Slashdot Mirror


Cracking a Crypto Hard Drive Case

juct writes "A label on the box reading 'AES' does not ensure that your data are protected. heise examined a hard drive enclosure with an RFID key that is typical of many similar products. They found that the 128-bit AES hardware encryption claimed in advertisements was in fact a simple XOR encryption that they were able to break easily with a known plaintext attack." The manufacturer of the drive examined has announced that the product is being retooled and will be reintroduced later this year, presumably with actual AES encryption.

16 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. How about a software solution? by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Would something like TrueCrypt, where you can easily look at the source, be a better solution? At the very least, it could avoid problems like these.

    1. Re:How about a software solution? by davmoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's another disadvantage to hardware encryption like this product, even if it worked correctly, and why I also favor something like TrueCrypt (which is infact what I use) even if it might make a bit more work for the computer. The maker says "this is our special chip, and here's the source for our firmware for you to inspect"...now, how do you *know* that's really the firmware that's on that chip? Very few of us are in a position where we could take that source and make our own chip. In a situation where I want to be assured of security, I'm going to not only use TrueCrypt, I'm going to compile it myself.

      --
      I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    2. Re:How about a software solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm going to not only use TrueCrypt, I'm going to compile it myself.

      That won't help you. You need to read Reflections of Trusting Trust by Ken Thompson: http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html

    3. Re:How about a software solution? by Workaphobia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know what's in the book the AC above recommended, but it's true, compiling TrueCrypt yourself adds no security over accepting a binary from the official website (I'd assume it's them you'd be getting builds from, since it is in fact a windows program). If you're paranoid enough to not trust the developers, then you're paranoid enough to require hiring a trusted party to basically recreate the software for you.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    4. Re:How about a software solution? by pla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Call me back when they have released something based on version 5.0 that "works" with Linux.

      Why would they bother, except as a sort of read-only compatibility mode to recover Windows volumes?

      Under Linux, you already have stable loopback device support. You can literally encrypt (or compress, or snoop, or whatever filter you can think of applying to block-device traffic) anything, without needing another tool to do it.

  2. Re:So what happens... by kcbanner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think this is actually true in some cases. I once worked on some 2.4ghz radios from a certain vendor, and if you forgot the admin password you could expose them to the net and they could "unlock" them (YIKESOMG). They also had a version where you gave them the MAC of the radio and they gave you a special "unlock" password over the phone. Yea. It wasn't even random either, it was an english word iirc. The world of proprietary network gear = ugh. I prefer building them myself using Soekris or similar.

    --
    Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
  3. Re:XOR encryption can be good by RupW · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Stream Ciphers also use XOR, but are much more convenient to use and could very easily be used to encrypt a hard drive. The problem is that very few stream ciphers allow you to quickly seek to an arbitrary point in the stream - so unless you just want to read the entire drive sequentially you're SOL.

    The only exception I've read about is SEAL but IIRC that's still patented by IBM.

  4. This is nothing new by SchizoDuckie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, this is nothing new. A couple of months ago the dutch colleagues at tweakers.net had a couple of great reports on how crappy the 'fingerprint security' USB drives are. Most of them are ont he same level of crappyness this one is.

    --
    Quack damn you!
  5. Re:So what happens... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    laugh it up fuzzball...

    er wait, sorry. well some companies REALLY do rely on copyright for security. An example is the ASSA key and lock company. They make some really nice keys, but what makes them hard to copy? Copyrights on the "code" represented by the teeth on the keys.

    This is totally different than a patent on a real cool key, it's a copyright on the "data" that essentially is the serial number for sales account, dealer, region, and country.

    Their whole selling point is that no one can copy a key if it's copyrighted. I mean, shit...it worked for other industries... (:

  6. The good thing about crypto in a hard drive case by kasperd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The good thing about having the crypto performed in the enclosure is, that you can perform this kind of analysis. Had the same "encryption" been implemented directly on the disk or in a usb stick, it might not have been noticed, that it was so weak. My take on this is to never trust the crypto performed by such an enclosure unless there is a software implementation doing the exact same thing, and that one has been carefully inspected. The point of doing the encryption in hardware is performance, it does not add any additional security.

    --

    Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  7. Re:Criminal prosecution? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Hardware crypto, such that key authentication/management is done without any computer interaction, means I don't have to worry about the security of the machine I'm using and it means I can use secure storage on a locked down box that does not allow software to be installed.

    If you want truly encrypted files and disks, don't rely on cheap external enclosures. TrueCrypt is not hard to use and offers a decent level of protection People want portable hardware solutions.
    Stop suggesting software and give us viable (ie secure) hardware alternatives.
    What are the not-so-cheap external enclosures?
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  8. Linux AES better or not? by lintux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have an AES-encrypted ext3 partition on some portable drive somewhere (using the encrypted loopback device) and I once had the impression that it has the same problem, just XORing every sector with the same 512-bit key. Am I the onlt one? I don't have the drive here right now to check it out, unfortunately..

  9. WTF? by EddyPearson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why havn't they been charged with fraud and false advertising.

    If I sell you a padlock, claiming that its made of steel, when actually its made of a Silly Putty and rubber bands, then I'm going have my day in court. Why Tech vendors seem TOTALLY immune to this kind of prosecution.

    Puts me in mind of SecuLock (was that the name?), they were featured here a while back, they make "secure" USB memory sticks, they claimed AES encryption, killswitches and other bells and whistles, but if you were to have a quick look at one of the DLL's exports, you can see a an Unlock routine. You see, the user's password wasn't used as a key, Oh no, they had one global key and a simple IF to check the passwords.

    Though this is much, much worse, it beggars the question; how can we berate employees for losing disks and laptops, when the vendors are happy to look us in the eye and lie to us, about standards that I was able to implement when I was about 16.

    It's either government interferance (remember, the USA's law forcing vendors to embed backdoors for them), or its just plain lazy, either way, it's got to stop.

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  10. Re:Criminal prosecution? by xSauronx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    (forget Windows crypto, it's littered with backdoors unless configured JUST right, which is not an easy task and definitely not default). care to cite a source? i know a couple of people who would vehemently argue that windows crypto is very secure indeed and would be interested to read more about it.

    --
    By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
  11. Freecom equally bad by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Trust is a precious resource that you must cultivate; it's not a boomerang. Never risk throwing it away.


    Agreed. This is exactly what freecom did when they sold me a usb bluetooth adaptor with an antenna. I dropped it one day, and the little case popped open. OK, that happens; no big deal. What WAS a big deal though, was the antenna -- it was simply a bit of plastic, swinging from a hole in the case. There were no wires attached to this, nothing else near it that even suggested it might have accidentally been shipped with a "placeholder" or something like that. It was simple, unadultered fraud. The antenna might as well have been made by Tomy, which is a shame, as otherwise, it worked fine, and the antenna probably was unnecessary after all (I bought that model FOR it's antenna figuring it wouldn't hurt, and might help).

    What do freecom gain from this? Something like $5, I'd guess, after the store etc. take their cuts.

    What do they lose? Me, as a an IT industry purchaser, ever buying their products again. Me telling other IT people on slashdot what I think of Freecom.

    What could they have done instead, to compete with manufacturer X's? "We're confident in our product's reception/transmission, and have no need for gimmicks like the antennas manufacturer X uses." I probably would have bought a lot more of their stuff after that.

    Dumbasses.
  12. Jump the train! Get into IT-Sec! by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, welcome to the new world of IT. Now it's official that we got the first fake products that the time has come, IT security has become an issue.

    How do you know? Well, companies finally realize that yes, we want some sort of security. They usually have no idea about it (how should they, their administrators are usually some goons hired from the street who know how to use a mouse, what makes them administrators is that they know that TCP/IP ain't the Chinese secret service. MAYBE they can build a VPN tunnel). But encryption?

    You know what the brass level says in this case: "Ain't there some product we can buy?" And in comes stuff like this. Stuff that promises security. Nobody can verify it (in the average company), but their admin might even have heard of AES, knows it's decent and thus buys the product. Why? Hey, it says "AES encryption" on the box!

    We'll see a lot more products like this in the near future. Then, in about 2 years, companies will realize that they will have to spend money on people to get real security. It's just like it was with the advent of networking and later when "the internet" came into companies. First, they tried to buy products (which were just as shoddy as this one, promising "easy installation" wonders only to work ... well, sometimes), later they hired some sort of goons who could credibly talk the average HR guy under the desk in IT babble, and a few went on and hired real IT people.

    It will be the same with security. Today you have the "buying the wonders" phase. Give it two years and companies will start to train or hire security people. Yes, many will stick with the goons with better fast-talking skills than IT skills, but some will go for good security people.

    So, personally, I'd start digging into that sector. We'll see more of that soon.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.