Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / February 2005
Graduate Students Unlock Code of 'Thiefproof' Car Key
|
|
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
|
|
|