2 ms·
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
by mrb 13y ago
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!
- jcampbell1 13y agoAre 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.
- mrb 13y agoI 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.