Cell Phone Encryption Exploit Demonstrated 153
Saxophonist brings us a story from Forbes about security researchers who demonstrated a new method for breaking the encryption on GSM cellular signals. The presentation was made at the recent Black Hat conference, and it's notable for the fact that the technique only requires "about half an hour with just $1,000 in computer storage and processing equipment." The researchers also claim to have found a faster method, which they intend to market for $200,000 - $500,000. Quoting:
"Undetectable, 'passive' systems like the one that Muller and Hulton have created aren't new either, though previous technologies required about a million dollars worth of hardware and used a "brute force" tactic that tried 33 million times as many passwords to decrypt a cell signal. All of that means, Hulton and Muller argue, that their cheaper technique is simply drawing needed attention to a problem that mobile carriers have long ignored--one that well-financed eavesdroppers may have been exploiting for years. 'If governments or other people with millions of dollars can listen to your conversations right now, why shouldn't your next-door neighbor?' Muller says."
because (Score:2, Interesting)
Assuming I'm the person they're talking about instead of to...because my neighbors don't have anything interesting to say. Trust me, they're really strange and really boring. Anyway, for those of you wondering what someone could possibly say over a cell phone that's so intercept-worthy, some fancy banks require a key-press or auditory password to access balances and ev
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What a stupid comment. In other words, if some people are going to break the law, let's make sure everyone can. Good idea.
not stupid after all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:because (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's really a matter of publicizing the weakness to the point where manufacturers and network providers are forced to do something about it. Average people generally don't care about issues like this until they're really an issue.
Well, as you rightly say, most people don't matter in the grand scheme of things. At least that's how it can appear. But in oppressive countries, it's the occasional person in the occasional 'situation' where this stuff really matters, including (and especially) government interception. From that point of view, everybody matters, because if there are no trees (you and me), then there is no forest for fugitives to hide in. Never use a mobile phone, a land-phone, an unencrypted internet connection, etc. for
Re:because (Score:4, Informative)
So GSM crypto even if it was uncrackable is not very helpful if you're really trying to hide your comms.
Someone I knew once claimed to have extra crypto on his GSM phone so that he could talk "securely" to other people similarly equipped.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. I supposed I'd be called paranoid if I suggested the government had dedicated rooms at many telcos where they can intercept whatever phone traffic they care to. But I bet they do.
End to end encryption is a far better solution, but we'll never see it become mainstream.
Let him be... (Score:4, Insightful)
What a stupid comment. In other words, if some people are going to break the law, let's make sure everyone can. Good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
~Dan
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:because (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. What could you do with his telephone (or online) banking PIN? My credit union's online banking allows the following activities: Transfers between sub-accounts (savings, checking, etc), loan payments, bill payments, check images, statements and direct deposit adjustments (this much into savings, this much into checking, etc, etc).
Nothing within my online banking would allow you to "move all of my money away". I suppose you could setup a payee in bill payer for yourself, but even at that my credit union wouldn't allow you to directly supply the ACH information -- they'd mail you a check -- and even at that it would take a few days to get the custom payee setup.
Don't get me wrong. You could screw me pretty badly -- moving all of the funds from my checking account into savings would cause transactions to bounce if I didn't catch it.... But you couldn't drain my account and walk away with the funds for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, I don't know if there's an equivalent system in the US, but up here in Canada, I can transfer money via the interac e-mail system.
http://www.interac.ca/consumers/productsandservices_ol_emt.php [interac.ca]
So, um, yes, if somebody manages to get my username/password for my online banking, they can in fact, drain all my money in under 5 minutes. Now, that can only go to another bank account, and it can only be transferred to another bank in Canad
Re: (Score:2)
My bank places a limit of $1000/day on email transfers (I think there's an additional weekly limit as well), so the attacker would have to have continued access for a series of days/weeks to empty out an account.
However, if the attacker has tapped into your communications, he knows when you're going on vacation and won't be around to check your accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure I could have called my bank and had them up the limit, but I'd rather have that additional layer of security, just in case.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not how voice verification technology works. If it did, it would be totally useless.
Typically, voice sample are requested at random (out of a defined set - like the number 0 through 9) and sane engines look at how the phonemes are strung together when you say something, for example, in the middle of the phrase as opposed
Not too afraid (Score:4, Insightful)
While this is an extremely powerful re-discovery, I'm not that afraid of average Joe attempting to listen to my conversations, which are boring if anything most of the time. It would still probably take a reasonably quick computer and technical know-how to implement this kind of scheme on a usable scale. Plus, if the FBI and CIA already have the privilege to tap into my conversations, then the fear of security loss is already somewhat of a non-unique one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not too afraid (Score:4, Informative)
Yes often, even when at work. Its also no secret that I hate my top boss.
Lying on taxes is pretty much a national trait around here (Denmark), so again yes - some of us have no worries.
But I do despise the fact that someone can listen in on stuff, even though most of what we do is no secret, its still something that annoys me.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent does have a point, even within small countries like Denmark the local dialect can be hard to understand, if you drive from Copenhagen to Southern Jutland (around 200km away) the dialect changes so much it might as well be a different language.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Forbes obviously missed Shmoocon... (Score:2, Interesting)
The presentation will probably be available on the Shmoocon website in the not too distant future. Forbes did the standard mainstream media muddling so check with H1kari for the real deal...
David Hulton = H1kari (Score:2, Informative)
Overkill for neighbours (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Overkill for neighbours (Score:4, Funny)
They're also saying "ghob" out loud... also I think my other neighbors are raptors...
Re:Overkill for neighbours (Score:4, Funny)
2. Open subspace diplomatic channel to the Romulans [wikipedia.org].
3. Sell the conversations as intelligence data.
4. Profit!
Fabricated recordings (Score:3, Funny)
There never was end-to-end encryption... (Score:5, Insightful)
--
Electronics kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]
Re:There never was end-to-end encryption... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I watched the OTR presentation video [uwaterloo.ca] (about 1 hour long). The point of OTR is that with its deniable authentication, it allows ANY of the listeners to fake a conversation (a shared encryption key is sent after each message, meaning anyone that reads it could fake it afterwards).
In other words, it proves nothing. Anyone could have faked it.
PGP on the other hand, uses certificates, which
Re:There never was end-to-end encryption... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a very good question.
One idea I've heard is that when SSL was first developed, the web was in its infancy and nobody really felt happy about the idea of sending their credit card details over it. The fact that it was relatively easy to eavesdrop on a computer network was fairly well known. This was no good to anyone who wanted to do business (OK, porn sites) over the web, and so SSL solved that problem by providing reassurance that nobody was eavesdropping.
The telephone system, on the other hand - that's been around so long that it's familiar technology and relatively few people are aware of how insecure it is. If you think GSM is bad (it's actually not that poor, and 3G introduces AES encryption), consider your land line. No encryption whatsoever and an analogue signal (so no computer equipment or specialised unusual codecs required to tap) between you and the telephone exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
Not anymore, thanks to the Bush administration illegal wiretaps^H^HTelephone Security Awareness Campaign.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
consider your land line. No encryption whatsoever and an analogue signal (so no computer equipment or specialised unusual codecs required to tap) between you and the telephone exchange.
Well, FWIW, you can detect a bug like that on your POTS line by monitoring the voltage on the line. It won't help you with a bug placed at the exchange/central office, but that vulnerability exists regardless of the technology (POTS, GSM, VoIP, etc) that you are using.
More amusing then deliberate bugs is crosstalk on old/lousy wiring. I never had POTS hooked up in my old apartment building (cellular only) but I could plug a phone into the jack and listen to other peoples conversations/DTMF/dial tones.
Re: (Score:2)
I call bullshit
provided the bug isn't trying to draw power from the line and has a nice high impedance input stage I very much doubt you could reliablly detect it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How is it that it caught on for the web (credit card payments over SSL), but still barely for personal communications
Because someone is losing something tangible (i.e. money) when fake credit card payments go through. The users didn't demand it, credit card companies did, to prevent skyrocketing fraud losses. Users themselves have never truly demanded encryption - how many online shoppers do you know that are savvy enough to look for proper SSL encryption before typing in their credit card number?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There never was end-to-end encryption... (Score:5, Insightful)
the browsers come pre-equiped and will use it when ever a url starts with https rather then http.
also, the encryption isnt used to verify that whoever is sitting in front of the computer is who he or she claims to be, for that you have third party stuff like pads of one time codes, code generators and similar.
for im and mail on the other hand one have the, in the eyes of the non-techie user, laborious process of generating and exchanging keys, and making sure that the keys belong to the person one wants to communicate with.
only way i see this change is if we could turn the mobile phone into a digital key carrier. meet someone, exchange keys pr phone just as one would exchange phone numbers, im/mail address and similar, and so on.
or maybe the social network sites should allow one to upload ones public key just as on enter above numbers and addresses?
basically one have to find a way to bring the exchange of public keys into the fabric of ones social interaction. sadly i dont think that will happen any time soon...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
also, the encryption isnt used to verify that whoever is sitting in front of the computer is who he or she claims to be, for that you have third party stuff like pads of one time codes, code generators and similar.
As Bruce Schneier pointed out, there's an important distinction between authenticating the transaction and authenticating the user. For ecommerce, the merchant needs to know that the card is real (for values of 'real' defined by PCI and similar standards.) The CC companies only care about the transaction; the transaction will complete successfully even if it turns out to be fraud, from the PoV of the CC company, because in that case it's the merchant who pays... and CC still get their money.
It's often f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are stories like this all the time, but tech people still have trouble convincing most users that end-to-end encryption is important.
I think -- and I have no scientific basis for this, but it'd an interesting area of study -- that the answer could be that humans simply haven't evolved to understand the threat. If you live in a small pre-technological tribe then it's easy for your brain to figure out when you're being watched, when you might be being watched, and when you're definitely not being w
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
Because the Government hates the competition?
GNUradio is also up to GSM cracking (Score:5, Informative)
check out some movie about the GSM state of security [1] and mod me informative.
[1] http://chaosradio.ccc.de/camp2007_m4v_2015.html [chaosradio.ccc.de]
also, if you know german (Score:2)
For those three people ... (Score:1, Insightful)
What about the security of UMTS ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For those three people ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
3G coverage in most of the developed world is significantly worse than GSM - your 3G phone will drop back to GSM mode in poorly covered areas. Not to mention that most of the undeveloped world uses GSM almost exclusively.
(I also hesitate to point out, for risk of starting a flame war, that a certain recent over-hyped phone only does GSM)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that 3G is somehow rare appears to be a US afflction.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be quite cost-effective to skip GSM there and go for UMTS straight away. This way, you can roll-out both voice and internet access at the same time. It's way more cost effective to put up one UMTS tower to provide both services, especially if there is no existing infrastructure that can be r
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For those three people ... (Score:4, Informative)
Coming soon, try it yourself... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm wondering how you ever could tune in to the correct conversation, with thousands of mobile phones transmitting at the same time.
Bert
Re:Coming soon, try it yourself... (Score:4, Informative)
This number is usually printed on the phone somewhere under the battery cover & is retrievable from the phone's software.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Breaking a conversation would mean calculating KI somehow, which is a 128bit key locked in the SIM and not retrievable at all. UMTS is even more secure (provides protection against MIM attacks, more keys, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you can't exploit it non-commercially, either. A patent blocks any non-patentee and non-licensee from even creating something covered by a patent, regardless of whether it's for private use or not. Hell, using a patented invention that was made without the patentee's permission makes you an infringer. For example, if I made one of these machines for fun, I'd be infringing. Then, if I gave it to my friend for free, even if he thought it was a legit pro
Here's your answer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy the least of our concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
From my understanding though, this encryption is certainly not applied over the whole transmission, meaning endpoint to endpoint. Just the handset to the tower.
The government does not actually need to crack this encryption, or even intercept transmission between handsets and towers. They can just order digital wiretaps, which cannot be detected. Speaking of which, I have always been amused when people state they you can just buy hardware to detect that too. The location of the handset is easily determined, and in most cases the identity of the user. The government already has the ability to access all of this information with the cooperation of the telecommunications companies anyways. With Telco Immunity being pushed, there won't even be room to dispute it anymore.
So not trivializing the serious issues with our privacy and the government, they are still the least of our concern here.
What strikes me as very problematic is that this opens up a whole new "market" for identity theft, banking fraud, etc. I do quite a lot of business over the phone, and just about every single company uses the touch tones to gather data. Capturing the the numbers by listening to the tones is trivial. This can be done quite easily by software and hardware.
So if all the popular company phone numbers are known, and all the data being sent to it by customers can be recorded, this presents quite a security problem. With the right amount of equipment you can start capturing all sorts of data being sent over the phone. It will only be a matter of time before you gain enough information to compromise someones identity.
I am not worried about my neighbors, not worried about my government, but I am very worried about the stranger interested in the fact I called Washington Mutual.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I would still say that governments are the least of anyones concern, as far as cell phone security. A government most likely has the ability, note I did not say should, to wiretap any phone communication. Land line or wireless, does not matter. This ability can be granted to them by various laws, and they don't have to doing it illegally.
They also have the ability to obtain records from corporations.
Re:Privacy the least of our concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that foreign governments may be spying on communications inside the USA?
I am actually far far less concerned about that. What could a foreign government gain by knowing all of my information? My medical records, banking information, bank accounts, etc. Are they going to attack me as part of some strategy?
That is something the US government has to be concerned about on my behalf. If another government started to do that, it would not be secret for lon
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html [schneier.com]
Basically, privacy is a right, not a privilege. It is not something that should be easily given away.
To answer your question, the idea is that other friendly governments (UK, Australia) do the eavesdropping on the US's behalf. The US does the same for them. They then share the information wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I was being clear about my statements, and that anybody could understand what I was saying.
The article was talking about encryption on cell phones being broken, that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the article AND my posts, I am specifically talking about encryption applied on communications between cellular handsets and the towers. I am stating, that in that SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, that the governments are the least of our concerns.
Let me explain, again. I'll do it a little more carefully.
There are 3 considerations here:
1) Privacy.
2) Security.
3) Legality of int
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're still not getting it. The US government often likes to listen to cell phone conversations in, say, oh, I don't know, Iraq? Syria? A lot of other places where GSM is the cheapest technology available. Some governments like to do the same thing inside the USA. There aint no getting a wiretap when you're an agent for a foreign government.
While this is indeed true, I'd be more worried about private-sector people from Russia or Nigeria.
Though in my case, if they listened in what they'd find out is that "I'm On The Train", and "I'm Going To Be A Bit Late". Earth-shattering stuff!
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
So what would they do? Listen in and steal my bank information? Ok, except that would
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So what would they do? Listen in and steal my bank information? Ok, except that would be world class retarded. You spend all this time establishing good cover and getting set up in your target nation, and then blow it to steal a few grand from someone?
Maybe stealing it from *one* random dude is stupid, but what about cleaning out the bank accounts of several hundred random people simultaneously (after spending some weeks/months collecting data)?
Odds are several of those folks would have more money than you, and the score could be fairly significant.
Plus it would cause a certain amount of chaos and distrust in the banking system. Does that sound like something that a terrorist group might be interested in doing (especially in conjunction with some other
CCC (Score:3, Interesting)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8955054591690672567&q=CCC+GSM&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 [google.com]
GSM telephone banking (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets look at some facts.... (Score:5, Informative)
New GSM equipment already supports A5/3 [gsmworld.com] which is still secure. I think the main impact of this hack is going to be some sensational headlines and a big push to make A5/3 universally available.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
that their cheaper technique is simply drawing needed attention to a problem that mobile carriers have long ignored--one that well-financed eavesdroppers may have been exploiting for years
Clearly the carriers haven't ignored this problem - they have produced a better encryption algorithm in the form of A5/3. The real problem is that the governments hold the carriers over a barrel. If the encryption gets too good then the algorithm is subject to all kinds of export restrictions which makes it very difficult to use in a global standard like GSM.
I thought this had already been done? (Score:3, Informative)
Gaining delicate corporate information (Score:2, Interesting)
iPhone (Score:4, Funny)
huhhh? (Score:2)
Cellphone encryption was a joke anyway (Score:2)
No matter how good their cipher, it is only between the phone and the edge of the telecom provider's network. The provider had your plaintext, and laws like CALEA require them add security holes to their network. At a minimum, the government had access to your plaintext. Beyond that minimum, who the fuck knows who else had access to it. Your neighbor might have been listening anyway.
Security cannot be left to the provider. Treat them as a hostile network.
Many (most?) phone calls are between people wh
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Whenever the phone you were scanning moved from one cell to another you'd lose the signal but it would display on the screen what channel it had changed to.. in hex.. so you'd either convert the hex to decimal, enter that channel and pick up the conversation or you'd scan for another call.
And yes, it was boring as hell.
Re:That would be awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That would be awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)