Apple AirTags Hacked And Cloned With Voltage Glitching

Apple AirTags are useful little devices. They essentially use iPhones in the wild as a mesh network to tell the owner where the AirTag is. Now, researchers have shown that it’s possible to clone these devices.

The research paper explains the cloning process, which requires physical access to the hardware. To achieve the hack, the Nordic nRF52832 inside the AirTag must be voltage glitched to enable its debug port. The researchers were able to achieve this with relatively simple tools, using a Pi Pico fitted with a few additional components.

With the debug interface enabled, it’s simple to extract the microcontroller’s firmware. It’s then possible to clone this firmware onto another tag. The team also experimented with other hacks, like having the AirTag regularly rotate its ID to avoid triggering anti-stalking warnings built into Apple’s tracing system.

As the researchers explain, it’s clear that AirTags can’t really be secure as long as they’re based on a microcontroller that is vulnerable to such attacks. It’s not the first AirTag cloning we’ve seen either. They’re an interesting device with some serious privacy and safety implications, so it pays to stay abreast of developments in this area.

[Thanks to Itay for the tip!]

33 thoughts on “Apple AirTags Hacked And Cloned With Voltage Glitching

  1. I understand the alerting system, but having had a RZR stolen from me last year, I’d love to have it track without alerting someone that the device is following them. Perhaps I could have gotten my ride back or alerted police to it’s presence. I do understand how unscrupulous people would use this to track unsuspecting victims.

    1. if it’s expensive, buy a GSM/LTE based tracker…chinese clones are like $25 and you can self-host the server part (search for Traccar)
      Airtags will work only near iPhones…

      1. “Only work near iPhones” sounds a bit misleading. Because iPhones are damn near everywhere, and if you happen to have one – it’ll even give you a range/directional heading once you get close enough. There have even been people who have sent things to North Korea, and been able to track them the whole way while only working “near iPhones”

      2. Yeah they only work near apple devices enabled with “find my” app. Apple has over 1 billion customers and that is more than triple samsung or tile users so stfu and get lost cos apple air tags are the leader in this market loser

  2. Good, now perhaps the software can be reverse engineered to locate the phone tracking the airtag, so when you find one in your car, you can hunt down the stalker and beat him to death.

  3. I’ve always found this to be a rather creepy product; I can’t think of many legitimate use cases, and while they have a stalker alert for iPhone users, anyone without an iPhone is apparently fair game.

    This should never have existed, and Apple should be sued into oblivion for making a tracker that seems specifically designed for stalkers, robbers and sexual predators, with many known cases of such “use”.

    1. You could say the same about knives.

      AirTags certainly do have legitimate uses – certain people *ahem Mrs Rex* seem incapable of putting their keys in one place. Putting them in your checked luggage can also provide reassurance and even help when the bag suddenly disappears without trace.

      1. Checked luggage is the use case I had a couple days ago. At the Miami airport 2 of my bags made it, the other was missing. Didn’t take long to figure out it went to the wrong carousel so it was very close but would have taken hours/days for the airline to find it.

        1. android apps and apple devices also notify the thieves, warning them to find, remove, and discard. CONGRATS you can track your airtag and get IT back. Sorry about your swag.

          And as a result,….

    2. Personal use cases here: Multiple sets of car keys. Wallet. Backpack. Embedded/hidden one into my laptop(should submit that one to hackaday). Dogs (attached to collars). One particularly useful feature is you can set them to notify you if you leave something behind, such as if you accidentally leave your wallet home, or a bag at a hotel, etc. They are no doubt a flawed device/implementation but the use case is there for such a thing. I think the use case to stick one on a dog collar is huge. Pets are lost every day and unless they end up in the middle of the forest it is going to ping off an iPhone somewhere sometime.

  4. There is an Android app that purports to locate AirTags within range, though I’ve tried it a few times and never seen it trigger.

    I’m surprised someone hasn’t built an appliance that you could keep in your car that would alert you.

    1. I originally got an Airtag in my car in case it was stolen (like the one it replaced). Now, it’s basically useless for that purpose because it’ll just advertise itself to a thief.

      There’s plenty of other security “things” too, so I’m not reliant on just the Airtag.

    2. Why what exactly? Why demonstrate the insecurity of a popular system? So it’s known about and not just by people using it for nefarious purposes. There is an entire field of security research, are you confused about it’s existence?

  5. One of my coworkers had her iPhone keep telling her an airtag was nearby every time she went to her car. She eventually went to her mechanic that located one tucked up under the wheel well. She didn’t have any crazy ex’s (sp?) or anything but it creeped her the F out. Unless some super-weirdo did it (possible I guess) I got to thinking about alternate explanations. Maybe some guerrilla market research company (purpose?) or car insurance or something of the sort? Who knows.

  6. > AirTags can’t really be secure as long as they’re based on a microcontroller that is vulnerable to such attacks

    So all we need to do is fine a micro that isn’t vulnerable to attacks, sorted.

    /s, natch.

  7. I keep reading about voltage glitching as an attack vector – or should I call it a “diagnostic technique”? ;-) Anyway, it strikes me that manufacturers could – with perhaps a slightly bigger package – incorporate supply bypass capacitors that would reduce or eliminate the ability of glitching to put a chip into an (un)desired state. With enough capacitance they might even be able to get away with a small amount of series resistance between the external world and the bypass capacitor; this would further slow rise and fall times. De-capping such an IC might be necessary in order to make glitching viable.

    I’ve never tried glitching and don’t know a lot about it – am I missing something?

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.