9 ms·

Police admit they're 'stumped' by mystery car thefts

116 points by thedoctor 13y ago

gvb 13y ago
Sounds a lot like the Chamberlain garage door gaping security hole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._Skylink_Technologies,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._.... The level of security of a car door is presumably a lot higher than that of a garage door, but the technology of using a rolling code is the same and the need to be able to (re)synchronize remote keys/fobs is also there. With the cars I own, there is a procedure in the operator's manual on how to resync your keys. Nominally, it requires physical access - an already unlocked car. Ref: http://www.programmingkey.com/ http://www.programmingkey.com/ My first guess is that the bad guys figured out a timing attack that confuses the lock software if the "right" sequence of codes are sent with the "right" timing. My alternate guess is that the bad guys figured out a way to mimic the resync mechanism without requiring physical access.
- cheald 13y ago
  If they'd figured out how to invoke resync, the owners' keyfobs would stop working, which would be a dead giveaway.
  - gvb 13y ago
    The "(re)sync" mechanism allows you to add new keys without disturbing the existing keys.
    - cheald 13y ago
      Source? I've never encountered that. Every time I've ever reprogrammed a wireless entry remote, I've had to reprogram all of them at the same time. Garage door openers can store multiple keys, but I've never run into a car that will. For example, from my Grand Prix's owner's manual: > Each remote keyless entry transmitter is coded to prevent another transmitter from unlocking your vehicle. If a transmitter is lost or stolen, a replacement can be purchased through your GM dealer. Remember to bring any additional transmitters with you when you go to your dealer. When the dealer matches the replacement transmitter to your vehicle, any remaining transmitters must also be matched. Once your dealer has coded the new transmitter, the lost transmitter cannot unlock your vehicle. The vehicle can have a maximum of four transmitters matched to it. And from the shop manual: > Once the keyless entry receiver enters the programming/diagnostic mode, the programming of the first transmitter erases all previous transmitter programming information. You must then program all of the transmitters.
_jackwink 13y ago
Seems like this might be relevant. http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf
mindcrime 13y ago
What's the big mystery here? There have been published articles on the ease of hacking car remotes (and even the onboard electronics) going back at least a couple of years. For example: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/01/car-theives-can-eaisly-hack-remote-keyless-systems-swiss-research-discovers/1#.Ua9oK-lMY7w http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/01... http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/07/hacking_bmws_re.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/07/hacking_bmws_r... http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20085131-48/remote-unlock-and-start-for-cars-hacked/ http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20085131-48/remote-unlo... http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/03/researchers-cars-electronics-can-be-hacked-remotely.html http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/03/researchers-car... Here's a video (with no commentary, unfortunately) that shows someone who has apparently decoded the signals from a car remote and is using the remote and an arduino, to toggle some LEDs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doELL4g4cS0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doELL4g4cS0 I have little doubt that there are hackers out there who can easily build a device to remotely unlock / start cars that use keyless entry. In fact, I'd be far more surprised if there weren't. Edit: to elaborate... when I say "What's the big mystery" I'm referring to a notion, which I interpreted from the article (rightly or wrongly), that people are totally unaware that this kind of thing is even conceptually possible. I don't claim to know the exact exploit or mechanism being used here! Just pointing out that this general class of attacks isn't something totally foreign and unknown.
- jrochkind1 13y ago
  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!
  - jcampbell1 13y ago
    How would you describe a challenge based authentication system that uses 128-bit AES? I find the reporter's description reasonable.
    - mindcrime 13y ago
axus 13y ago
Is there a way to disable remote access to the doors? Other than driving an old car :)
- wmeredith 13y ago
  You should be able to pull the fuse for the door locks; the mechanical lock buttons and key will continue to work. To find out which fuse, just Google "[car make] [model] [year] fuse diagram" and look for door lock actuators or similar.
  - untothebreach 13y ago
    Also, most (if not all) car user manuals come with a diagram of the fuse box.
    - ewbuoi 13y ago
      Some even have a diagram of the fuse box in the fuse box.
  - thedufer 13y ago
    Guess and check is also a reasonable solution. Last time I had a fuse go, we just moved them around until all the essentials were working.
- Fuxy 13y ago
  Yes, you don't mount the mechanism that opens the doors when installing the alarm (or cut the wires afterwards). Store bought alarms have a lot of crap the electrician never hooks up so what's the difference not mounting this one.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
FactoryFactory 13y ago
Moral of the story is don't leave valuable stuff in your car.
Fuxy 13y ago
Why is this so baffling a shocking? I think we all knew this was possible before anybody actually did it. It's not like their using proper crypto. It's the equivalent of a bad house lock give me some good lock picks and 60 seconds and I'm in so why is this so surprising?
- dclowd9901 13y ago
  From what they describe, it sounds like the locking systems use a system that works like a VPN key (this was actually surprising to me). Those seem pretty tough to crack, so why would this be any different?
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    Even if you use practically unbreakable encryption keys, there are a million things that you can fail in the whole cryptosystem and any one of them will make you vulnerable. How are keys generated? What is the source of randomness? How are keys reset if needed? What are the manufacturer/service/guvmint backdoors in the keys? etc.
    - Fuxy 13y ago
      I think you're on to something with the backdoor. Backdoors have to be extra secure because if you hack that you have access to all of them. Hell they shouldn't even exist it's like asking to be exploited.
- fragmede 13y ago
  There is obviously something broken somewhere, but I'd consider 128-bit AES to be 'proper crypto'.
mindcrime 13y ago
I was intrigued by their mention of this "Jim Stickley" who was cited as a top security expert. I had never heard of him before, so did a quick search to find out a little more about him. He seems to be a pretty legit and well known security guy[1], but it surprises me that he said: This is really frustrating because clearly they've figured out something that looks really simple and whatever it is they're doing, it takes just seconds to do," Stickley said. "And you look and you go, 'That should not be possible. Considering, again, that there has been published research on this topic, and a presentation at Black Hat, revealing that (at least some) cars are vulnerable. Honestly, I feel like the reporter on this article should have done a bit more background research and interviewed a few more people. Not that it changes the fundamental issue (don't leave valuables in your car, etc.) but it would have been a stronger article with some more context, IMO. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Stickley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Stickley
- droopybuns 13y ago
  I agree with your skepticism but I disagree with your analysis of Stickley. This looks like the typical security clown out there writing his own wikipedia entry. His article's main point seems to be that he found a buffer overflow. There, he's a security expert. What security professional worth his salt says "that should not be possible"? The entire security profession is about identifying assumptions and then challenging them. He sounds more like a software developer cashing in on the "s" word because he found a buffer overrun than a security profesional assessing an attack.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    You're right, actually. I was trying to be charitable though, and I didn't feel like I had time to do a serious deep dive into this background and credentials. Nor am I necessarily qualified to pass any serious judgement on his knowledge. A quote from somebody like Bruce Schneier, or tptacek, would have been a lot better.
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    Well we criminalized (DMCA) this kind of "hacking," so as far as this "security professional" knows it is impossible because he hasn't heard of it. Maybe if we stop preventing security researchers from talking about vulnerabilities we could know about these things before the thieves.
youngerdryas 13y ago
Ghost Dog was doing this back in 2005.
clavalle 13y ago
>Both the transmitter and the receiver use the same pseudo-random number generator. When the transmitter sends a 40-bit code, it uses the pseudo-random number generator to pick a new code, which it stores in memory. On the other end, when the receiver receives a valid code, it uses the same pseudo-random number generator to pick a new one. In this way, the transmitter and the receiver are synchronized. The receiver only opens the door if it receives the code it expects. So, if you figure out how these are salted (VIN?) and what pseudo-random generator it uses, you can recreate the signal.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  I'm betting these generators have large sources of entropy, right? You have to move your mouse around a bunch before you lock your doors.
jordan_clark 13y ago
They didn't release all of the details. We would need to know which makes and models and years this does/does not work on. In the videos they only showed Honda products (Acura) (The MDX was a 2000-2006 model) but does not work on GM or Ford. So this is most likely is manufacturer specific.
saddino 13y ago
Get ready for two-factor authentication coming to a car near you.
outworlder 13y ago
The advice given in the article sounds ridiculous to my (brazilian) ears. - "Don't leave valuables in the car". Really? I'd have to deal with smashed windows every single day if I left anything that could possibly be of value sitting overnight (or for a few minutes in some places). Perhaps even an empty shoe box. And that's with tinted windows so dark they are not even supposed to be street legal. - "Keep your car registration in the wallet". Identity theft with a car registration should not be possible here, as it doesn't contain ID numbers, nor photographs and is no proof of identity (you have to display the driver's licence - which is proof of identity - and the car's documents on demand if requested by authorities). Still, it is a ridiculously bad idea to leave it sitting in a car overnight. If the car is stolen, the crooks would have a much easier time evading minor police checkpoints. I guess some places have such a low crime rate that people just forget basic security precautions?
- javert 13y ago
  That stuff really isn't necessary in much of the US (many non-urban areas... thought not all). I don't even always lock my car doors in some places. To someone who's not used to it, it's probably amazing how benevolent people and society really can be.
  - cglace 13y ago
    In urban areas I don't lock my doors to avoid having my windows smashed for some change.
    - javert 13y ago
      I wouldn't live in a place like that... unless there were major benefits or I had no choice.
      - cglace 13y ago
        You don't have to live in a place like that for it to happen to you. This is happened to me in the nice parts of town that are close to public transit. They smash a few windows run across the street and jump on the train. . .
DanBlake 13y ago
I never understood why keyfobs work in a UDP style, when communication between the remote and car would be infinitely better. For instance, instead of just sending "12345" and having the doors open since the code was expected, What about if the remote said "hey car, whats your random number" - the car then transmits back "54321" at which point the transmitter sends a hashed reply sha512(54321 + unique-random-id-set-per-car) which the car receives then verifies matches expected output. The takeaway being that both the car and the remote know what "unique-random-id-set-per-car" is, but nobody else does. It should be randomly set at the factory so each car and the remotes have a unique id. My only thoughts as to why its not like this is that the logic required to do that type of operation might not be possible without a higher wattage 'processor' in the keyfob which would eat through batteries. Im totally out of the know in that area though. Also, unrelated- but the passenger door thing is likely just coincidence because they want to get in the glove box. But, there is another thing that could explain it. On my last car (mercedes) when I wanted to reprogram a new keyfob to work with the car, I had to do a long process of certain actions to make it work. It was like "press on brake, release brake, press on brake for 3 seconds then release, open drivers window, open passenger door, close drivers window, press open button on keyfob" So the car CPU is definitely aware and can take actions specific to which door is being opened, so its possible its related.
- jevinskie 13y ago
  Mifare fobs do use a challenge response protocol. Old fobs use small keys though.
- martin-adams 13y ago
  That probably means the keyfob needs a receiver (which I suspect they don't by current design). But I agree, a two-way communication would be nice as the keyfob could then report whether the car was locked properly.
- WiseWeasel 13y ago
  Wouldn't you then be able to determine the fob ID by recording multiple car "random number" requests and fob responses?
progrock 13y ago
How about the manufacturers providing a back door? Their own code. What happens in the event that you loose your fob?
- astral303 13y ago
  If you loose your fob, the workaround is re-programming via the OBDII or other diagnostic ports. Yes, that has a backdoor. But typically there is no remote backdoor.
kbar13 13y ago
TIL today.com's site looks really nice
nodata 13y ago
Anyone know how much compute time is needed to crack a new BMW or Audi remote?
- TheCapn 13y ago
  Seconds I believe. I have no source but I recall seeing a story where people were able to fake a BMW remote by plugging directly into the OBDII port on the cars and running a quick program on an attached arduino. As for remote access I'm sure its equally plausible to crack if you know the right steps to take.
  - gambiting 13y ago
    But that was a clear mistake in the ODB port programming on new BMW, which was fixed by the manufacturer. Not something that can be easily done on any car.
    - nodata 13y ago
      So how long would it take to remotely crack or brute force or otherwise gain access to a brand new BMW? I'm interested in the cost on AWS compute or GPU compute.
zw123456 13y ago
You can Google the phrase "car learning keyless remote control" and see tons of sites selling these for "legit" purposes as replacement remotes. I am sure not all of them work on all cars but I am sure the thieves simply figured out which ones work on which cars and just target those. And I agree, this is nothing new, a story about it pops up on the news every so often and the it seems like each time the Police are baffled. Maybe there needs to be a web site for the police that provides them with such information. If there isn't one already, there is an app opportunity for someone perhaps.
- Zarathust 13y ago
  All of the remotes I've seen require physical access to an unlocked car to initiate the re-synchronization procedure between the new remote and the car. This involves complex things like starting the car 5-10 times and pressing buttons on the remote at the same time
Dnguyen 13y ago
I wonder if they found an exploit for Bluetooth. Newer cars have this feature so the owner doesn't have to use the key. If the Bluetooth service has access to the On Board Diagnostic (OBD), it can get to a lot of the car's info and commands, such as unlock door. I remember working on AutoPC back in the day and we tapped into the OBD and provided a feature to send a message to the car to unlock the doors. Similar to OnStar now a day.
- klinquist 13y ago
  I don't think this is done via bluetooth - I believe the remote/app unlocking is all done via cellular.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
kweks 13y ago
Probably the attack from two years ago: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/422298/car-theft-by-antenna/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/422298/car-theft-by-ant... Essentially, with the newer cars keyless entry cars, it's the car that transmits the signal to the fob (so you can't get stranded with a flat battery). The protocol itself is secure, but open to a MITM attack. The exploit works essentially like a WiFi booster. Perp #1 places himself near the car, receiving the car's transmission. This is relayed to perp #2, who is near the owner (and the key). The key communicates with the car (via the relay) - the door opens, the car starts, and off you go.
joars 13y ago
wow, i really disliked the way that news report was presented. i think it was because the narrator ended each sentence as if it was the last sentence in the story.
astral303 13y ago
RSA Security and John Hopkins have been able to crack an RFID keyfob in 15 minutes [0] back in 2005. Rumor had it that later on it was something like 30 seconds to crack a Ford key. 40-bit RFID keyspace--combine that with 2013-era technology and this is absolutely no surprise. http://www.jhu.edu/news/home05/jan05/rfid.html http://www.jhu.edu/news/home05/jan05/rfid.html
nakedrobot2 13y ago
Um, maybe this? https://www.google.com/search?q=car+key+duplicator+alibaba https://www.google.com/search?q=car+key+duplicator+alibaba :-)
RyanBrantley 13y ago
How about the possibility that the thieves have simply purchased replacement remotes from eBay (or similar), and programmed them when they had access to a compatible vehicle? Maybe the thieves work at a car wash, valet or have organized a larger network of goons (think credit card skimming). Programming a replacement remote is a simple procedure, requiring only a few moments in the vehicle with the key present... like when parking a car. Paired with an easily accessible address (registration?), you have a crime ready to take place. This would confirm why multiple vehicles in the same driveway were targeted. Families use the same service providers. It could also make sense of why the "device" occasionally did not work. Maybe they got the remotes / addresses mixed up, the programming did not take or their mule is selling them unprogrammed remotes. I think this is more logical of a solution considering the facts. Any thoughts?
jmspring 13y ago
Recent rental car in Italy - get the keys, head to parking lot, and search out car based on license plate on keys. Writing is dodgy, could mistake an 8 for a 9. Find car, electronic control unlocks it, yet key will not start car. Head back to desk, slam keys down (person behind desk had previously shown a serious attitude to renters), get startled look and say "car doesn't work". After a bit of shock due to slammed keys and firm voice person says "colleague should be there" (he wasn't), pointed out "nope", responded with "oh, in 5 minutes". Wander back out to car, electronic lock locks/unlocks care, but still doesn't start. "Colleague" shows up. Points out diff between 8 and 9. I mention "uh, car unlocked". He shrugged. Turns out the car was in a completely different/not visible (for the company) part of the parking lot. Both electronic locks and key worked in that vehicle. Having an electronic system for duplicate cars (1 off in license plates) seems like a bad idea.
keithjia 13y ago
assuming the car remote is using some kind of asymmetric encrytion algo, doesn't this simply mean either A) somebody leaked the private key from the manu? B) encryption was done with lower enough bits so that it is brute-force breakable They could have just asked any CS prof or student for the possiblities...
runamok 13y ago
I read a recent 2600 article that said it's fairly easy to procure (from overseas) a jammer to prevent the lock signal from reaching the car. It would not open the doors but instead stop them from locking so the would-be thief would later manually open the unlocked doors.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
NameNickHN 13y ago
> and should be hackproof I always chuckle when I read something like this because if something has been made by men it can be cracked by men. It's simple as that.

116 points by thedoctor 13y ago

gvb 13y ago

Sounds a lot like the Chamberlain garage door gaping security hole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._Skylink_Technologies,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._.... The level of security of a car door is presumably a lot higher than that of a garage door, but the technology of using a rolling code is the same and the need to be able to (re)synchronize remote keys/fobs is also there. With the cars I own, there is a procedure in the operator's manual on how to resync your keys. Nominally, it requires physical access - an already unlocked car. Ref: http://www.programmingkey.com/ http://www.programmingkey.com/ My first guess is that the bad guys figured out a timing attack that confuses the lock software if the "right" sequence of codes are sent with the "right" timing. My alternate guess is that the bad guys figured out a way to mimic the resync mechanism without requiring physical access.

cheald 13y ago
If they'd figured out how to invoke resync, the owners' keyfobs would stop working, which would be a dead giveaway.
- gvb 13y ago
  The "(re)sync" mechanism allows you to add new keys without disturbing the existing keys.
  - cheald 13y ago
    Source? I've never encountered that. Every time I've ever reprogrammed a wireless entry remote, I've had to reprogram all of them at the same time. Garage door openers can store multiple keys, but I've never run into a car that will. For example, from my Grand Prix's owner's manual: > Each remote keyless entry transmitter is coded to prevent another transmitter from unlocking your vehicle. If a transmitter is lost or stolen, a replacement can be purchased through your GM dealer. Remember to bring any additional transmitters with you when you go to your dealer. When the dealer matches the replacement transmitter to your vehicle, any remaining transmitters must also be matched. Once your dealer has coded the new transmitter, the lost transmitter cannot unlock your vehicle. The vehicle can have a maximum of four transmitters matched to it. And from the shop manual: > Once the keyless entry receiver enters the programming/diagnostic mode, the programming of the first transmitter erases all previous transmitter programming information. You must then program all of the transmitters.

_jackwink 13y ago

Seems like this might be relevant. http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf

mindcrime 13y ago

What's the big mystery here? There have been published articles on the ease of hacking car remotes (and even the onboard electronics) going back at least a couple of years. For example: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/01/car-theives-can-eaisly-hack-remote-keyless-systems-swiss-research-discovers/1#.Ua9oK-lMY7w http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/01... http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/07/hacking_bmws_re.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/07/hacking_bmws_r... http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20085131-48/remote-unlock-and-start-for-cars-hacked/ http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20085131-48/remote-unlo... http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/03/researchers-cars-electronics-can-be-hacked-remotely.html http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/03/researchers-car... Here's a video (with no commentary, unfortunately) that shows someone who has apparently decoded the signals from a car remote and is using the remote and an arduino, to toggle some LEDs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doELL4g4cS0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doELL4g4cS0 I have little doubt that there are hackers out there who can easily build a device to remotely unlock / start cars that use keyless entry. In fact, I'd be far more surprised if there weren't. Edit: to elaborate... when I say "What's the big mystery" I'm referring to a notion, which I interpreted from the article (rightly or wrongly), that people are totally unaware that this kind of thing is even conceptually possible. I don't claim to know the exact exploit or mechanism being used here! Just pointing out that this general class of attacks isn't something totally foreign and unknown.

jrochkind1 13y ago
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!
- jcampbell1 13y ago
  How would you describe a challenge based authentication system that uses 128-bit AES? I find the reporter's description reasonable.
  - mindcrime 13y ago

axus 13y ago

Is there a way to disable remote access to the doors? Other than driving an old car :)

wmeredith 13y ago
You should be able to pull the fuse for the door locks; the mechanical lock buttons and key will continue to work. To find out which fuse, just Google "[car make] [model] [year] fuse diagram" and look for door lock actuators or similar.
- untothebreach 13y ago
  Also, most (if not all) car user manuals come with a diagram of the fuse box.
  - ewbuoi 13y ago
    Some even have a diagram of the fuse box in the fuse box.
- thedufer 13y ago
  Guess and check is also a reasonable solution. Last time I had a fuse go, we just moved them around until all the essentials were working.
Fuxy 13y ago
Yes, you don't mount the mechanism that opens the doors when installing the alarm (or cut the wires afterwards). Store bought alarms have a lot of crap the electrician never hooks up so what's the difference not mounting this one.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

FactoryFactory 13y ago

Moral of the story is don't leave valuable stuff in your car.

Fuxy 13y ago

Why is this so baffling a shocking? I think we all knew this was possible before anybody actually did it. It's not like their using proper crypto. It's the equivalent of a bad house lock give me some good lock picks and 60 seconds and I'm in so why is this so surprising?

dclowd9901 13y ago
From what they describe, it sounds like the locking systems use a system that works like a VPN key (this was actually surprising to me). Those seem pretty tough to crack, so why would this be any different?
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Even if you use practically unbreakable encryption keys, there are a million things that you can fail in the whole cryptosystem and any one of them will make you vulnerable. How are keys generated? What is the source of randomness? How are keys reset if needed? What are the manufacturer/service/guvmint backdoors in the keys? etc.
  - Fuxy 13y ago
    I think you're on to something with the backdoor. Backdoors have to be extra secure because if you hack that you have access to all of them. Hell they shouldn't even exist it's like asking to be exploited.
fragmede 13y ago
There is obviously something broken somewhere, but I'd consider 128-bit AES to be 'proper crypto'.

mindcrime 13y ago

I was intrigued by their mention of this "Jim Stickley" who was cited as a top security expert. I had never heard of him before, so did a quick search to find out a little more about him. He seems to be a pretty legit and well known security guy[1], but it surprises me that he said: This is really frustrating because clearly they've figured out something that looks really simple and whatever it is they're doing, it takes just seconds to do," Stickley said. "And you look and you go, 'That should not be possible. Considering, again, that there has been published research on this topic, and a presentation at Black Hat, revealing that (at least some) cars are vulnerable. Honestly, I feel like the reporter on this article should have done a bit more background research and interviewed a few more people. Not that it changes the fundamental issue (don't leave valuables in your car, etc.) but it would have been a stronger article with some more context, IMO. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Stickley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Stickley

droopybuns 13y ago
I agree with your skepticism but I disagree with your analysis of Stickley. This looks like the typical security clown out there writing his own wikipedia entry. His article's main point seems to be that he found a buffer overflow. There, he's a security expert. What security professional worth his salt says "that should not be possible"? The entire security profession is about identifying assumptions and then challenging them. He sounds more like a software developer cashing in on the "s" word because he found a buffer overrun than a security profesional assessing an attack.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  You're right, actually. I was trying to be charitable though, and I didn't feel like I had time to do a serious deep dive into this background and credentials. Nor am I necessarily qualified to pass any serious judgement on his knowledge. A quote from somebody like Bruce Schneier, or tptacek, would have been a lot better.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  Well we criminalized (DMCA) this kind of "hacking," so as far as this "security professional" knows it is impossible because he hasn't heard of it. Maybe if we stop preventing security researchers from talking about vulnerabilities we could know about these things before the thieves.

youngerdryas 13y ago

Ghost Dog was doing this back in 2005.

clavalle 13y ago

>Both the transmitter and the receiver use the same pseudo-random number generator. When the transmitter sends a 40-bit code, it uses the pseudo-random number generator to pick a new code, which it stores in memory. On the other end, when the receiver receives a valid code, it uses the same pseudo-random number generator to pick a new one. In this way, the transmitter and the receiver are synchronized. The receiver only opens the door if it receives the code it expects. So, if you figure out how these are salted (VIN?) and what pseudo-random generator it uses, you can recreate the signal.

darkarmani 13y ago
I'm betting these generators have large sources of entropy, right? You have to move your mouse around a bunch before you lock your doors.

jordan_clark 13y ago

They didn't release all of the details. We would need to know which makes and models and years this does/does not work on. In the videos they only showed Honda products (Acura) (The MDX was a 2000-2006 model) but does not work on GM or Ford. So this is most likely is manufacturer specific.

saddino 13y ago

Get ready for two-factor authentication coming to a car near you.

outworlder 13y ago

The advice given in the article sounds ridiculous to my (brazilian) ears. - "Don't leave valuables in the car". Really? I'd have to deal with smashed windows every single day if I left anything that could possibly be of value sitting overnight (or for a few minutes in some places). Perhaps even an empty shoe box. And that's with tinted windows so dark they are not even supposed to be street legal. - "Keep your car registration in the wallet". Identity theft with a car registration should not be possible here, as it doesn't contain ID numbers, nor photographs and is no proof of identity (you have to display the driver's licence - which is proof of identity - and the car's documents on demand if requested by authorities). Still, it is a ridiculously bad idea to leave it sitting in a car overnight. If the car is stolen, the crooks would have a much easier time evading minor police checkpoints. I guess some places have such a low crime rate that people just forget basic security precautions?

javert 13y ago
That stuff really isn't necessary in much of the US (many non-urban areas... thought not all). I don't even always lock my car doors in some places. To someone who's not used to it, it's probably amazing how benevolent people and society really can be.
- cglace 13y ago
  In urban areas I don't lock my doors to avoid having my windows smashed for some change.
  - javert 13y ago
    I wouldn't live in a place like that... unless there were major benefits or I had no choice.
    - cglace 13y ago
      You don't have to live in a place like that for it to happen to you. This is happened to me in the nice parts of town that are close to public transit. They smash a few windows run across the street and jump on the train. . .

DanBlake 13y ago

I never understood why keyfobs work in a UDP style, when communication between the remote and car would be infinitely better. For instance, instead of just sending "12345" and having the doors open since the code was expected, What about if the remote said "hey car, whats your random number" - the car then transmits back "54321" at which point the transmitter sends a hashed reply sha512(54321 + unique-random-id-set-per-car) which the car receives then verifies matches expected output. The takeaway being that both the car and the remote know what "unique-random-id-set-per-car" is, but nobody else does. It should be randomly set at the factory so each car and the remotes have a unique id. My only thoughts as to why its not like this is that the logic required to do that type of operation might not be possible without a higher wattage 'processor' in the keyfob which would eat through batteries. Im totally out of the know in that area though. Also, unrelated- but the passenger door thing is likely just coincidence because they want to get in the glove box. But, there is another thing that could explain it. On my last car (mercedes) when I wanted to reprogram a new keyfob to work with the car, I had to do a long process of certain actions to make it work. It was like "press on brake, release brake, press on brake for 3 seconds then release, open drivers window, open passenger door, close drivers window, press open button on keyfob" So the car CPU is definitely aware and can take actions specific to which door is being opened, so its possible its related.

jevinskie 13y ago
Mifare fobs do use a challenge response protocol. Old fobs use small keys though.
martin-adams 13y ago
That probably means the keyfob needs a receiver (which I suspect they don't by current design). But I agree, a two-way communication would be nice as the keyfob could then report whether the car was locked properly.
WiseWeasel 13y ago
Wouldn't you then be able to determine the fob ID by recording multiple car "random number" requests and fob responses?

progrock 13y ago

How about the manufacturers providing a back door? Their own code. What happens in the event that you loose your fob?

astral303 13y ago
If you loose your fob, the workaround is re-programming via the OBDII or other diagnostic ports. Yes, that has a backdoor. But typically there is no remote backdoor.

kbar13 13y ago

TIL today.com's site looks really nice

nodata 13y ago

Anyone know how much compute time is needed to crack a new BMW or Audi remote?

TheCapn 13y ago
Seconds I believe. I have no source but I recall seeing a story where people were able to fake a BMW remote by plugging directly into the OBDII port on the cars and running a quick program on an attached arduino. As for remote access I'm sure its equally plausible to crack if you know the right steps to take.
- gambiting 13y ago
  But that was a clear mistake in the ODB port programming on new BMW, which was fixed by the manufacturer. Not something that can be easily done on any car.
  - nodata 13y ago
    So how long would it take to remotely crack or brute force or otherwise gain access to a brand new BMW? I'm interested in the cost on AWS compute or GPU compute.

zw123456 13y ago

You can Google the phrase "car learning keyless remote control" and see tons of sites selling these for "legit" purposes as replacement remotes. I am sure not all of them work on all cars but I am sure the thieves simply figured out which ones work on which cars and just target those. And I agree, this is nothing new, a story about it pops up on the news every so often and the it seems like each time the Police are baffled. Maybe there needs to be a web site for the police that provides them with such information. If there isn't one already, there is an app opportunity for someone perhaps.

Zarathust 13y ago
All of the remotes I've seen require physical access to an unlocked car to initiate the re-synchronization procedure between the new remote and the car. This involves complex things like starting the car 5-10 times and pressing buttons on the remote at the same time

Dnguyen 13y ago

I wonder if they found an exploit for Bluetooth. Newer cars have this feature so the owner doesn't have to use the key. If the Bluetooth service has access to the On Board Diagnostic (OBD), it can get to a lot of the car's info and commands, such as unlock door. I remember working on AutoPC back in the day and we tapped into the OBD and provided a feature to send a message to the car to unlock the doors. Similar to OnStar now a day.

klinquist 13y ago
I don't think this is done via bluetooth - I believe the remote/app unlocking is all done via cellular.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

kweks 13y ago

Probably the attack from two years ago: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/422298/car-theft-by-antenna/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/422298/car-theft-by-ant... Essentially, with the newer cars keyless entry cars, it's the car that transmits the signal to the fob (so you can't get stranded with a flat battery). The protocol itself is secure, but open to a MITM attack. The exploit works essentially like a WiFi booster. Perp #1 places himself near the car, receiving the car's transmission. This is relayed to perp #2, who is near the owner (and the key). The key communicates with the car (via the relay) - the door opens, the car starts, and off you go.

joars 13y ago

wow, i really disliked the way that news report was presented. i think it was because the narrator ended each sentence as if it was the last sentence in the story.

astral303 13y ago

RSA Security and John Hopkins have been able to crack an RFID keyfob in 15 minutes [0] back in 2005. Rumor had it that later on it was something like 30 seconds to crack a Ford key. 40-bit RFID keyspace--combine that with 2013-era technology and this is absolutely no surprise. http://www.jhu.edu/news/home05/jan05/rfid.html http://www.jhu.edu/news/home05/jan05/rfid.html

nakedrobot2 13y ago

Um, maybe this? https://www.google.com/search?q=car+key+duplicator+alibaba https://www.google.com/search?q=car+key+duplicator+alibaba :-)

RyanBrantley 13y ago

How about the possibility that the thieves have simply purchased replacement remotes from eBay (or similar), and programmed them when they had access to a compatible vehicle? Maybe the thieves work at a car wash, valet or have organized a larger network of goons (think credit card skimming). Programming a replacement remote is a simple procedure, requiring only a few moments in the vehicle with the key present... like when parking a car. Paired with an easily accessible address (registration?), you have a crime ready to take place. This would confirm why multiple vehicles in the same driveway were targeted. Families use the same service providers. It could also make sense of why the "device" occasionally did not work. Maybe they got the remotes / addresses mixed up, the programming did not take or their mule is selling them unprogrammed remotes. I think this is more logical of a solution considering the facts. Any thoughts?

jmspring 13y ago

Recent rental car in Italy - get the keys, head to parking lot, and search out car based on license plate on keys. Writing is dodgy, could mistake an 8 for a 9. Find car, electronic control unlocks it, yet key will not start car. Head back to desk, slam keys down (person behind desk had previously shown a serious attitude to renters), get startled look and say "car doesn't work". After a bit of shock due to slammed keys and firm voice person says "colleague should be there" (he wasn't), pointed out "nope", responded with "oh, in 5 minutes". Wander back out to car, electronic lock locks/unlocks care, but still doesn't start. "Colleague" shows up. Points out diff between 8 and 9. I mention "uh, car unlocked". He shrugged. Turns out the car was in a completely different/not visible (for the company) part of the parking lot. Both electronic locks and key worked in that vehicle. Having an electronic system for duplicate cars (1 off in license plates) seems like a bad idea.

keithjia 13y ago

assuming the car remote is using some kind of asymmetric encrytion algo, doesn't this simply mean either A) somebody leaked the private key from the manu? B) encryption was done with lower enough bits so that it is brute-force breakable They could have just asked any CS prof or student for the possiblities...

runamok 13y ago

I read a recent 2600 article that said it's fairly easy to procure (from overseas) a jammer to prevent the lock signal from reaching the car. It would not open the doors but instead stop them from locking so the would-be thief would later manually open the unlocked doors.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

NameNickHN 13y ago

> and should be hackproof I always chuckle when I read something like this because if something has been made by men it can be cracked by men. It's simple as that.