Wireless Keyboard "Encryption" Cracked

squidinkcalligraphy writes "While everyone is going on about wireless network security, it seems few have considered that increasingly common wireless keyboards can be vulnerable to eavesdropping. Particularly when the encryption is pitifully weak. All that's needed is a simple radio receiver, sound card, and a brute-force attack on the 8-bit encryption used. Passwords galore! Bluetooth, it seems, is safe for the moment."

Comments

Why a soundcard !

[iMaple]

Using nothing more than a simple radio receiver, a soundcard and suitable software, Swiss security firm Dreamlab Technologies managed to capture and decode the radio communications between a keyboard and a PC. Why did they need a sound card to crack a wireless keyboard ? Play operatic songs to crack glass keyboards ? or to play "You have been pwned" on blaring speakers after the cracking is over ? On a serious note, they do not need any sound input/output for this, right ?

Re:Why a soundcard !

[WombatDeath]

I doubt they need output, but perhaps the function of the sound card is to capture the input from the radio receiver.

Re:Why a soundcard !

[MrNemesis]

Why didn't they list their graphics cards? Surely you can't have a hacking session with power metal blaring in the background and not have a wall of monitors showing alpha-blended hexagons, otherwise none of the hacks will work...?

I think this paper needs to be peer reviewed by Crash Override.

Re:Why a soundcard !

[thetartanavenger]

A sound card is a cheap alternative to a digital and more importantly, recordable oscilloscope. By plugging the radio into the sound card, it allowed them to record the individual bit's being sent by the device to be analysed using a waveform viewer. If you were using a normal oscilloscope for that purpose the data flashes on the screen so fast it's impossible to be useful in any way, except possibly to read the carrier frequency of the signal, which is something your sound card would probably have alot of trouble doing because they're generally too slow.

Re:Why a soundcard !

[Fordiman]

"Why not just let him continue in his ignorance?"

Well, because the less you share information with the apparently ignorant, the more ignorant society at large is.

If I ask a question, even if it's a dumb one, I desire an answer. As such, I respond to questions I have the answers to. Be the change you want to see in the world, and all.

Re:Why a soundcard !

[Fordiman]

Relax, man. Dude's being an asshat. You're right; it's perfectly logical to assume the use of an integrated USB/PCI/generic radio-to-PCM device for intercepting a radio signal - with one little exception that can be rationalized away as hardware hacking:

Your basic radio-to-PCM device doesn't have a sufficiently flexible tuner to reach below the 85MHz FM lower limit into the depths of 27MHz. An analog FM tuner can be easily hacked to do this, but you'd basically have to rip out the capacitor DAC that a fully digital device would have.

urm

[wwmedia]

wouldn't the hacker have to be you know, under your nose quite literally, to intercept the signals from your keyboard?

Re:urm

[tacet]

not really. the antenna is the best receiver, so hacker equipped with yagi antenna can intercept signals from reasonable distance. /excuse my english

Re:urm

[sqrt(2)]

My wireless logitech keyboard works from the next room over, although a bit unreliably. It's the basic, white, model with no fancy function keys or anything. I don't think they make it anymore.

So you might need to worry about it in say, an office or school environment.

Re:urm

[Ephemeriis]

wouldn't the hacker have to be you know, under your nose quite literally, to intercept the signals from your keyboard?

TFA says they were able to snoop from up to 10 meters away with a "simple radio receiver". That's not too bad. 10 meters could easily put you in a different room, on a different floor, or outside. And that's just with a basic antenna... Put together something more directional and I'm sure you could get more distance. Definitely enough to snoop on someone from the office/apartment next to you.

Re:urm

[thestuckmud]

TFA mentioned the keyboards operate on 27MHz. That's a wavelength of over 11 meters. At about half a wavelength wide, a yagi will not be small.

Others suggested dish antennas. For 27Mhz, no way.

Re:urm

[rycamor]

In our development dept., one guy used a wireless Logitech keyboard to set up his test FreeBSD box, then left the box on for the next couple days without checking (he did log out, though). Next time we looked at it, the screen was covered with login passwords, chat discussions, company memos, etc... We fairly freaked for a minute, then after a bit of quick reconnaissance, discovered that the company's sales director was also using the same keyboard in an office 3 rooms over. So somehow not only did these two keyboards happen to have the same encryption key, but the signal went through 3 walls and 30 ft of space to reach our console. We stopped using wireless anything after that.

Under my desk

[courteaudotbiz]

Hey, I already got problems using my wireless keyboard 5 feet away from its receiver, so the guy trying to spy on me would have to be pretty close, no?

Re:Under my desk

[lhaeh]

That idea came up when this item was posted to Hack A Day The reason for the limited reception range is that receivers use pathetically small, internal antennas: Mine was about 1/32 wavelength. With a full wave antenna or directional antenna, you can easily pick them up from outside a building. After I added a lager (1/4 or 1/8 wave) antenna to my receiver, I could type with my keyboard outside the house.

Re:Under my desk

[chuckymonkey]

Easy there, just because someone reads slashdot does not mean that they have ever been interested understanding radio waves. It was a legitimate question and deserves a legitimate answer. That's called improving the discussion and educating along the way. For all you know this guy could be a master of accounting and if you asked a (to him) basic question about accounting and he responded like you did I don't think that you would be very appreciative. Yes, I see your low UID and I also don't care rude is rude.

Re:Under my desk

[dintech]

A low ID troll is still a troll. The guy (QuantumG) has posted four obnoxious items in this thread already today. What a moron.

Re:Under my desk

[EatHam]

After I added a lager (1/4 or 1/8 wave) antenna to my receiver, I could type with my keyboard outside the house.

After I added a lager to my receiver, I also could type from outside the house, but when I finally went back in, the receiver was belligerent, and insisted on driving the car though it was in no state to do so.

Re:Under my desk

[Big Jason]

You call that low?

Re:Under my desk

[Scootin159]

eh, you probably just bought yours.

Re:Under my desk

[Alsee]

eh, you probably just bought yours.

Wouldn't much matter. Someone who would actually go out and purchase for a low ID for nothing more than the sake of the number warrants comparable Geek Cred as someone who just happened to stumble across Slashdot early enough to snag a low ID. Both methods are Geek-significant in their own way, and both methods are absolutely meaningless in their own way. It's a wash.

-

Gimme a break

[DNS-and-BIND]

OK, instead of broadcasting in the clear, the keyboard gets a little encryption algorithm to prevent anyone from listening in. Some blowhard then takes it upon himself to crack the gradeschool encryption, and trumpets it far and wide as a "security breach". Durrrr...

Anyone concerned about security doesn't use a wireless keyboard....Durrrr

Re:Gimme a break

[scrantaj]

Sadly the unwashed masses on the internet are not concerned about security because they don't understand it. These are the people who fall for phishing mails, don't keep their AV up to date or blindly click ok on every dialog box that pops up on their system ( a response re-inforced by Vista's insistance on user interaction to do anything ). Expecting these people to use a wired keyboard to improve their security is pointless. They use wireless keyboards because they are "cool" or so that they don't have to mess around with all those untidy cables.

Re:Gimme a break

[dsginter]

Anyone concerned about security doesn't use a wireless keyboard....Durrrr

That might seem like a trivial concept to you but I saw a wireless keyboard in use at a doctors office some years ago. When I mentioned to the staff that I didn't want them typing my personal details on that particular keyboard, they looked at me like I was wearing an actual tin foil hat.

Geeks need to realize that geeks aren't the only people who work in IT. Sensationalizing this sort of story hurts nobody and might actually spread awareness.

Re:Gimme a break

[Yvanhoe]

Here in France, 3 years ago, the geek magazine "pirate mag" made fun of French military (Yes we also do that here) because they proudly announced the opening of their new "cyber-warfare strategical center" (or some other shiny words) and the picture that was given to every newspaper were two officers holding wireless keyboards in front of a flat display. The keyboard model was of course a very common one with absolutely no encryption.

Re:Gimme a break

[Bearhouse]

Right. Worse still, I was at the doctor's a while ago when I saw him furiously trying to close lots of Internet Explorer pop-ups.

The conversation went something like this:

Me: You don't have a pop-up blocker then?
Dr: No. What's that?
Me: How about security software, anti virus?
Dr: No. What's that?
Me: How many patient records are stored on that thing?

*sigh*

Re:Gimme a break

[fallen1]

I am the head of IT for a large dental practice and we use wireless keyboards and mice in all of our operatories, at our front desk area, and in a couple of other areas -- because the owners wanted it that way, over my objections. They sign the paychecks so after I made sure they understood my objections, I gave them what they asked for.

It does make it easier to deploy our systems in our operatories because of the distances between the dental chairs and the computer bays. I would need 12 to 18' long cords on keyboards (and mice) and that would be a massive pile of shit to deal with in a hygiene or doctor's operatory due to how our system works. Not just our system, but the majority of dental practices (and I've seen a lot of medical practices setup the same or similar) are arranged the same way. The air space is so great between where the keyboards and mice need to sit and where the computers are located that it would not be practical to run cabled keyboards and mice. Plus, the chances of someone monitoring our wireless keyboards is so slim that I felt the risk was minor. I still do.

On the other hand, I believe the chances of someone trying to get into a wireless network are much greater and even with newer encryptions and firewalling/controlled access I would never allow such a network to be installed in this building. If they tried to push that agenda, I'd have my personal lawyer draw up a contract for the owners to sign absolving me of all responsibility for any break-ins that might happen and guaranteeing me a position with the company after any breach (or a VERY large golden parachute clause so I would have a lot of time to find a new position). That would probably get their attention and shut down the wireless network chatter but, as I said above, I still do not think there is enough of an issue with wireless keyboards to warrant more than a slight increase in watch status.

Of course, a couple of high profile theft of identity/information cases involving wireless keyboards will change my (and everyone else's) mind about that. Natch.

Re:Gimme a break

[arivanov]

US versions operate on 900.

EU versions operate nearly universally on 2.4. I wrote this pissed off coming back from a shop looking for guess what - a keyboard with decent crypto layer. 5 wireless wankoffs, all with an wankoff encryption and all tossing all over the 2.4 band. 1 MSFT, 1 Logitech, 3 Chinese nonames. All 2.4

Re:Gimme a break

[swillden]

BTW, there is a way to use wireless keyboards and have good security. Use bluetooth devices that support long, configurable PINs, and choose PINs that are 12+ digits long, randomly-generated. I believe there are a few devices on the market that use 128-bit PINs, randomly generated on every reassociation, and automatically reassociate when the keyboard is placed on the charging stand. Those seem ideal -- highly secure and very easy to reassociate.

I don't have any specific brands or models to suggest, though, so some research would be required.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Just Mess with the Listener!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I use ^H in my passwords ;)

Re:Just Mess with the Listener!

[Glonoinha]

He uses a sound card as part of the decryption mechanism - use a ^G instead (so he can hear it go 'ding').

Shocked

[MrNemesis]

After reading the analysis of the "encryption", I'm utterly flabbergasted that they've been able to get away with it for so long - this sounds like something that hasn't been cracked purely by laziness, because with only 256 possible combinations you could practically decode it in real time in your head.

Any news on other manufacturers? I'm particularly concerned about Cherry (the only wireless keyboard I own, soon to be replaced with a bluetooth Logitech) for my HTPC.

P.S. for the nay-sayers - yes, I too have endless problems with the range of wireless keyboards but I dare say a proper antennae (as opposed to the tiny ones used in the standard receiver) you could probably get a clear signal from up to 10-15m away (25MHz = ~11.5m wavelength, no? ~5m aerial is easy enough to conceal). That's easily enough to snoop someone's keypresses from outside, even off-property.

As an aside, I'm aware that Bluetooth is an open standard, hence probably peer reviewed, hence probably having an association/encryption method that wasn't dreamt up by a crackhead. Can anyone here speak on its relative resilience in its current form, notwithstanding all of the vulns there've been in shoddy stack implementation?

Re:Shocked

[teh kurisu]

The summary ended sort of ominously, didn't it? "Bluetooth, it seems, is safe for the moment."

I feel relatively safe with my bluetooth Logitech keyboard (which I wouldn't give up for the world), but my worry is that the bluetooth implementation is not necessarily up to scratch. My particular keyboard is designed to be used with the USB dongle that came in the box, and Logitech don't officially support the keyboard's use with other bluetooth devices, which makes me wonder why (although it will work with my Apple laptop's built-in bluetooth receiver for basic functions).

Re:Shocked

[fmobus]

I might (and wantto) be wrong, but all "non-interactive" bluetooth devices I've seen use the same factory-set password, namely "0000". Can anyone explain me why this isn't exploitable?

Re:Shocked

[goofy183]

That is just the pairing code. So if you switched your device into pairing mode anyone could pair with it. The encryption is based on a different, randomly generated, key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth#Security

Re:Shocked

[gabebear]

According to Wikipedia, the best current attack against 128bit keyed BlueTooth takes the first 24bits of 2^23.8 packets. Packets are 2745 bits long so the attacker would have to monitor over 4.66GB of data transfer from your keyboard.

I'll never trust those things

[WibbleOnMars]

Wireless keyboards? Pah, I'll never trust 'em.

A few years ago, the company I was working at decided to upgrade a few favoured individuals with a wireless keyboard/mouse combo. There was no good reason for them to have it, other than looking cool, but they got it anyway.

The first one was installed, and was a great success. The user loved being able to move their keyboard and mouse without, uh, being limited by a cable. They didn't actually move it, but they liked the fact that they could. Or maybe it was the fact that their desk didn't have any wires cluttering it up. Whatever it was, they loved it.

So the second one was installed, on a desk maybe ten metres away from the first.

It was a disaster. The two sets of devices conflicted with each other. Basically, the first one to switch on in the morning got control of both computers. When the second one was turned on, it found the devices on the other desk instead of its own ones, and then anything the first user did was echoed on the second machine as well.

It didn't take the engineering team long to fix the problem -- the two sets of devices were set to the same ID -- but it did nothing to inspire confidence. What that incident tells me is that if I want to hack these devices, all I need is a computer with a compatible receiver with the same ID, and hide it somewhere in range of their desk.

Things may have improved since then, but frankly I don't see the need for these devices to be wireless (especially on a desktop computer); no matter how good they make them, they'll still be an open security hole because the signals will always be available outside of your control.

This applies to any wireless device. But some wireless devices are more useful than others. For example, a mobile phone is a good use of wireless technology because it provides significant usability improvement over a wired phone. But for me a device like a wireless keyboard really doesn't provide enough of an improvement over a wired one to justify the security implications from using it.

Re:I'll never trust those things

[Pascoea]

I was waiting for someone to make the comment about a tinfoil hat, you guys took too long so I have to do it myself.
a wireless keyboard really doesn't provide enough of an improvement over a wired one to justify the security implications from using it.

Come on! There aren't people beating down your doors to find out your password for slashdot! And there are far easier ways to get your financial information. Take the old adage about outrunning a bear, you don't have to run faster then the bear, you just have to run faster then 1 other person. If you go out of your way to make sure your financial information is well protected, shredding your mail, paying attention to where your credit card is used online, chances are you are not going to get your information stolen. Its the dumb person next door that is going to loose his.

If you work in a business environment where you share private information, I think the 10-foot range you get with a STANDARD wireless mouse and keyboard is the least of your problems. What is more likely? That you have a rouge agent in your office that is going to get their keyboard hacked? Or that the dolt sitting behind that computer is going to download that latest and greatest toolbar for IE?

Call me an optimist, but everybody is not out to get you.

While I agree with you, there are a lot of instances where a wireless keyboard/mouse is overkill. It gets annoying having someone call me in to their office first thing in the morning because they can't log into their computer, only to find they haven't replaced their batteries in 6 months.

I do believe there are many instances where they are useful. Just remember, that even though your employees aren't always the smartest people in the world, they are still more productive whey they are happy. If all I have to "risk" is using a wireless keyboard to accomplish that, then I have had a good day. my 2c -Adam

Wireless keyboards have encryption?

[WegianWarrior]

You learn something every day I guess... since my otherwise decent wireless keyboard lose reception from one end of my coach to the other - ie I have to sit on the left side of the coach to use it - I figured that putting in even rudimentarty encryption would be kinda pointless from a security point of view (short range - evesdropper would have to sit in my livingroom). And judging by the article, encryption is empoyed more to associate a keyboard with a reciver thanas a measure of security.

In a high security enviroment I could see the need. Even if the intuitive guess would be that a wired keyboard might be safer, this is not necesarry the case; the unshileded wire used on most keyboards acts an an antenna (see TEMPEST on Wikipedia). I've seen demonstrations where the keystrokes have been picked up by sensitive antennas 50m away thru a normal wall. A highly encrypted wireless keyboard might be safer; I'm not sure if such a product even exists today. A simpler option might be to place the computer and keyboard in a faraday cage...

Re:Wireless keyboards have encryption?

[HouseArrest420]

Even if the intuitive guess would be that a wired keyboard might be safer, this is not necesarry the case; the unshileded wire used on most keyboards acts an an antenna QFT

You're the first response I've read here that has been anti wired (or at least nuetral to both) and for a legit reason!! The rest of these fanboys are shouting about wireless sucks beause its unencrypted, forgetting this small detail which would allow you to "hack" into a wired keyboard at a larger distance.....given of course you have a decent line of site lol.

For ANY security measure, or lack there of, there is ALWAYS a way in. The only issue in gaining access is where you look and how hard you've looked.

No encryption mybe?

[Maavin]

Could be that the "encryption" is just a way to handle multiple keyboards in one reception range...

Re:Why?

[will_die]

Primary purpose of the encryption is to make sure that you are getting the input from another device. Not sure I would even call it encryption more like channel selection.

Bluetooth safe?

[SharpFang]

Yeah, right.

Bluebag Project can crack any bluetooth device in some 6 hours. The current form of it has a potential to increase the speed 8 times (currently it uses 8 dongles to scan possible 64 channels in paralell. If you use 64 bluetooth dongles to scan one channel each, you gain a lot of speed).

This was only for select Microsoft Keyboards

[DeadChobi]

The crack described in the article was only for select models of Microsoft keyboards. It doesn't affect every single keyboard in existence, especially since there is no standard. Other manufacturers may use more powerful encryption than Microsoft.

The Slashdot article is very misleading.