Slashdot Mirror


Encryption Cracked On NIST-Certified Flash Drives

An anonymous reader writes "USB Flash drives with hardware based AES 256-bit encryption manufactured by Kingston, SanDisk and Verbatim have reportedly been cracked by security firm SySS. These drives are advertised to meet security standards suitable for use with sensitive US Government data (unclassified, of course) as emphasized by the FIPS 140-2 Level 2 certificate issued by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It looks likes the Windows-based password entry program always sends the same character string to the drive after performing various crypto operations."

6 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Shouldn't trust the host computer AT ALL by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't believe why any portable secure drive needs to or should trust its host computer. This is a particularly stupid implementation, with an obvious and blatant exploit. But the host computer could by definition be compromised, and could intercept or store / cache or misbehave generically with the password you enter to get in.

    Put a thumb-key sized numeric or hex keypad on the device, and make the owner punch in the code on insertion into a host device. One could still physically break into and tap the keys somehow, if the device is stolen and then returned without the owner knowing, but the user interface moves to right next to the data...

  2. Re:Truecrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    What I got from the article was the following scenario:
    1. Drive asks for a password
    2. User enters a password
    3a. The password is incorrect -> "DO NOT OPEN" message is sent to the drive
    3b. The password is correct -> "OPEN" message is sent to the drive
    4. User gains access to the drive

    The "crackers" simply bypassed steps 1 and 2 and went straight to 3b. You'd of course have to be a complete idiot to design an authenticating mechanism in this manner. TrueCrypt does not share this design.

  3. Re:Truecrypt by von_rick · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you were to check the flash drives partitioning, you'll see that it has two separate partitions. The section with encryption program is on the primary partition of the flash drive. When the program executes, you get access to the other partition.

    Now I've mounted those drives under Linux by bypassing the login process. Instead of mounting sdc1 (assuming sdc is your encrypted flash drive), you mount sdc2. What I've learnt is that the drive isn't encrypted at all - nor password protected. If you can find a way to format the first partition, you pretty much kill the password protection that comes with the flash drive. The "protected" partition just becomes the default partition when the primary one is unavailable.

    TrueCrypt or any other data encryption method is the right way to actually secure your data

    --

    Face your daemons!

  4. Re:It's not just the algorithm by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only? It's *mainly* defects in the rest of the system that tend to bring things down.

    Algorithms, once they get to the point where the experts trust them, are very seldom broken in the everything-laid-completely-bare way that faulty system design gets you. It's usually more like "could be broken with a week of supercomputing time ten years from now" or "can calculate a hash collision for certain specially constructed messages" variety of crack.

    Of course once you get to that point, you have to assume that some really bright people will find a way to generalize the fault in the algorithm. If they'd broken AES, or even found an unexpected weakness in it, that'd be *huge* news. Instead, what they've found appears to be a classic case of plain old brain damaged design.

    If the article is to be believed, the researchers found a really, really stupid flaw, the kind a non-expert like I could understand and probably exploit with not much effort. I would paraphrase this way: all these drives *effectively* have exactly the same key, but that fact is obscured by the software.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Re:Article title misleading... by maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least they used an industry standard for the key.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  6. Re:IronKey? by IronKey+Dave · · Score: 5, Informative

    IronKey D200 and S200 models are validated to the much more demanding FIPS 140-2 Level 3. The products that are the subject of this hack are validated to Level 2. They are all in fact manufactured by SanDisk. Previous authors are correct, their architecture has serious design flaws. They are relying on the host PC to do password verification, and essentially using a static code to tell the device to unlock. Basically it's a back door to all of those affected SanDisk, Kingston and Verbatim devices. I will be posting an FAQ later today on the https://www.ironkey.com/ website describing the flaws and how IronKey's architecture does not have these issues. IronKey validates all passwords in hardware. We have password replay prevention and encrypted USB command channels. We also use a hash of the password to decrypt the data AES key, so it's cryptographically impossible to unlock an IronKey without the password. Finally, IronKeys store encryption keys and brute force counters in a hardened CryptoChip. The SanDisk, Kingston and Verbatim products store them in Flash memory, which isn't even part of their FIPS 140-2 security policy. Dave