scanner, and have an automatic camera take pictures when you break the law while driving, what we have a an ironclad case against the driver of the car.
        It could be that they are going to use it as a means of generating revenue in the form of tickets while simultaneously reducing the number of cops on the road for that task.

        Sounds more plausible
      • On my badge for work I have two authentication methods, a magnentic stripe and a RFID tag. I perfer to use the RFID tag, as one only has to 'touch' the plate with an id, and a person doesn't need to aim for a slot with it.

        Really the only way that it could be useful for surveillance/tracking is if there was a large number of cell phones 'looking' for the tag, and if 'they' were tracking a tag with a decent transmitting distance.

    • Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sxpert ( 139117 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @06:24AM (#14723183)
      (...) our government wants to embed these things in our passports (...)
      (...) besides inventory tracking (...)

      See the link yet ??

      the only explanation is that your government sees it's citizens as inventory, just like cattle

      • Re:Good thing (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by SubtleNuance ( 184325 )
        Contrast Free trade, and the unhindered movement of capital with immigration law.

        The international plutocracy controls virtually every western nation (south america being my one shining hope..). They write the both the Domestic law (keeping out/keeping in their labour) and their ability to move their own capital as they see fit, unhinged in any way to the community (the labour) that built it (or operates or relies on it for survival).

        I'll be honest, this is standard socialist rhetoric. But its also true.
        • I'll be honest, this is standard socialist rhetoric. But its also true. The USA, with its international monopoly on violence for the last 60 years has seen that any non-poverty-stricken nature fall in line with its policy. And the USA is the most corrupt, plutocratic nation on earth. And that is also true.

          Saying that the USA has an "international monopoly on violence for the last 60 years" is ridiculous.

          Sudan
          Eritrea vs. Ethiopia
          China vs. Tibet
          India vs. Pakistan
          N. Korea vs. S. Korea
          Indonesian vs E.

        • "Look at the USA's relationship with Mexico for instance. Free capital trade vs. Mexicans dying in the dessert."

          Ok...you got me on this one. What does free trade have to do with illegal aliens trying to sneak into the US? If Mexicans came to the US through legal immigration channels...they'd bypass the death in the desert thing.

          No one has a right to come into this country illegally. Frankly, I wish they'd put up landminds or booby traps to keep the borders secure. Everyone should have to come in through

          • "What does free trade have to do with illegal aliens trying to sneak into the US"

            That Mexico and USA allows the WEALTHY to move their capital at will is contrary to the notion of 'freedom' between the two nations. Not only does this capital move, but the wealthy do as well. The USA isnt so much a nation any more than it is a 'home based' for the international plutocratic classes. They arent any loyal to the USA. It is absurd to think that these Internationally Privileged People could be "loyal" to the l
    • So wait, besides inventory tracking, why do we use RFID at all?
      We need to track the other kinds of state inventory, like "citizens" (or as Cato would say, the "talking livestock").
    • Just saying...

      If you have any doubt look at hos the soldiers in Iraq are being treated. They aren't getting much body armor, so some soldiers are going into debt to buy theory won body armor. The most popular brand, Dragon Skin, is BETER than what the army provides.

      However, the military doesn't like their soldiers taking the initiative like that, so if you're killed in combat while wearing body armor that wasn't issued by the military, your family doesn't get your death benefits. Your wife and children d

  • Injected RFID tags... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Manip ( 656104 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @05:44AM (#14723076)
    When your employer comes to you about injecting an RFID tag under your skin remember this article. It is one thing to have an ID card with a tag on it, something that can be binned and replaced in time, but what about that chip under your skin? Are they going to take it out of you or will you end up with 10 all up your arm?

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @06:08AM (#14723144)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Injected RFID tags... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2@earthsh ... .co.uk minus bsd> on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @06:09AM (#14723146)
      When your employer comes to you about injecting an RFID tag under your skin
      That would be considered non-elective surgery, which is a form of assault {at least common assault, and maybe ABH or even GBH if an allergic reaction or septicaemia develops} -- and therefore illegal. Note also that you cannot consent to assault, and just because you said it was OK the perpetrator can still be prosecuted.

      • Re:Injected RFID tags... (Score:5, Informative)

        by plumby ( 179557 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @09:01AM (#14723545)
        That would be considered non-elective surgery, which is a form of assault {at least common assault, and maybe ABH or even GBH if an allergic reaction or septicaemia develops} -- and therefore illegal. Note also that you cannot consent to assault, and just because you said it was OK the perpetrator can still be prosecuted.

        Whether you can or can't consent to assault is irrelevant, as by agreeing to have the surgery, it would become elective and there would be no assault to consent to.

      • Note also that you cannot consent to assault You're apparently somewhere in the United Kingdom. I'm not licensed to practice law there, but as an American lawyer, I assure you that in the U.S. you'd be entirely wrong. And, I have very deep suspicions that you're simply flat out wrong. Under the Common Law, this would be a battery, not an assault. And you certainly CAN consent. Otherwise every time someone was hit in a football or rugby or whatevertheheckitisyoupeopleplayoverthere then there would be a

      • Re:Injected RFID tags... (Score:5, Informative)

        by kansas1051 ( 720008 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @10:37AM (#14724079)

        Note also that you cannot consent to assault, and just because you said it was OK the perpetrator can still be prosecuted.

        Your high school business law teacher who told you that didn't know what he was talking about. You can consent to a battery (unlawful touching) or an assault (reasonable apprehension of a battery). How do you think boxing, hockey, or football work? Each participant consents to being battered and assaulted (within the rules of the game) by other participants.

      • That would be considered non-elective surgery, which is a form of assault {at least common assault, and maybe ABH or even GBH if an allergic reaction or septicaemia develops} -- and therefore illegal. Note also that you cannot consent to assault, and just because you said it was OK the perpetrator can still be prosecuted.

        In other news, Mike Tyson's opponent goes to jail.

        Seriously though, as neatly as this theory fits in with the Official Slashdot Interpretation of the story, it just ain't so. There's no way
      • IANAL, but AFAIK under UK law:
        Assault is simply to cause fear (shouting "i'm gonna kill you")
        Battery is to cause fear, coupled with physical contact (the above, plus tapping on the shoulder)
        ABH is assault plus a more serious injury, EG: punching several times
        GBH is ABH but with bloodshed.

        so involuntary RFID injection would count as GBH, which is only 2 offences down from murder (murder=killing with intent to kill, manslaughter=killing with intent to cause GBH)

        PS: Do i get an award for most TLA or other acro
    • > When your employer comes to you about injecting an RFID tag under your skin remember this article. It is one thing to have an ID card with a tag on it, something that can be binned and replaced in time, but what about that chip under your skin? Are they going to take it out of you or will you end up with 10 all up your arm?

      No, it means my boss will end up with ten up his 455.

    • Re:Injected RFID tags... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They'll just use the Dick Cheney method of implanting pellets I guess.
    • It has already been put into place in at least one company: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/12/003 1213 [slashdot.org]

      Will it become the norm?
    • For all of the bravado posts here on /., don't forget that this audience is the same audience that is happy to run (even defend) proprietary software that leaks information about you to untrusted parties, argue that such secrecy is an important expression of freedom (confusing freedom with power), and believes in the myth of the marketplace (if your employer is oppressive, find another job). Once RFID injection becomes commonplace, you'll see this myth exposed yet again (because the poor end up switching j

  • RFID tag reader already in many Nokia phones (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hyperkinetic ( 142875 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @05:46AM (#14723080)
    My 6620 is capable of responding to 13.56 MHz readers and may be capable of reading tags as well. Nokia has been working with Mastercard and others to bring payment and reward systems to mobile phone users. There is little information in Google, but the API is available. Check your Nokia 'wallet' function for RFID functionality.

  • Not all tags. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by queazocotal ( 915608 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @05:48AM (#14723087)
    Active tags - ones with their own battery, are going to be fundamentally immune to this.

    Also, in addition to tags that have a simple 'password', that they must have before they do anything - that may be trivially vulnerable to power analysis, there are tags that do more complex things - such as for example, send the reader a random token, which it then has to encrypt with a key known to both of them.

    This can be immune to power analysis - in the simplest case, as it does not check each bit as recieved, but only at the end of a computation.

    And, the fact that getting the first bit correct of a hash with a given key does not help you to guess the rest.

    • I think this is a fascinating from an engineering trade off point of view. When you design a micropower circuit, you hoard every little bit of power and only expend it when necessary. I'm sure that was the mindset of these developers. And that's exactly the approach that will make the device vulnerable to power analysis.

      I'm sure they could have designed it to be, at least, much more insensitive to power analysis. I bet it just didn't occur to them to do so.

  • Ban Cellphones! (Score:3, Funny)

    by splutty ( 43475 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @05:49AM (#14723091)
    Extrapolating the common reaction to this sort of 'dangers to national security', I'll be looking for a news article about how cellphones should be banned..

    (Cynical, yes. Too close to the truth? Unfortunately)

    Splut.

  • RSA and Patents (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by putko ( 753330 )
    Here's something on RSA and their patent: http://www.cyberlaw.com/rsa.html [cyberlaw.com]

    That's the work this guy is famous for.
  • but it's primary uses: internal inventory tracking/ easy checkout, will be all it will be really good for

    all of the other far out uses people have imagined rfid tech will be useful for once you get past check out and out of the store- all the negative and all the positive (conspiracy theory tracking, smart fridges that know when you need more milk, etc.), won't really come to pass. not because people will suddenly care about their privacy, but because of exactly this: no one will be able to design a system that can't be gamed for some sort of illicit activity. rfid use outside of the store will be undependable simply because if rfid tags are being depended upon for any sort of proof of id in the "wild", then there is immediate and easily realized incentive to game the system

    in other words, rfid tags will only be useful in controlled environments. once out of the store, any grand schemes, good or bad, imagined with rfid tags in mind will be ruined by spoofing, masking, obfuscation, forgery, mass duplication, etc.

    this cell phone meddling is but a very preliminary indication of the kind of homegrown creative hacks and schemes people will be devising for fun and profit in the near future using rfid technology

    • But then the question comes to mind.
      How long will it take for the Corporations to manage a media campaign to smear anyone who would spoof or obfuscate or reproduce the RFID tags and information collected? Then spend the money it takes to make any such tampering with RFID tags to be a Felony with punishment on par with Rape and Murder.

      And before anyone thinks I think corporations are 'teh evil', It's the corporation being able to legally (the ethics of it is another matter) 'purchase' legislation to enforce

  • Time for... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Equuleus42 ( 723 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @06:24AM (#14723182) Homepage
    Time for a price rollback at Walmart!

  • A PCB for cloning RFID tags (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PGillingwater ( 72739 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @07:15AM (#14723275) Homepage
    http://cq.cx/proxmarkii.pl [cq.cx] provides a nice article on how one Canadian guy designed a small hardware solution for cloning RFID tags. It should be very clear that RFID is NOT secure -- it's actually more likely to be insecure, in spite of the vendors who are offering tin-foil hats for their RFID cards.
    • in spite of the vendors who are offering tin-foil hats for their RFID cards.


      Tin Foil Hats?

      Thats 20th century technology, get with the times, these days we're microwaving everything to ensure total rfid tag destruction. "microwave everything" thats the wave of the 21st century.

    • RFID cloning and power consumption attacks (Score:5, Interesting)

      by throwaway18 ( 521472 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @07:49AM (#14723358) Journal
      That cloning device only works on cheap RFID's that don't do cryptographic authentication. This is not the first time this has been done.
      http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~gh275/relay.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

      The method Shamir talked about is a little more interesting because the cards are leaking information wbout what they are doing internally. It is possible that a more detailed examination of the power consumption may reveal other detail of what the card is doing as well as when it things it has receive a bad bit.

      Power analysis has been a known attack on smartcards for a long time. A few cards were vulnerable to an attacker looking for increase current draw just after a PIN/password attempt when the card tried to increment a count of the number of failures, cut the power when it tries to write to the fail count and you could attempt a brute force attack. I believe the most obvious way around the problem, to decrement the counter before checking the PIN and increment it after if the check passed, is patented.

      It would be interesting to see if any RFID cards have that flaw.

  • RFID is not meant for security (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lord Satri ( 609291 ) <alexandrelerouxNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @07:54AM (#14723366) Homepage Journal
    I like what one of our users said [slashgeo.org]:
    "To summarize:
    RFID for inventory tracking ==> Good idea
    RFID for security ==> Stupid idea    "

    Here below I copy parts a previous comment on another story (which wasn't moderated and thus, probably not read a lot):
    Anyone interested in RFID could also start with the excellent wikipedia.org entry [wikipedia.org].

    Of interest, Slashdot already discussed RFID production increases before [slashdot.org]. Yes, RFID can be scary, especially in a bank [com.com] or in passports [slashdot.org]. Imagine, even Sun [informationweek.com] cares for RFID. MobileMag have a small article about a 100% organic matter RFID chip developed in Korea, costing only 0.5 cents [mobilemag.com].

    And if RFID and geospatial tech seriously interest you, see my sig ;-)

  • Is this news? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rettridg ( 896606 )
    Again this topic reviews the insecurities of wireless technology. We don't need a famous mathematician to tell us this. I have said it before, if data is so critically classified, don't transmit it across public air space.

    There isn't any problem with this unless the tag claims to be secure. Also, as the report says, if the tags are going to be made cheaply available, they can't necessarily promise security. No doubt the communication could include the latest security technologies, but there would be an asso
  • Now it will be intersting to watch what does the DMCA have to say about this if the RFID vendor files a law suit ?

    • The DMCA specifically allows circumvention of security devices for the purpose of cryptogtaphy research.

      Also, it is a stretch to imply that the purpose of any security mechanism in RFID is designed for the purpose of protecting someone's copyright. Hence, I think it would be hard to prosecute someone under the DMCA...

  • I cannot understand just one thing... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vitus Wagner ( 5911 ) <vitus@wagner.pp.ru> on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @10:03AM (#14723819) Homepage Journal
    Why he calls it "compromise"? RFID tag is just something like license plate on your car.
    You don't call your car security compromised just because everybody non-blind in victinity can read your license plate with naked eyes.

    You need have access to police database in order to get sensitive information of car owner using car license plate. Nobody but criminals tries to hide their car license plate from casual observer.

    Same for RFIDs - they just transmit some unique id, and one who wants to idenitfy person carrying RFID has to get access to right database (and indentity which database holds this info first).

    I'd rather say that your security is compromised, if you cannot read what is transmitted by RFID tag in your passport or under your skin, and some unknown person with RFID scanner can.

    So, in order to stop this hype about RFIDs compromising security, they have to cell RFID scanners for dollar on next corner, or make it standard feature of every cell phone (if components are really already in place) so everybody who is concerned about security can easily scan oneself and find out what kind of information is available from those tags.

    Only reason why those RFID makers don't do it - is because they want to make money on scanners as well as chips theirselves.
    • I was similarly baffled. I work with DoD to develop and implement RFID solutions for transportation and asset accountability, and I've never heard of anyone trying to encrypt the data on an RFID tag. The DOD-64 and DOD-96 passive RFID constructs aren't encrypted, and those are the two DoD-specific constructs used in logistics. It seems like he's talking out of his posterior -- sure it's easy to "crack" the data on an RFID tag, because what is encoded there is not encrypted at all. That's by intentional
      • I'd rather want to know that 2F0103047541A430000001F9 is my identifier in the passport database,
        some other simular number (oh, where is my hardware random number generator to make a sample) is my id in the local hospital database et cetera.
        • Actually it would not be. If you understood the construct, then you could derive what the key is. Don't confuse a tag encoding construct with a primary key value.
          • For personal privacy it doesn't matter. There is standard procedure to match tag encoding construct with particular database. It might involve decoding tag or might require database to store encoded construct as secondary key, no difference for me if I'm not going to hack the database.

            I just have to know what this RFID is for, what kind of my personal data can be found using it and which officials are authorized to access these data.
            • No, the tag construct that I know do not identify a particular database. I can confirm that the following constructs do not contain a database identifier:

              EPCglobal
              DOD-64 and DOD-96
              GID-96
              SGTIN-64 and SGTIN-96
              SSCC-64 and SSCC-96
              SGLN-64 and SGLN-96
              GRAI-64 and GRAI-96
              GIAI-64 and GIAI-96

              I challenge you to identify a tag encoding construct that does have a field that identifies a database.

      • Durr, you didn't actually listen to the actual talk, now did you?
      • I was similarly baffled. I work with DoD to develop and implement RFID solutions for transportation and asset accountability, and I've never heard of anyone trying to encrypt the data on an RFID tag.

        Sadly I am not surprised by someone who works on a government IT project not knowing what he is talking about. The card systems currently on the market for opening doors generally use challenge-response authentication.

        I'm told that the plan is for the UK RFID passports to use crypto. (and yes a contactless smart
    • RFID tag is just something like license plate on your car.

      Do you walk around wearing a large plate describing, in lettering visible from a considerable distance, all the items you are carrying about your person?

      This technology could revolutionise the pickpocket industry. They don't need a complete database of all known tags. They just need to lurk down the street from the Apple store and know the code for "ipod" which is used at that particular store. Other valuable items (on the black market) that may incl
  • I wondered about this when those 'blink' cards came out. Imagine scanning for credit card numbers just by standing by a door as people walk in.

  • Define "Crack" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Philodoxx ( 867034 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @11:05AM (#14724295)
    RFID tag encodings adhere to standards (EPC and ISO); perhaps I'm missing something but what exact is there to crack when all the information is freely available on the internet?

Slashdot Top Deals

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.

Close