Hacker News Reader

Oh, but according to SOMEONE (source for this claim is not given) "That code is encrypted and constantly changing — and should be hackproof."

American media at it's best!

How would you describe a challenge based authentication system that uses 128-bit AES? I find the reporter's description reasonable.

Your comment piqued my interest, as I wasn't sure if car manufacturers were really using 128-bit AES or not. That led me to this page:

http://ir.atmel.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=665225

Where Atmel announced a new transponder chip & microcontroller, which do, indeed, use 128-bit AES. This is from 2012 though, so I'm not sure how widely adopted this particular chip is, or if other, older chips are in widespread use that are 128-bit AES.

But even if everybody is using 128-bit AES, all that means is that the actual encryption itself is probably essentially unbreakable. But, as well all know, cryptographic systems are more than just the raw crypto algorithm. All sorts of systems which use crypto are eventually found to be insecure, so this whole thing should still come as little surprise (well, to people like us anyway. To the average cop, maybe this all sounds like black magic).

To me this looks like a Honda/Acura specific exploit to unlock the passenger side door. It doesn't look like a replay attack, nor do these guys have the ability to start and steal the car, which uses separate encryption keys from the locks.

I agree with you that this crypto system failure, not an algorithm exploit.

Or they are just really smart thieves. Better to get caught with petty theft than grand theft auto. Also, maybe keeping the crime as just theft is keeping it under the radar - the cops aren't going to throw up any road blocks for that level of crime.

Enclosed, but not encrypted (http://www.h-online.com/security/features/Enclosed-but-not-e...)

A make of USB drive enclosure that claimed to be using AES 128 bit encryption, but it turns out that wasn't for the data.

I'd describe a challenge-based authentication system that uses 128-bit AES as "An industry standards-based solution that would have worked"

In other words, the superlatives don't match the reality.

Does it use ECB (electronic code book)? Because that would be a system using AES that would be terrible.

How many times do we have to go over this? Crypto is hard to do right.

ECB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_modes_of_operation...

In the case of challenge/response with a single 128-bit block, I think ECB would be just fine. I can't imagine a car key needing to send multiple blocks (thus necessitating CBC, etc.).

The larger point here is that most keys probably aren't using AES to start with, and there's probably some other vulnerability in the overall system.

It would be just fine, if you knew what you were doing when choosing ECB. I can think of plenty of brain dead ways you could accidentally use it if you thought that AES automatically protected you no matter how you used it.

I'm sure there are vulnerabilities all over the place, but it would make even more sense if it happened to an AES system, because people would let their guard down because super-duper industrial strength encryption will take care of everything.

If the use of ECB is appropriate (which it may well be for this application) then the fact that is was used is not an indication of "brain dead" decision making. I would be much more worried if they made the system unnecessarily complicated (and thus more vulnerable) just because they thought the presence of ECB would be bad for marketing.

> then the fact that is was used is not an indication of "brain dead" decision making.

I didn't mean using it was brain dead, i mean using it without knowing the implications might lead to (accidentally) using it in in a brain dead way. For example, I could see them implementing the protocol and testing it without crypto and then simply adding crypto on top of it without thinking about the crypto portion.

You have no proof that Honda/Acura use 128-bit AES. In fact, being familiar with some research in the security of electronic car locks, I would wager they do not use AES.

It doesn't really matter. Consider the dumbest possible encryption scheme: Car sends random 32-bit number to key. The key XORs the random number with some 32-bit number. ECU checks that the response is valid.

This is the worst possible design, and not far from what late 90's cars use. Even though it is the dumbest possible solution it still works reasonably well, because you have to have access to the key to start the car. You can clone the key in a second, but you still must get within inches of the key.

Look, your initial claim that the reporter is reasonable when saying that the protocol should be "impossible" to attack is completely unfounded. The details do matter.

For example your hypothetical protocol is grossly insecure. Keys transmit signals over dozens of feet, not inches. All an attacker would have to do to attack your hypothetical protocol would be to capture one exchange. Then he can XOR the challenge with the response to obtain the 32-bit secret, allowing him to clone the key!

Are you talking about press to unlock fobs, or proximity keys?

I was under the assumption that we are talking about proximity keys. Old ignition keys use RFID, but a broken encryption system. They are still secure because the range is a few inches. Newer cars with unlock from the pocket / push to start, use challenge based auth and strong encryption.

Click to unlock fobs use secure PRNGs. That is a separate discussion, and they are generally secure. Maybe this is what the reporter was talking about, but I assumed these cars had proximity keys. Even if this is what the reporter was talking about, they were not way off base, as this still falls in the "should be impossible" category.

I am talking about the press to unlock fobs. Which is what the thieves seem to be using, based on the description of how they open the cars.

I too agree that this "That code is encrypted and constantly changing" is a reasonable description of an authentication system.

However, this, "and should be hackproof", is faulty. Nothing is ever inherently secure, though it might be relatively secure at a given moment and circumstance.

It's easy to characterize this as the ignorance of American media. However, this kind of "should be X" is common for anyone, be they journalists, ordinary folk, or technologists. We all have expectations about reality and feel shocked or bitterly disappointed when the expectation falls apart.

Clearly the journalist doesn't have time to give a lecture on a cryptography primer. I wouldn't call this ignorance, but convenient shortcut

"How would you describe a challenge based authentication system that uses 128-bit AES?"

How do you know at the RF level that its challenge based, and how do you know that the exploit is not operating in some .gov override mode like "I am NSA, open right now" mode.

I used to operate a computer that had a rack mount lock where its extremely well known (to some, anyway) that the mfgr shipped every unit with a tumbler that could be opened by a key cut to "XX2247"

I could encrypt the key cutting code XX2247 for you with 128 bit AES, or maybe 2048 DSA, but its not going to help very much.

It might be buggy enough that a random out of limits response might open it.

At least you have to be a hacker to boost a car these days. I remember when I was a kid my parents' car keys would open every Ford or Chevy on the block. I had a lot of fun running around the parking lot at my brother's soccer games.

That reminds me of the time my cousin lost his car keys. Luckily his parents had an extra set, so he got new copies made, and went on his merry way. A year later, I found the old set under the backseat of my car. Presumably they fell out of his pocket while he was riding with me, and got lodged up under the seat somehow.

Soooo... what to do with an extra set of keys to your buddy's car? Muwahahahaha... gaslight[1] him, of course! So me and a couple of other buddies would randomly drive to where he worked, and take his truck and do little things... change the direction it was facing, or move it about 3 spots over in the parking lot, or fiddle with the presets on his radio.

For like a month, he was spazzing out over this, while we all did our level best to keep a straight face when we were with him. He was convinced it was his brother messing with him for quite a while. Needless to say, he was a bit pissed when we finally broke down and told him and gave him his keys back. But man, what a laugh riot for a time...

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

What does it have to do with American media in general? Or were you just randomly bashing?

Versus the amazing quality of Chinese or Russian media? Brazilian media? Romanian media? Or maybe it's the French that have outstanding journalistic integrity and never make mistakes!

I'd be willing to bet that someone has stolen some universal unlock codes for a variety of manufacturers and it is now in the wild. Of course, no car company wants to admit this.

I would also put money on something like this. Honda/Acura was the only brand mentioned in the video so I can even guess who lost them.

If they were using key reprogramming/hacking there's no reason to 'always use' the passenger side front door as claimed in the video. So I don't think it's clear that these thieves are using any of those techniques.

I imagine it might be stupider, like maybe there's a way to induce the unlock button or motor to trigger via induction or something. Though I'm pretty poorly informed about that kind of thing scientifically and am likely completely wrong.

If they were using key reprogramming/hacking there's no reason to 'always use' the passenger side front door as claimed in the video.

It's a fair point, but I don't know that I'd take that at face value. That could have just been a subjective assessment that got repeated as fact. Without us having access to the actual videos or the raw numbers, it's hard to say.

So I don't think it's clear that these thieves are using any of those techniques.

Sure, and I'm not saying it's 100% certain that this is exactly how the thieves are operating.. just pointing out that it's well known that modern cars are vulnerable... if there are additional, as yet unreported vulnerabilities, would anybody be surprised?

I imagine it might be stupider, like maybe there's a way to induce the unlock button to trigger via induction or something.

That actually strikes me as semi-reasonable, without having research the matter in any depth. Where were you on the night of January 12th, when a black Suburban was stolen ...

I would assume that they use the passenger side front door because that is where the storage compartment is located.

They use the passenger side door because its the one facing the sidewalk.

If I was a thief then I'd always hit the passenger side front door as it gives me the quickest access to the glove compartment, where valuables are likely to be stored. Not sure what the mystery is here.

Do people actually put valuable things in their glove boxes? I didn't think people put stuff besides proof of insurance and their car manuals in them. I'd think it a lot more likely that valuables were in the center console storage.

I know multiple people who do. its a quick 'out-of-sight' place to throw something small like a purse or phone.

I left my checkbook in the glove compartment for like a month before realizing it. I don't write physical checks often and just forgot it was in there after needing to hide it real quick.

The glove box has a lock so it must be a good place for valuables!

And notice they're also touching the door handle with their bare hands. There's probably some sort of exploit dealing with theses vehicles' touch-activated car unlocking feature.

If a fab is in your pocket or purse, touching the handle will open the lock.

I searched for Acura MDX alarm antenna location and a quick glance tells me that the antenna is located behind the glovebox. So I would guess it probably works better from that side of the car...notice they seem to have to get very close to the car.

>What's the big mystery here? The method that the thieves are using is unknown.

While those links to may be useful to shed light on this type of crime, they do little to confirm the method that these thieves are employing. Hence, there is mystery.

Agreed, there is a mystery about the exact details. I read TFA as suggesting that the fundamental concept of "car hacking" is unknown. I was responding more to the generalization that I felt like I observed, than to the question of exactly how this specific set of thieves is working. I should have been more clear on that point.

You ask what the big mystery is, and then link to a lot of unrelated hacks/exploits. Yes, the article is that someone hacked/exploited the remote door open specifically, apparently on seemingly random cars. It is a mystery how they are doing it, though it is painfully obvious that they are exploiting something.

You ask what the big mystery is, and then link to a lot of unrelated hacks/exploits.

I don't see how you can say that is "unrelated". Even if our "mystery" thieves aren't using those exact exploits, there is NO "mystery" that hackers have demonstrated the ability to break car remote systems. But the article and the quotes from the police make it sound like the police are just staring at the wall, drooling and going "duuuhhh huhhh huhhhh... how'd they do that.. duhhuhhhh huhhhhh." Now that's probably not literally the case, but the article makes it sound like nobody has even the slightest clue that this stuff is possible, or how it's done. And that's just not true.

The article makes it sound exactly like what it seems to be -- that the thieves are using an exploit that they don't know, and thus they want to know. One of the guys quoted makes a profession out of this and he doesn't know what they're doing. But apparently lots of people on HN do.

Nobody here has claimed to know exactly what exploit the thieves are using. But a lot of people are claiming (rightly) that general knowledge that these car systems have vulnerabilities is widespread. And that point is what seemed, to me, to be missing from TFA.

If TFA had given some more context, and said "exploits which would allow this type of access were shown at a recent hacker conference, and some cars have known exploitable vulnerabilities... but we don't know if this crop of thieves are using that or a newer, unpublished exploit" then it would, IMO, have been a better article. Instead, it leaves people with the idea that this whole concept (hacking cars) is something brand new, unknown, and unexpected. And it's not.

It's certainly unexpected by the general public.

But not to the professionals (car thieves, police, etc).

There's much that goes on in the technology world that surprises the general public that doesn't surprise people here. This is more of the same.

The general public thinks that if you open a jar and the lid goes "pop" that means it hasn't been opened before.

Of course, elementary school science is enough to figure out that if you bought a jar of apple juice from the store, replaced some of the contents with hot goat urine and shook it up before fully closing the lid again, as the air inside cooled it would pull the clicker back down. And you could return it to the store.

But if I read an article about mysterious tampering with "unopened" products in local grocery stores, I hope the police (and particularly, food packaging or food security experts) wouldn't be so baffled about it when discussing it with reporters.

But a lot of people are claiming (rightly) that general knowledge that these car systems have vulnerabilities is widespread.

So you have a device that can open random car doors in seconds? Do you know where to get one? Do you know anyone who has one?

The police apparently don't (and the police almost certainly know far more about crimes and how they are performed than you and most other HNers do). A guy who specializes in car electronics exploits doesn't.

So yes, this is a mystery. The counter-argument seems to be some variation of the too-common world-weary-haughtiness that spreads like an infection on HN.

Bank closes at night like always. The next morning the manager arrives and finds everything seemingly as it was, but when they look in the safe all of the money missing. Would that qualify as a mystery? Even though people have been robbing banks for centuries, even breaking into safes? Yes, of course it would, though I'm sure there'll be that guy who'll point out the obvious that somehow someone got in the safe.

So you have a device that can open random car doors in seconds? Do you know where to get one? Do you know anyone who has one?

No, and I haven't claimed to do so. You're just setting up straw-men and attacking them now, and I don't know for what purpose. I've already said that I was talking in terms of a general sentiment that I think I detected in TFA, and not the specifics of this batch of incidents.

open random car doors

You've been at this "random car" thing over the whole thread.

But there no indication that these thieves can steal random cars in the sense of any car they choose. Thieves have stolen particular cars and the cops might not know the connecting thread but there's no situation where the thieves passed a "show us a random car and we'll use our device to steal it" challenge and that would be the kind of hard evidence you'd need for a "these guys can steel any car" rhetoric.

The police are concerned. Random self-proclaimed experts on HN say it's no big deal.

But how about Honda -- do you have a remote door unlock exploit that can do what is being discussed on just Honda vehicles?

> the article makes it sound like nobody has even the slightest clue that this stuff is possible

It's almost as if the news has some sort of agenda!

I agree. The technique described differs from anything OP linked. The fact that thieves are smashing windows to get at diagnostic ports suggests that this method of entering the vehicle is fairly novel.

Exploits have been demonstrated by researchers, but are mostly pretty make/model specific.

Certainly, I'd bet that every car with bluetooth/wifi integrated has some sort of flaw whereby it might be possible to use that to bridge to the cars Canbus and request a door unlock. That doesn't mean that these are easily exploitable by individuals willing to commit petty theft.

"What's the big mystery here?" That California PD haven't googled this yet...