Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / February 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Graduate Students Unlock Code of 'Thiefproof' Car Key

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
MrPepper11 - 30 Jan 2005 01:41 GMT
New York Times
January 29, 2005

Graduate Cryptographers Unlock Code of 'Thiefproof' Car Key
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

BALTIMORE - Matthew Green starts his 2005 Ford Escape with a duplicate
key he had made at Lowe's. Nothing unusual about that, except that the
automobile industry has spent millions of dollars to keep him from
being able to do it.

Mr. Green, a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University, is part of a
team that plans to announce on Jan. 29 that it has cracked the security
behind "immobilizer" systems from Texas Instruments Inc. The systems
reduce car theft, because vehicles will not start unless the system
recognizes a tiny chip in the authorized key. They are used in millions
of Fords, Toyotas and Nissans.

All that would be required to steal a car, the researchers said, is a
moment next to the car owner to extract data from the key, less than an
hour of computing, and a few minutes to break in, feed the key code to
the car and hot-wire it.

An executive with the Texas Instruments division that makes the systems
did not dispute that the Hopkins team had cracked its code, but said
there was much more to stealing a car than that. The devices, said the
executive, Tony Sabetti, "have been fraud-free and are likely to remain
fraud-free."

The implications of the Hopkins finding go beyond stealing cars.

Variations on the technology used in the chips, known as RFID for radio
frequency identification, are widely used. Similar systems deduct
highway tolls from drivers' accounts and restrict access to workplaces.

Wal-Mart is using the technology to track inventory, the Food and Drug
Administration is considering it to foil drug counterfeiting, and the
medical school at the University of California, Los Angeles, plans to
implant chips in cadavers to curtail unauthorized sale of body parts.

The Johns Hopkins researchers say that if other radio frequency ID
systems are vulnerable, the new field could offer far less security
than its proponents promise.

The computer scientists are not doing R.&D. for the Mafia. Aviel D.
Rubin, a professor of computer science who led the team, said his three
graduate students did what security experts often do: showed the lack
of robust security in important devices that people use every day.

"What we find time and time again is the security is overlooked and not
done right," said Dr. Rubin, who has exposed flaws in electronic voting
systems and wireless computer networks.

David Wagner, an assistant professor of computer science at the
University of California, Berkeley, who reviewed a draft of a paper by
the Hopkins team, called it "great research," adding, "I see it as an
early warning" for all radio frequency ID systems.

The "immobilizer" technology used in the keys has been an enormous
success. Texas Instruments alone has its chips in an estimated 150
million keys. Replacing the key on newer cars can cost hundreds of
dollars, but the technology is credited with greatly reducing auto
theft. - Early versions of in-key chips were relatively easy to clone,
but the Texas Instruments chips are considered to be among the best.
Still, the amount of computing the chip can do is restricted by the
fact that it has no power of its own; it builds a slight charge from an
electromagnetic field from the car's transmitter.

Cracking the system took the graduate students three months, Dr. Rubin
said. "There was a lot of trial and error work with, every once in a
while, a little 'Aha!' "

The Hopkins researchers got unexpected help from Texas Instruments
itself. They were able to buy a tag reader directly from the company,
which sells kits for $280 on its Web site. They also found a general
diagram on the Internet, from a technical presentation by the company's
German division. The researchers wrote in the paper describing their
work that the diagram provided "a useful foothold" into the system.
(The Hopkins paper, which is online at www.rfidanalysis.org, does not
provide information that might allow its work to be duplicated.

The researchers discovered a critically important fact: the encryption
algorithm used by the chip to scramble the challenge uses a relatively
short code, known as a key. The longer the code key, which is measured
in bits, the harder it is to crack any encryption system.

"If you were to tell a cryptographer that this system uses 40-bit keys,
you'd immediately conclude that the system is weak and that you'd be
able to break it," said Ari Juels, a scientist with the research arm of
RSA Security, which financed the team and collaborated with it.

The team wrote software that mimics the system, which works through a
pattern of challenge and response. The researchers took each chip they
were trying to clone and fed it challenges, and then tried to duplicate
the response by testing all 1,099,511,627,776 possible encryption keys.
Once they had the right key, they could answer future challenges
correctly.

Mr. Sabetti of Texas Instruments argues that grabbing the code from a
key would be very difficult, because the chips have a very short
broadcast range. The greatest distance that his company's engineers
have managed in the laboratory is 12 inches, and then only with large
antennas that require a power source.

Dr. Rubin acknowledged that his team had been able to read the keys
just a few inches from a reader, but said many situations could put an
attacker and a target in close proximity, including crowded elevators.

The researchers used several thousand dollars of off-the-shelf computer
equipment to crack the code, and had to fill a back seat of Mr. Green's
S.U.V. with computers and other equipment to successfully imitate a
key. But the cost of equipment could be brought down to several hundred
dollars, Dr. Rubin said, and Adam Stubblefield, one of the Hopkins
graduate students, said, "We think the entire attack could be done with
a device the size of an iPod."

The Texas Instruments chips are also used in millions of the Speedpass
tags that drivers use to buy gasoline at ExxonMobil stations without
pulling out a credit card, and the researchers have shown that they can
buy gas with a cracked code. A spokeswoman for ExxonMobil, Prem Nair,
said the company used additional antifraud measures, including
restrictions that only allow two gas purchases per day.

"We strongly believe that the Speedpass devices and the checks that we
have in place are much more secure than those using credit cards with
magnetic stripes," she said.

The team discussed its research with Texas Instruments before making
the paper public. Matthew Buckley, a spokesman for RSA Security, said
his company, which offers security consulting services and is
developing radio frequency ID tags that resist unauthorized
eavesdropping, had offered to work with Texas Instruments free of
charge to address the security issues.

Dr. Wagner said that what graduate students could do, organized crime
could also do. "The white hats don't have a monopoly on cryptographic
expertise," he said.

Dr. Rubin said that if criminals did eventually duplicate his students'
work, people could block eavesdroppers by keeping the key or Speedpass
token in a tinfoil sheath when not in use. But Mr. Sabetti, the Texas
Instruments executive, said such precautions were unnecessary. "It's a
solution to a problem that doesn't exist," he said.

Dan Bedore, a spokesman for Ford, said the company had confidence in
the technology. "No security device is foolproof," he said, but "it's a
very, very effective deterrent" to drive-away theft. "Flatbed trucks
are a bigger threat," he said, "and a lot lower tech."
Mr Nobody - 30 Jan 2005 12:12 GMT
>New York Times
>January 29, 2005
>
>Graduate Cryptographers Unlock Code of 'Thiefproof' Car Key
>By JOHN SCHWARTZ

<snip>

I thought it was against the (US) law to try to crack codes like this,
or does that only apply to copy-protection on DVDs and the like?

Signature

Mr Nobody

Bob Harris - 30 Jan 2005 14:12 GMT
MrPepper11 wrote:
>> Graduate Cryptographers Unlock Code of 'Thiefproof' Car Key
>> By JOHN SCHWARTZ

and Mr Nobody replied:
> I thought it was against the (US) law to try to crack codes like this,
> or does that only apply to copy-protection on DVDs and the like?

Maybe the difference is that there's no "intellectual" property being
protected by the car key.  Only a car which can't be duplicated.  The
government suffers no loss when a car is stolen.  If 1,000 copies of a DVD
are made, the government loses tax revenue.

Bob H
y_p_w - 30 Jan 2005 18:50 GMT
> MrPepper11 wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> government suffers no loss when a car is stolen.  If 1,000 copies of a DVD
> are made, the government loses tax revenue.

These guys tried it out on vehicles they owned or had permission
to use.
Bob Harris - 01 Feb 2005 00:21 GMT
>> MrPepper11 wrote:
>>>> Graduate Cryptographers Unlock Code of 'Thiefproof' Car Key
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> These guys tried it out on vehicles they owned or had permission
> to use.

But the same thing, done to a DVD which I own, is (apparently) illegal.  It
is (apparently) illegal to figure out how to break the security on a $25 DVD
but not on a $40,000 car.

Bob H
Daniel J. Stern - 01 Feb 2005 00:56 GMT
"Illegal! Illegal!"

Ever drive a mile per hour over the speed limit? That's illegal, too.
Ted Mittelstaedt - 01 Feb 2005 10:43 GMT
> >> MrPepper11 wrote:
> >>>> Graduate Cryptographers Unlock Code of 'Thiefproof' Car Key
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> is (apparently) illegal to figure out how to break the security on a $25 DVD
> but not on a $40,000 car.

Your mistaken.  Research in breaking crypto systems isn't illegal.  What is
illegal
is providing the results of that research to the public.  And even then this
is very
debatable because it's in direct conflict with the 1st amendment.

There is a book out there titled "Cracking DES'" which gives complete
unabridged
instructions and software - published on paper, you have to scan or type it
into
a computer - for cracking the DES algorithm.  It was published deliberately
to
provoke a lawsuit I think.  The government refrained from citing the authors
or
publisher becase, of course, if they had done so it would have gone straight
to the Supreme Court.

What the DMCA attempts to do is redefine software from published material -
elegible for protection under the Freedom of Speech guarentees - to a
'device'.
Devices are not speech and thus can be regulated by the government.  So far
the government is interpeting it this way and the US Supreme Court has not
yet weighed in on whether source code published electronically is protected
speech or whether it is a device.

Your DVD contains the CSS encryption system which has been broken a
while ago.  There are companies which publish - on paper, and even on
Tee Shirts, - the decrypting algorithm - DeCSS - and sell these perfectly
legitimately in the United States.

Unfortunately the biggest problem so far is that the way that the law works
in
the United States is that a person cannot appeal for relief from the court
system
until after they have been arrested and charged with violating the DMCA -
and
so far the only people getting arrested for breaking security algorithms are
people who are either using the results of such work to steal software,
movies,
or music, or people who are providing working programs or finished source
code
that a child can compile and use, that are really only good for pirating
software,
movies, music, or other copyrighted materials.

These kinds of cases do not make for good US Supreme Court test cases to
get unconstitutional laws overturned, and cases that would make good test
cases - like the Dimitry Sklyarov one - are quickly hustled out of the court
system with charges dropped shortly afterwards by the cooler and wiser
heads.

Unfortunately these "illegal security breaking laws" are basically turning
into
laws like the one in my hometown of Portland OR which makes it a crime to
wear roller skates into a public restroom.  In short, they are laws on the
books
that are never invoked against people who aren't already doing something
that
is seriously questionable, and are valuable mostly to government bureaucrats
to wave around and threaten people who don't know any better.  And the
people that are actually found guilty of violating them are generally in
such
deep do-do with violating a bunch of other laws that they have bigger things
to worry about, as it were.

In this instance the students could easily publish - on paper - thesis and
such
based on this work that contain complete descriptions and plans for building
a key-security-breaker, and have full 1st amendment protection.  However
this
would probably make it impossible to get their thesis published in any U.S.
academic journals because such journals nowadays publish a signficant amount
electronically, and less and less on actual physical paper.  Thus, the
federal
bureaucrats end up getting their way, as you can see.

Ted
Brent P - 01 Feb 2005 22:47 GMT
> Unfortunately these "illegal security breaking laws" are basically turning into
> laws like the one in my hometown of Portland OR which makes it a crime to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> such deep do-do with violating a bunch of other laws that they have
> bigger things to worry about, as it were.

I don't see it quite that way, but it often does work the way you
describe. I see US law as one of being ticky-tacky laws everywhere with
selective and/or random enforcement. If you're not liked you can expect
laws to be enforced on you that won't be enforced on others. Same if you
are poor, etc and so on. Basically making it such that nobody can get
through the day without violating some sort of law. If a citizen becomes
a problem for some elected offical he can expect many of these laws to
suddenly be enforced in his case.
Bill Unruh - 30 Jan 2005 19:08 GMT
>>New York Times
>>January 29, 2005
>>
>>Graduate Cryptographers Unlock Code of 'Thiefproof' Car Key
>>By JOHN SCHWARTZ

><snip>

>I thought it was against the (US) law to try to crack codes like this,
>or does that only apply to copy-protection on DVDs and the like?

The DMCA specifically exempts research.
(Read the act to get the caveates)
Xcott Craver - 31 Jan 2005 05:44 GMT
>The DMCA specifically exempts research.
>(Read the act to get the caveates)
 
   Not really.  It exempts the act of circumvention for "encryption
   research", but still outlaws the buying/selling/making of the tools
   to do so.  It also has to be _encryption_ research, so if you break
   a security system that does not overtly use encryption, the exemption
   doesn't necessarily cover you.
 
   IMHO the research exemption was carefully written to be unusable.
   If it actually protects you, it will be because a judge decided to
   interpret it very broadly, contradicting the intent of the authors.
 
   What would protect these researchers is that the DMCA only applies
   to technologies that protect a copyrighted work.  In a couple
   court cases, lawyers tried to argue that the security gadget itself
   contained copyrighted code, which it "protected" --- but this didn't
   fly with the judge.  
 
                                                    --Xcott
Ted Mittelstaedt - 01 Feb 2005 10:48 GMT
> >The DMCA specifically exempts research.
> >(Read the act to get the caveates)
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>     What would protect these researchers is that the DMCA only applies
>     to technologies that protect a copyrighted work.

You need to be careful what you say here.  The DMCA doesen't deal with
technologies.  It deals with devices.  You can publish - on paper - any
technology you want and be protected under the freedom of the press
guarentees
in the constitution.  However a software program that breaks encryption
that is published on paper isn't going to be usable by most of the 14 year
olds
who are pirating each other's DVDs, so it is unlikely that any of the DMCA
proponents are going to give a sh.t about it.

Ted
programmerdude@gmail.com - 31 Jan 2005 22:30 GMT
of course it's against the law, but people will still do it!
Brent P - 01 Feb 2005 03:14 GMT
> of course it's against the law, but people will still do it!

What's against the law is the DMCA.


Mark Lomas - 30 Jan 2005 23:49 GMT
...
> Mr. Sabetti of Texas Instruments argues that grabbing the code from a
> key would be very difficult, because the chips have a very short
> broadcast range. The greatest distance that his company's engineers
> have managed in the laboratory is 12 inches, and then only with large
> antennas that require a power source.

About ten years ago I wrote a patent application for a car lock which was
designed to
protect against dishonest valet-parking staff.  Mr Sabetti appears not to
consider this
part of his threat model.

As I had not previously written a patent application, mine followed an
unconventional
structure (for a patent): I described a system, showed how to attack it,
then how to
improve it to guard against the attack; I repeated this until I arrived at a
design that I
was satisfied with.

My patent agent telephoned to tell me that one of my strawmen (i.e. a design
that
I had explicitly rejected) had turned up in his patent search, under the
name 'Tiris',
owned by Texas Instruments.

I'm curious as to how TI's current system differs from the Tiris system?

Are there any commercially-available car locks designed to defend against
somebody
with unsupervised access to the key?

   Mark
Bruce Chang - 01 Feb 2005 06:39 GMT
> ...
>> Mr. Sabetti of Texas Instruments argues that grabbing the code from a
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>    Mark

Tiris was spun off or sold away from TI and is now Sirit (how original) and
they are located in Carrollton, Texas.  Of the systems I'm aware of, Tiris
built the toll collection system for the state of California as well as many
gated community RFID readers.

-Bruce
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.