Take Security Up A Notch By Adding LEDs

January 12, 2020 by Bryan Cockfield 14 Comments

All computers are vulnerable to attacks by viruses or black hats, but there are lots of steps that can be taken to reduce risk. At the extreme end of the spectrum is having an “air-gapped” computer that doesn’t connect to a network at all, but this isn’t a guarantee that it won’t get attacked. Even transferring files to the computer with a USB drive can be risky under certain circumstances, but thanks to some LED lights that [Robert Fisk] has on his drive, this attack vector can at least be monitored.

Using a USB drive with a single LED that illuminates during a read OR write operation is fairly common, but since it’s possible to transfer malware unknowingly via USB drives, one that has a separate LED specifically for writing operations will help alert a user to any write operations that might be trying to fly under the radar. A recent article by [Bruce Schneier] pointed out this flaw in USB drives, and [Robert] was up to the challenge. His build returns more control to the user by showing them when their drive is accessed and in what way, which can also be used to discover unique quirks of one’s chosen operating system.

[Robert] is pretty familiar with USB drives and their ups and downs as well. A few years ago he built a USB firewall that was able to decrease the likelihood of BadUSB-type attacks. Be careful going down the rabbit hole of device security, though, or you will start seeing potential attacks hidden almost everywhere.

This Week In Security: Camera Feeds, Python 2, FPGAs

January 10, 2020 by Jonathan Bennett 6 Comments

Networked cameras keep making the news, and not in the best of ways. First it was compromised Ring accounts used for creepy pranks, and now it’s Xiaomi’s stale cache sending camera images to strangers! It’s not hard to imagine how such a flaw could happen: Xiaomi does some video feed transcoding in order to integrate with Google’s Hub service. When a transcoding slot is re-purposed from one camera to another, the old data stays in the buffer until it is replaced by the new camera’s feed. The root cause is probably the same as the random images shown when starting some 3D games.

Python is Dead, Long Live Python

Python 2 has finally reached End of Life. While there are many repercussions to this change, the security considerations are important too. The Python 2 environment will no longer receive updates, even if a severe security vulnerability is found. How often is a security vulnerability found in a language? Perhaps not very often, but the impact can be far-reaching. Let’s take, for instance, this 2016 bug in zipimport. It failed to sanitize the header of a ZIP file being processed, causing all the problems one would expect.

It is quite possible that because of the continued popularity and usage of Python2, a third party will step in and take over maintenance of the language, essentially forking Python. Unless such an event happens, it’s definitely time to migrate away from Python2.
Continue reading “This Week In Security: Camera Feeds, Python 2, FPGAs” →

Possible Spyware On Samsung Phones

January 9, 2020 by Bryan Cockfield 118 Comments

[Editor’s note: There’s an ongoing back-and-forth about this “spyware” right now. We haven’t personally looked into it on any phones, and decoded Wireshark caps of what the cleaner software sends home seem to be lacking — it could be innocuous. We’re leaving our original text as-run below, but you might want to take this with a grain of salt until further evidence comes out. Or keep us all up to date in the comments. But be wary of jumping to quick conclusions.]

Samsung may have the highest-end options for hardware if you want an Android smartphone, but that hasn’t stopped them from making some questionable decisions on the software they sometimes load on it. Often these phones come with “default” apps that can’t be removed through ordinary means, or can’t even be disabled, and the latest discovery related to pre-loaded software on Samsung phones seems to be of a pretty major security vulnerability.

This software in question is a “storage cleaner” in the “Device Care” section of the phone, which is supposed to handle file optimization and deletion. This particular application is made by a Chinese company called Qihoo 360 and can’t be removed from the phone without using ADB or having root. The company is known for exceptionally bad practices concerning virus scanning, and the software has been accused of sending all information about files on the phone to servers in China, which could then turn all of the data it has over to the Chinese government. This was all discovered through the use of packet capture and osint, which are discussed in the post.

These revelations came about recently on Reddit from [kchaxcer] who made the original claims. It seems to be fairly legitimate at this point as well, and another user named [GeorgePB] was able to provide a temporary solution/workaround in the comments on the original post. It’s an interesting problem that probably shouldn’t exist on any phone, let alone a flagship phone competing with various iPhones, but it does highlight some security concerns we should all have with our daily use devices when we can’t control the software on the hardware that we supposedly own. There are some alternatives though if you are interested in open-source phones.

Thanks to [kickaxe] for the tip!

Photo from Pang Kakit [CC BY-SA 3.0 DE (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)]

This Week In Security: ToTok, Edgium, Chrome Checks Your Passwords, And More

January 3, 2020 by Jonathan Bennett 11 Comments

Merry Christmas and happy New Year! After a week off, we have quite a few stories to cover, starting with an unexpected Christmas gift from Apple. Apple has run an invitation-only bug bounty program for years, but it only covered iOS, and the maximum payout topped out at $200K. The new program is open to the public, covers the entire Apple product lineup, and has a maximum payout of $1.5 million. Go forth and find vulnerabilities, and make sure to let us know what you find.

ToTok

The United Arab Emirates had an odd policy regarding VoIP communications. At least on mobile networks, it seems that all VoIP calls are blocked — unless you’re using a particular app: ToTok. Does that sound odd? Is your “Security Spider Sense” tingling? It probably should. The New York Times covered ToTok, claiming it was actually a tool for spying on citizens.

While that coverage is interesting, more meat can be found in [Patrick Wardle]’s research on the app. What’s most notable, however, is the distinct lack of evidence found in the app itself. Sure, ToTok can read your files, uploads your contact book to a centralized server, and tries to send the device’s GPS coordinates. This really isn’t too far removed from what other apps already do, all in the name of convenience.

It seems that ToTok lacks end-to-end encryption, which means that calls could be easily decrypted by whoever is behind the app. The lack of malicious code in the app itself makes it difficult to emphatically call it a spy tool, but it’s hard to imagine a better way to capture VoIP calls. Since those articles ran, ToTok has been removed from both the Apple and Google’s app stores.

SMS Keys to the Kingdom

Have you noticed how many services treat your mobile number as a positive form of authentication? Need a password reset? Just type in the six-digit code sent in a text. Prove it’s you? We sent you a text. [Joakim Bech] discovered a weakness that takes this a step further: all he needs is access to a single SMS message, and he can control your burglar alarm from anywhere. Well, at least if you have a security system from Alert Alarm in Sweden.

The control messages are sent over SMS, making them fairly accessible to an attacker. AES encryption is used for encryption, but a series of errors seriously reduces the effectiveness of that encryption. The first being the key. To build the 128-bit encryption key, the app takes the user’s four-digit PIN, and pads it with zeros, so it’s essentially a 13 bit encryption key. Even worse, there is no message authentication built in to the system at all. An attacker with a single captured SMS message can brute force the user’s PIN, modify the message, and easily send spoofed commands that are treated as valid.

Microsoft Chrome

You may have seen the news, Microsoft is giving up on their Edge browser code, and will soon begin shipping a Chromium based Edge. While that has been a source of entertainment all on its own, some have already begun taking advantage of the new bug bounty program for Chromium Edge (Edgium?). It’s an odd bounty program, in that Microsoft has no interest in paying for bugs found in Google’s code. As a result, only bugs in the Edge-exclusive features qualify for payout from Microsoft.

As [Abdulrahman Al-Qabandi] puts it, that’s a very small attack surface. Even so, he managed to find a vulnerability that qualified, and it’s unique. One of the additions Microsoft has made to Edgium is a custom new tab page. Similar to other browsers, that new tab page shows the user their most visited websites. The problem is that the site’s title is shown on that page, but without any sanity checking. If your site’s title field happens to include Javascript, that too is injected into the new tab page.

The full exploit has a few extra steps, but the essence is that once a website makes it to the new tab page, it can take over that page, and maybe even escape the browser sandbox.

Chrome Password Checkup

This story is a bit older, but really grabbed my attention. Google has rolled a feature out in Chrome that automatically compares your saved passwords to past data breaches. How does that work without being a security nightmare? It’s clever. A three-byte hash of each username is sent to Google, and compared to the hashes of the compromised accounts. A encrypted database of potential matches is sent to your machine. Your saved passwords, already encrypted with your key, is encrypted a second time with a Google key, and sent back along with the database of possible matches, also encrypted with the same Google key. The clever bit is that once your machine decrypts your database, it now has two sets of credentials, both encrypted with the same Google key. Since this encryption is deterministic, the encrypted data can be compared without decryption. In the end, your passwords aren’t exposed to Google, and Google hasn’t given away their data set either.

The Password Queue

Password changes are a pain, but not usually this much of a pain. A university in Germany suffered a severe malware infection, and took the precaution of resetting the passwords for every student’s account. Their solution for bootstrapping those password changes? The students had to come to the office in person with a valid ID to receive their new passwords. The school cited German legal requirements as a primary cause of the odd solution. Still, you can’t beat that for a secure delivery method.

Unlocking SIM Cards With A Logic Analyzer

January 2, 2020 by Tom Nardi 20 Comments

[Jason Gin] wanted to reuse the SIM card that came with a ZTE WF721 wireless terminal he got from AT&T, but as he expected, it was locked to the device. Unfortunately, the terminal has no function to change the PIN and none of the defaults he tried seemed to work. The only thing left to do was crack it open and sniff the PIN with a logic analyzer.

This project is a fantastic example of the kind of reverse engineering you can pull off with even a cheap logic analyzer and a keen eye, but also perfectly illustrates the fact that having physical access to a device largely negates any security measures the manufacturer tries to implement. [Jason] already knew what the SIM unlock command would look like; he just needed to capture the exchange between the WF721 and SIM card, find the correct byte sequence, and look at the bytes directly after it.

Finding the test pads on the rear of the SIM slot, he wired his DSLogic Plus logic analyzer up to the VCC, CLK, RST, and I/O pins, then found a convenient place to attach his ground wire. After a bit of fiddling, he determined the SIM card was being run at 4 MHz, so he needed to configure a baud rate of 250 kbit/s to read the UART messages passing between the devices.

Once he found the bytes that signified successful unlocking, he was able to work his way backwards and determine the unlock command and its PIN code. It turns out the PIN was even being sent over the wire in plain text, though with the way security is often handled these days, we can’t say it surprises us. All [Jason] had to do then was put the SIM in his phone and punch in the sniffed PIN when prompted.

Could [Jason] have just run out to the store and picked up a prepaid SIM instead of cracking open this wireless terminal and sniffing its communications with a logic analyzer? Of course. But where’s the fun in that?

36C3: All Wireless Stacks Are Broken

December 30, 2019 by Elliot Williams 29 Comments

Your cellphone is the least secure computer that you own, and worse than that, it’s got a radio. [Jiska Classen] and her lab have been hacking on cellphones’ wireless systems for a while now, and in this talk gives an overview of the wireless vulnerabilities and attack surfaces that they bring along. While the talk provides some basic background on wireless (in)security, it also presents two new areas of research that she and her colleagues have been working on the last year.

One of the new hacks is based on the fact that a phone that wants to support both Bluetooth and WiFi needs to figure out a way to share the radio, because both protocols use the same 2.4 GHz band. And so it turns out that the Bluetooth hardware has to talk to the WiFi hardware, and it wouldn’t entirely surprise you that when [Jiska] gets into the Bluetooth stack, she’s able to DOS the WiFi. What this does to the operating system depends on the phone, but many of them just fall over and reboot.

Lately [Jiska] has been doing a lot of fuzzing on the cell phone stack enabled by some work by one of her students [Jan Ruge] work on emulation, codenamed “Frankenstein”. The coolest thing here is that the emulation runs in real time, and can be threaded into the operating system, enabling full-stack fuzzing. More complexity means more bugs, so we expect to see a lot more coming out of this line of research in the next year.

[Jiska] gives the presentation in a tinfoil hat, but that’s just a metaphor. In the end, when asked about how to properly secure your phone, she gives out the best advice ever: toss it in the blender.

36C3: Open Source Is Insufficient To Solve Trust Problems In Hardware

December 29, 2019 by Sven Gregori 29 Comments

With open source software, we’ve grown accustomed to a certain level of trust that whatever we are running on our computers is what we expect it to actually be. Thanks to hashing and public key signatures in various parts in the development and deployment cycle, it’s hard for a third party to modify source code or executables without us being easily able to spot it, even if it travels through untrustworthy channels.

Unfortunately, when it comes to open source hardware, the number of steps and parties involved that are out of our control until we have a final product — production, logistics, distribution, even the customer — makes it substantially more difficult to achieve the same peace of mind. To make things worse, to actually validate the hardware on chip level, you’d ultimately have to destroy it.

On his talk this year at the 36C3, [bunnie] showed a detailed insight of several attack vectors we could face during manufacturing. Skipping the obvious ones like adding or substituting components, he’s focusing on highly ambitious and hard to detect modifications inside an IC’s package with wirebonded or through-silicon via (TSV) implants, down to modifying the netlist or mask of the integrated circuit itself. And these aren’t any theoretical or “what if” scenarios, but actual possible options — of course, some of them come with a certain price tag, but in the end, with the right motivation, money is only a detail.

Continue reading “36C3: Open Source Is Insufficient To Solve Trust Problems In Hardware” →