Slashdot Mirror
Hackers Clone E-Passport
mrops writes "I guess the skeptical Slashdot community always knew that e-passports are a big waste of time and money; now German security consultants have been able to successfully clone e-passports, even onto building access cards. FTA: 'The whole passport design is totally brain damaged,' Grunwald says. 'From my point of view all of these RFID passports are a huge waste of money. They're not increasing security at all.'"
But this unfortunately is not going to stop the governments from wasting money on them.
I just renewed my passport, hoping to get in before the "biometric" passports became mandatory in the UK (Not that there's actually *any* biometric data on them), but sadly I've ended up with a RFID chip embedded in the back page of my new one.
The booklet that comes with it helpfully suggests ways to damage the chip, such as microwaving it, but doing so will render the passport useless, unfortunately. Anyone know where I can get a good tinfoil wallet from?
Of course, that won't stop the mad bombers with their IEDs from detonating their bombs in the presense of an ePassport. The video from TFA shows yet another weakness in this crappily designed (i.e. vendor driven) system.
John
Now if we could only enabled these RFID passports to download XML via SOAP on a Web 2.0 platform with XmlHttpRequest, Ruby on Rails would finally take off.
Execute? [Y/N] _
While the headline sounds scary, when you examine it closer, this isn't really surprising. The ability to copy the passport is not the issue here. The key point of the technology was to have the issuing government digitally sign the information contained in the passport. This means that a forger cannot simply tip-ex out the name and and put in a new one ;-)
The article did not mention if the German passport contains bio-metric data. i.e. a digital copy of the photo.
This combined with a digital signature of the photo would make the system very secure indeed.
The passport inspector simply scans the data and compares the photo to the person standing before him.
I don't see how this "hack" compromises the security of the system, except in cases where the inspecting authority misuses or misunderstands the basis of security in the system.
There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't!
Our money.
Safe from surreptitious cloning? Big deal. You routinely hand over your passport at hotels, etc... while in Europe.
Do you think its hard to snag someones passport?
How about a pickpocket at the airport, they can even turn it in to the lost and found afterwards. Suddenly being John smith isnt that bad now...
and secondly, gee I really wonder if the people at the border are gonna be lazy and not bother to check but simply swipe it.... oh wait they are lazy and will do exactly that!
As for the need to steal a passport right now to do this...wait a week, im sure someone will figure out how to take this one step further.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
After reading this article, the RFID thing isn't nearly as bad as I thought.
1) They aren't eliminating the physical passports. So all the physical protections (watermarking) still apply.
2) They are shielding the passports so they can't be remotely read.
3) You need to send a cryptographic key which makes it even more difficult to read remotely (although I don't understand how this works).
4) They are hard to tamper with because of the hashes (assuming they are good hashes, this is comparable to watermarks).
Having said that, I'm not sure why the RFID thing is even useful. A bar code would be simpler, although no more or less tamper proof. And there are existing machines which can read passports by scanning them and OCRing. They are very reliable since passports use high-quality printed text with the characters in known fonts and positions.
It doesn't give away a lot, it doesn't have to. A passport must be inspectable by anyone so the spec on how to read it must be pretty much public. There is an (optional) electronic signature mechanism, but this predicates an international public key infrastructure. The bank where I work has enough problems getting one of those together, let alone an international organisation. PKI is very hard. Google for references on this.
Key compromise means that all issues documents are then compromised. Can you imagine a country recalling all its passports?
See my journal, I write things there
In order to be "secure" against fakery a passport, or any document should:
1) Have an digital signature of all the data, or at least a signature of a strong one-way hash.
2) Have a means to verify the signature, and that the signer's key hasn't been repudiated.
3) Have a means to verify the hash is legit, i.e. rehash the data on the spot.
4) Have a means to verify the data in question matches the printed version of the document, e.g. a computer screen that shows the digitized picture and the other data that should be on the printed document. A human, or perhaps a computer, can then compare that with the actual document.
Steps 1, 2, and 3 are at the heart of any digitally-signature-validation scheme. Step #4 will detect misuse, as someone using a cloned passport will "look" the same as someone using a stolen-but-legitimate one to the checker.
An alternative, where bandwidth is available, is to have the document-issuing authority validate the document: Upload the document to the authority, and have it send back a "valid" or "not valid" response. This is essentially what happens with credit cards: the name, card #, and expiration date are passed on to the bank or the bank's agent, and the merchant gets back a code saying "card is valid," "card not valid," or one of several other codes such as "card reported stolen/missing."
There are still 2 problems with this approach:
1) The identical twin or look-alike problem.
2) Privacy issues if passport data is compromised.
The twin problem is mitigated by the digitized version of the handwritten signature, a fingerprint, notation of scars, or other items which look-alikes are less likely to share. Privacy issues are in principle no more than they are today with stolen passports, ASSUMING no information that is not on the printed passport finds its way to the embedded electronic data. However, electronic data is much easier to deliver to fraudsters than paper data, and passport theives aren't likely to spend the time typing or scanning in data from a paper passport. The best cure for this is to encrypt the data.
RFID is not required for a secure document. All RFID does is make the data easier to read, which is good for those who want to read the passports without contact them, be they freind or foe. Hmm, maybe someone should invent an RFID tag with an "on" switch.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
An insecure, RFID-driven passport is the perfect thing for making it too dangerous for Americans to travel safely abroad. If an American had one of these in Lebanon, Hezbollah could walk through a public place with a RFID reader and discretely find some good targets of hostage-taking opportunity. It'd be easier for the Chinese police, for example, to track American visitors.
Don't go abroad! Don't see the world except through the lens of CNNABCCBSNBCFOXNPR! That's how the political class wants it. A population that is scared to travel is a population that can't as easily see the world on its own and make its own decisions.
I'm not even an expert in the field, but an RFID tag with an "on" switch seems pretty obvious. Just put the switch between the antenna and the rest of the device. It can be either a traditional on-off switch or a pressure-sensitive "off when not pressed" switch. Imagine an RFID-enabled passport that ONLY broadcasts when someone was holding down the "broadcast" switch.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
>Ah yes, so he could clone someone else's chip, if he can steal their passport, and place it on his own passport.
Except that 2 major stated purposes of RFID in passports is nullified by his actions.
IE:
RFID passports are more secure/no the digital portion can be copied easier than the paper.
RFID passports will speed customs/no the RFID download can't be trusted, without thourgh comparison to the paper.
also Identity theft occurs within families. So if I were 18 year old George W Bush Jr, I snag W Bush Sr's passport, make a copy of the chip, return it. Unless a photo is on the RFID chip, their are only 3 differences in our passports, 1) Age, 2) a additional roman numeral (ie III instead of II) 3) SSN
not to mention their are 3 unrelatead Jim Jones within 5 miles of my house, all within 5 years of age to me, likely at least 2 have the first 3 digits of their SSN the same as me (most SSN's issued in my home state, of simular issue dates started with number in the range of 478 to 480)
So if I were to become a felon on Parol with a travel ban,
1) have my name legaly changed to Jim Jones
2) Break into Jim Jones' houses, cloan digital chip, Jim never knows.
3) I now have 4 passable unique ID's to use anywhere I want, 1 piece of paper, 3 chips to swap.
Unfortunately, we've already seen that governments place a higher importance on the appearence of security rather than actual security. For direct evidence, just look at airport screening.
I'll conceed that x-ray'ing baggage would highlight obvious weapons like knives or guns. However, as we've seen from the likes of Yousef Josef and other terrorists, people can smuggle bomb components on plains using items, such as watches, which would not be picked up by the usual airport screening proceedures. Add to that the ever so effective comparison of the name and date on my boarding pass with the name on whatever casually inspected ID I provide. Please don't even get me started on how rediculous making me take off my shoes is.
If governments were really serious about airport security, they would adapt a model similar to the one used in Israel. Roving groups of heavily armed, well trained commandos that stop "interesting" individuals and select them for additional screening. However, this method would be too inconvienent and intrusive for travelers (Americans).
This is the state of governmental security. To the not very determined to violate it, lay individual, it appears that there is SOME kind of security in place. With a slight bit more investigation, someone with a bit of desire can easily violate it, thereby rendering the "security" utterly useless. But hey, they have to have some way to spend our tax dollars, right?
-Runz