Slashdot Mirror


4G and CDMA Reportedly Hacked At DEFCON

An anonymous reader writes "At the DEFCON 19 hacking conference it seems that a full man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack was successfully launched against all 4G and CDMA transmissions in and around the venue, the Rio Hotel in Las Vegas. This MITM attack enabled hackers to gain permanent kernel-level root access in some Android and PC devices using a rootkit, and non-persistent user space access in others. In both cases, whoever launched this attack on CDMA and 4G devices was able to steal data and monitor conversations. For now the only evidence that such an attack occurred is a Full Disclosure mailing list post, but in the next few hours and days, depending on the response from cellular carriers, we should know whether it's real or not."

139 comments

  1. And that ladies is geeks... by The+Pirou · · Score: 0

    And that ladies is geeks...Is why you only gamble at Harrah's!

    1. Re:And that ladies is geeks... by San-LC · · Score: 1

      And that ladies is geeks...Is why you only gamble at Harrah's!

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but Caesar's Entertainment owns both Harrah's and the Rio. Hope your Faraday cage fits ar the Blackjack table.

    2. Re:And that ladies is geeks... by The+Pirou · · Score: 0

      Thanks, but I could have looked at the back of my Total Rewards Card if I forgot. This was a joke about getting points on that very same card through the same hotel chain while being in a different physical location than where a notorious security convention is going down. Sorry to burst your bubble.

    3. Re:And that ladies is geeks... by Sancho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For what it's worth, I still can't parse what your original post said, nor do I get the joke even after explanation.

    4. Re:And that ladies is geeks... by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      DEFCON is at one casino, so this guy was like, "hurr you should go to a different casino if you are joe sixpack otherwise these hackers will get you." (no disrespect, I'm sure the OP was being comical)

  2. I want to call bullshit... by jampola · · Score: 0

    ...but something is telling me shit just got real. Wowzers, see what happens when nerdlingers all congregate in one place!?!?

    1. Re:I want to call bullshit... by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 1

      No, it is bullshit.

      If this were true someone would have posted captured conversations or some sort of proof. Why just make the claim without any evidence to back it up?

      This is just a sad attempt at instilling fear.

      No proof, no hack.

    2. Re:I want to call bullshit... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone that truly has zero clue.

      Man can make it, man can break it, it's just that simple.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:I want to call bullshit... by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      And this is what is wrong with people.. no proof no hack.. talk about a false sense of security..

      There are various kinds of hackers.. those who do it for fun and bragging rights, and those who do it for nefarious purposes..

      Those who do it for nefarious purposes.. generally do not brag, and go all out trying to hide what they did, otherwise the methods they use tend to get closed rather quickly.

      It should be noted that this particular attack (base station impersonation) was actually demo'd and performed last year during blackhat and defcon.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    4. Re:I want to call bullshit... by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 1

      My first defcon was defcon 3.

      No proof, no hack.

    5. Re:I want to call bullshit... by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 1
    6. Re:I want to call bullshit... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Keep it secret, pwn everyone quietly.

      First rule of hacking - you don't say shit.

      DEFCON is for poseurs.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:I want to call bullshit... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      It should be noted that this particular attack (base station impersonation) was actually demo'd and performed last year during blackhat and defcon.

      I highlighted the important part that you should have been paying attention to.

  3. And they said I was crazy by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Funny

    for sticking with my RAZR! BWAHAHAHAH...

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:And they said I was crazy by jon3k · · Score: 2

      That's the same reason I don't use a computer. And those "security experts" called me a luddite! Ha! Jokes on them!

    2. Re:And they said I was crazy by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

      Me too, but not because I like the Razr. There is a stack of defective ones on my dresser. My wife's Razr looks like it has gone through a war zone (she doesn't regularly kill them like I do).

      The cost of data plans and silly 2 year contracts is keeping us away. Waiting for a prepaid App-phone that I like on a prepaid plan less than $30 a month for each phone. Where getting close....

    3. Re:And they said I was crazy by plover · · Score: 1

      for sticking with my RAZR! BWAHAHAHAH...

      Psht. Last year a guy at DEFCON demoed a fully functional GSM MITM. That meant he is certainly capable of hijacking your puny RAZR's voice calls.

      --
      John
    4. Re:And they said I was crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mis-spelled it, surely you meant a razor was secure, NOT a RAZR! Once it leaves your computer or phone, via wire or RF, nothing is secure!

    5. Re:And they said I was crazy by ibpooks · · Score: 1

      Waiting for a prepaid App-phone that I like on a prepaid plan less than $30 a month for each phone.

      LG Optimus or Samsung Intercept on Virgin Mobile is $25/mo. with no contract. Not bad at all.

    6. Re:And they said I was crazy by antdude · · Score: 1

      Yep, they still work for my queen ant and me. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  4. Can you hear me now!? by LinuxGeek · · Score: 1

    This will be interesting if it is true. Maybe this will delay the rollout of smartphones to combat soldiers...

    --

    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Can you hear me now!? by pnewhook · · Score: 2

      That's why I use a blackberry. Secure encrypted communication..

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    2. Re:Can you hear me now!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What good is encryption when they just hand it over to the government:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/08/london-riots-blackberry-messenger-looting

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-30/rim-averts-india-blackberry-ban-as-government-tests-security-modification.html

      At least the hack above requires them to do something...

    3. Re:Can you hear me now!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, Funny.

    4. Re:Can you hear me now!? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      It probably will have no affect what-so-ever. Why? Well you probably don't remember, but when the story about using smartphones for soldier to soldier communication came out, I said that the final version would no doubt use a portable military infrastructure for radios and towers. I got a rash of shit from people who a) thought I was right and were convinced the military would be wasting money, or b) thought I was wrong. The general argument went: "every nation on Earth has a cellular infrastructure in place, why not just use that?"

      This is why.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    5. Re:Can you hear me now!? by b0bby · · Score: 2

      What good is encryption when they just hand it over to the government:

      Well, the fact that it's still encrypted? FTA you linked:

      "RIM can be legally ordered to hand over details to police of users suspected of unlawful activity. However, the Canadian company would be likely to resist those demands and the content of users' inflammatory messages would be encrypted. The manufacturer has previously insisted that even it cannot unscramble users' messages when sent on the devices."

      If you're using your phone provider's BB Server, then they have access to your messages, but that's not RIM. If you're using your own server then the messages are fully encrypted and no third party should have access. It's my understanding that in India the government has access within the country; I'm not sure if they just block your access to your server and force you to use theirs.

    6. Re:Can you hear me now!? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      What good is encryption when they just hand it over to the government:

      What, without my BES server's AES-256 key? Good luck with that.

    7. Re:Can you hear me now!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you combat a soldier with a phone?

    8. Re:Can you hear me now!? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      The blackberry story looks like so much bullshit. How many people own blackberry devices compared to other kinds of phones. I imagine most rioters if they communicated at all would have done so through sms, twitter and so on.

    9. Re:Can you hear me now!? by plover · · Score: 1

      With a Cell Phone Cannon, of course.

      --
      John
    10. Re:Can you hear me now!? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      "every nation on Earth has a cellular infrastructure in place, why not just use that?"

      Because you can be traced/tracked by those outside the battlefield, basically making it an intelligence coo.

    11. Re:Can you hear me now!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are sure there isn't a network command to dump the phone memory with the 256 bit key?

    12. Re:Can you hear me now!? by Spad · · Score: 1

      A lot more than you'd expect; estimates put it at almost 40% of teenagers in the UK who have a Blackberry, mostly for the BBM functionality.

    13. Re:Can you hear me now!? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      The blackberry is the ONLY smartphone that is secure, which is why companies love them and RIM will always have a market share for corporations, ones that care about security anyway.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    14. Re:Can you hear me now!? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I believe the word you're looking for is "coup".

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    15. Re:Can you hear me now!? by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure the GP poster was suggesting that enemy intelligence forces communicate with bird calls. "Coo coo!"

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    16. Re:Can you hear me now!? by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      You are of course correct.

      The fact you've bothered to correct a post which took about three seconds to create, while still fully comprehensible, IMOHO, is the greater travesty.

      Seriously, look at my posts. I long gave up on caring about typos and spelling errors on /. posts. Most people on /. are beneath contempt. As such, my posts tend to reflect this fact. Basically it boils down to, I don't give a shit for 99% of my posts.

    17. Re:Can you hear me now!? by wolrahnaes · · Score: 2

      That's why I use a VPN and/or SSL encrypted connections on my Android and iPhone. Secure encrypted communication, and I'm not stuck dealing with an e-mail device that's been bodged in to trying to be a smartphone which pointlessly runs everything through RIM's servers. How many times has a server outage disabled functionality on every Blackberry again?

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    18. Re:Can you hear me now!? by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      That's why I use a blackberry. Secure encrypted communication..

      Predictably, this snark generated a whoosh, touching off a flame war.

    19. Re:Can you hear me now!? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I suppose there could be. Are you sure there isnt some network command that will cause your PC to start listening on port 22 for assembly instructions to execute?

      Just asking the question doesnt make it a significant concern.

    20. Re:Can you hear me now!? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Why would that matter, if they can get to the other host that you are communicating with? (ie, your cell phone companies BES server) Kind of like saying SSH is secure, when the bad guy is running as root on the other end :)

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    21. Re:Can you hear me now!? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Here's your whoosh.

    22. Re:Can you hear me now!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, look at my posts. I long gave up on caring about typos and spelling errors on /. posts. Most people on /. are beneath contempt. As such, my posts tend to reflect this fact. Basically it boils down to, I don't give a shit for 99% of my posts.

      You realize this makes you a contemptible blowhard like all the rest, right?

    23. Re:Can you hear me now!? by charlesj68 · · Score: 1

      "every nation on Earth has a cellular infrastructure in place, why not just use that?"

      Because you can be traced/tracked by those outside the battlefield, basically making it an intelligence coo.

      And then, God help us when the pigeon Air Force attacks ...

    24. Re:Can you hear me now!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you can be traced/tracked by those outside the battlefield, basically making it an intelligence coo.

      That's coup...just saying

    25. Re:Can you hear me now!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      coo? What is coo?

    26. Re:Can you hear me now!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not uncommon to go to great lengths to excuse your weaknesses. But no. Truly. Your spelling is a conscientious act of rebellion. We're with you.

    27. Re:Can you hear me now!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you can be traced/tracked by those outside the battlefield, basically making it an intelligence coup

      .

      There, FTFY.

    28. Re:Can you hear me now!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess someone saw themselves in the mirror and decided to lash out. Thanks for proving my point.

  5. PMITA Prison time soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone better hope they get a lenient sentence instead of getting some time in pound me in the ass prison.

  6. Relation between MITM and rootkit by Bromskloss · · Score: 3, Informative

    Achieving MITM status is a very different thing from installing a rootkit, in my mind. The summary left out how the two could be connected but the article mention something about it:

    Coderman’s report suggests that, like Wi-Fi MITM, which regularly harasses surfers at DEF CONs and other hacker conventions, the attackers were able to inject custom packets into the 4G and CDMA data stream. These forged packets allowed the attackers to create on-screen prompts that, if clicked, installed a rootkit on the PC or Android device.

    So, to install the rootkit, you also need to exploit a bug in the user. Where do I file the bug report?

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    1. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 2

      So, to install the rootkit, you also need to exploit a bug in the user. Where do I file the bug report?

      Well, the bug is that the on-screen prompt occurred at all. That's the part needs to be stopped. Surely, no one would consciously run the rootkit, but I can see the case where the prompt accidentally gets clicked if it pops up during another high-click-count application.

    2. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I believe you have to fill out form AK-47 or M-16, and file it with the appropriate user.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Or just a simple button on the screen that get's pushed by a pocket dialer.

      I've accidentally put my phone in my pocket only to pull it out later and I was one click away from sending my friend a text full of gibberish.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, to install the rootkit, you also need to exploit a bug in the user. Where do I file the bug report?

      Slashdot, via ExtremeTech.

    5. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      depends what the on-screen prompt says. I really doubt it'll say "click here to install virus".

    6. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      So, to install the rootkit, you also need to exploit a bug in the user. Where do I file the bug report?

      With nature. The bug is already fixed in some new generations of humans, but unfortunately the widespread deployment of the old version and it's tenacity, combined with the fact that most people have updates turned off, prevents a rapid fix of the problem.

      However, a long-term plan is currently in effect. A few more earthquakes and hurricanes should do the trick.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    7. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by shugah · · Score: 1

      Button labelled "p0rn"

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    8. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      And we all know how end users love to click on stuff... this is exactly how the existing Android rootkits have been getting installed.

    9. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by jesseck · · Score: 2

      To make it simple, how about "Network busy: error code 2343" with an "OK" button. In an urban environment, it wouldn't be hard to fathom the network was busy. My Sprint service does that occasionally when I place phone calls, and I have to click "OK" to terminate the call. The MITM attack could cause the appearance of network problems, with the "forced" installation of accepting there were problems, so try again. Who doesn't click "OK" when the network tells them it is busy and to try again later? Of course, now that I think about it, maybe I shouldn't....

    10. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Well, the bug is that the on-screen prompt occurred at all. That's the part needs to be stopped.

      This can be done in plaintext open wifi connections to laptops. You request www.google.com, i send you www.InfectMeWithARootkit.com, which requests permission to download and run executable code. If you agree, you will be rootkitted.

      Or on a blackberry, you send a link to a malicious .jad file, and it asks if you want to download, and later run, the content.

    11. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The injected rootkits were specific to different android builds and phones. On some no prompt was needed, on others if a prompt was accepted we saw the phones get completely destroyed by the rootkits or have the microphones turned on. The WiMax in particular discussion is not LTE, but it is likely that LTE was compromised as well because the hardware required to MiTM WiMax would be software defined radio systems which could just as easily be programmed for 4G as 4G LTE emulation. No upgrades or installs or prompts were required for rooting, it was a progressive system of attacks whereby low-hanging fruit was plucked first, and later the horrific 0days came out to play.

    12. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, to install the rootkit, you also need to exploit a bug in the user. Where do I file the bug report?

      The user is the biggest vulnerability. It's called the Dancing Pigs problem and it's extremely difficult to protect. In fact, popping up additional dialogs hurt security because of it (that Android permissions screen? Utterly useless - even if you make it so they have to check off every item then hit install).

      Hell, the age of the Honor System Virus is actually around. Facebook viruses and spam and such often rely on such odd techniques as well (click here and here and here, paste this URL, etc...).

      A simple popup like "Low battery" might be easily dismissed by anyone and no one is the wiser.

    13. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Could be that what we see as a bug was originally intended as a feature, used by the carriers to prompt the handset user about something.

      I would that the security-thru-obscurity mentality is still rampant in telcos and related organizations to this day, even tho AT&T and others got bitten by leaving open modems behind unlisted numbers on their switches.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    14. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by dissy · · Score: 1

      So, to install the rootkit, you also need to exploit a bug in the user.

      The user is no doubt the best thing to exploit, as it is the weakest link in the chain.

      But you are assuming there are no exploits (Which there are, some Android phones installed the app with no prompt)

      You also assume the Over-the-Air updates are signed somehow.

    15. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've accidentally put my phone in my pocket only to pull it out later and I was one click away from sending my friend a text full of penis

      FTFY

    16. Re:Relation between MITM and rootkit by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      there's only 1 way to be safe, put the phone down and stick to stiff paper letters. sealed with wax stamped with a high-intricacy authentication symbol, delivered by armed guards.

  7. Define "4G" by russlar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which "4G" technology are we talking? WiMAX? LTE? AT&T&Tmobile's HSPA cranked up to 11?

    --
    Anybody want my mod points?
    1. Re:Define "4G" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft 4G, obviously

    2. Re:Define "4G" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we can safely assume that this Coderman person is lying. If he did what he says he did he would know that 4G means nothing, and instead specified the actual RAN standard.

    3. Re:Define "4G" by bunnyman · · Score: 1
      From: coderman <coderman () gmail com>

      Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:17:25 -0700

      802.16/ClearWire/Sprint4G

      did not have LTE to test with.

    4. Re:Define "4G" by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      WiMAX, LTE, and AT&T&Tmobile's HSPA do not meet the speed requirements of 4G.

      4G was supposed to be ultra-highspeed* wireless, based on the next Generation of hardware
      In the meantime, telcos were all rolling out stuff that could best be described as 3.5G or 3.75G, but were advertising it as 4G.

      The standards committee caved and now, for all intents and purposes, 3.5/3.75G is the new 4G and,
      because marketing droids can't help themselves, true 4G will be called 4.5G or 5G.
      WiMAX-advanced and LTE-advanced will be considered 'real' 4G when they come out.

      *100 Mbit/s mobile and 1 Gbit/s stationary or pedestrian speeds

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  8. First lesson of hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing is secure.

  9. Good to know by Phaeilo · · Score: 1

    that I'm not alone out there ;)

    1. Re:Good to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, me too. I figure my phone is a phone, and I like that I have a phone that was the zenith of 'make the phone smaller.' Now its a race to get the screens larger and finding a small flip phone is damn hard.

  10. Re: by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

    I was thinking the same thing. Kinda ties in with the previous /. story about Why The US Will Lose a Cyber War.

    It's tempting to deploy every new gadget that looks useful, but the military (rather, the gov't in general) has a spotty record in new-tech security.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  11. le sigh by TheBeardIsRed · · Score: 2

    Let me take a moment to point out that using the wifi or atms at the hotel as well as making software updates during DEF CON all are squarely in the category of "babytown frolics".

    1. Re:le sigh by DrgnDancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My technology plan for BlackHat:

      1) Put phone on airplane mode
      2) Once a day, drive to the middle of the desert to check e-mail/voice mail/text messages.
      3) Put phone back on airplane mode.
      4) Hope some enterprising asshole hasn't put up some crap in the middle of the desert.

      Probably a little over paranoid, but not much. In reality I'd probably be a bit less paranoid than that, but I'd definitely move a few hotels down to do anything more serious than checking text messages.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    2. Re:le sigh by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      I suggest learning where the power button is, then take out the battery and sim card ;)

    3. Re:le sigh by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      "Probably a little over paranoid, but not much. In reality I'd probably be a bit less paranoid than that, but I'd definitely move a few hotels down to do anything more serious than checking text messages."

      actually given that this is DEFCON we are talking about you might be just being "safe" given the mix of TLAs and "interested parties" you might be on to something.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    4. Re:le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, there was some DEFCON (or something similar) project which increased the range of WLAN to a few km using a passive antenna in one end. You better make sure you're at least a few dozen km into the desert to be safe (assuming you aren't afraid of satellites).

    5. Re:le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Put phone on airplane mode

      That's not enough.

      Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.

      Pro-tip: Remove the battery.

  12. Don't take electronics, maybe? by Beardydog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why in god's name would anyone be willing to go to that with electronics? For god's sake, just take a pad and pencil! Even if you manage not to become part of a hilarious proof-of-concept hack to startle the audience into realizing how easy it is to X and Y someone's Z by forging an A with a malformed B, and avoid being targeted by some Russian mobster who's thrown out a dragnet for data on -other- people's new techniques ( and sure, credit card numbers and personal info, as long as were in there already, the place is still probably surrounded by black vans full of studious FBI, NSA, DHS, and CIA ( east AND west ) agents, all trying to hack, monitor, and watchlist you on completely separate orders and agendas. It's got to be just... a shitstorm. Am I wrong?

    1. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they hacked pads and pencils LAST year, duh.

    2. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Two types of people take electronics (near) there:

      1. Those who don't know
      2. Those who have honeypots running on their smartphones to collect all the wonderful exploits that others have developed.

    3. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Or just disable your data ports and adapters (ethernet, bluetooth, wifi), and your usb ports. Good luck hacking that; I dont care if youre an NSA agent with Charles Babbage as a lifeline, I doubt you have a hack that can exploit an unpowered wifi adapter.

    4. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Why in god's name would anyone be willing to go to that with electronics?

      Or stick that device in flight mode

    5. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in my experience, those vans are white.

    6. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by ftobin · · Score: 1

      Consider attacks involving remove screen capturing and remote keystroke-capturing technology.

      I wouldn't want to be viewing or enter any privileged data at such a conference. Simply typing a passphrase could expose you.

    7. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Why in god's name would anyone be willing to go to that with electronics?

      Sometimes playing the game is more fun than perfect security. Plus, people can get ahold of you still, so you might actually get invited to parties and such.

      It would be bad form to permanently destroy the phone via an exploit, and I'm sure most attendees know how to wipe their phones blank when they get home.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by sempernoctis · · Score: 1

      You need to adjust your tin foil hat. I took my droid, my tablet, and my laptop, and there really isn't that much to worry about if you follow basic security practices, like not sending any plaintext passwords, closing any ports or services you don't need, and not doing financial transactions or other very confidential things there. And I'm sure the assorted 3-letter agencies already know all about anyone they are interested in.

    9. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Consider attacks involving remove screen capturing and remote keystroke-capturing technology.

      I wouldn't want to be viewing or enter any privileged data at such a conference. Simply typing a passphrase could expose you.

      Such attacks are academic at best. Up there with "able to read deleted data unless you overwrite it at least a dozen times". And then you posit performing such an attack during a tech convention? I'd be more worried about contracting the hantavirus from rat shit in the hotel walls.

    10. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hilarious thing was that no-one was really safe at Defcon. Even the POS terminals ended up hacked (hope everyone payed for liquor with cash!). Harrah's ended up connecting the CTF network to their INTERNAL network. Was especially funny when they found the lighting controllers still used default passwords. Siemens is a joke of an outsource company.

    11. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      What, exactly, am i logging into without wireless? Why would I care about keystroke capturing if I have no connectivity? Why am I opening Top Secret documents @ DEFCON?

      Seems to me I would be listening to music and taking notes.

    12. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by russotto · · Score: 1

      and not doing financial transactions or other very confidential things there

      I went to DefCon, logged into my bank, logged out, logged in from a different machine, took out the max advance on all my credit cards, transferred the money into a series of other accounts, then withdrew those as gambling chips, had a lot of fun gambling it all away, then claimed I got hacked.

    13. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by ftobin · · Score: 1

      You might be using the same passphrase to unlock your device as your email account. Or even if it's not the exact same passphrase, it could provide knowledge on your passphrase methodology, which, combined with other data, would reduce the amount of entropy in your secret.

      If the loss of your secret would not in any way assist an attack on another vector, sure, you might be fine. But people are human and can only manage so much.

      Also, you wouldn't even need to be opening "top secret" documents. If your device has information on you that could grant access through a lost-passphrase "security question" on a website, you need to protect even that.

    14. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      I left my laptop in my hotel (did not stay at the Rio), only used the hardwire network while in my room, and used the VPN to do anything remotely important by way of my office. To the conference, I only brought a pen and a pad to take notes (most of the talks were total ass this year, although I did enjoy the asian apt tactics talk) and made no calls that weren't just trying to locate co-workers in the crowds between sessions, otherwise BBM only, and I would turn the thing off when I wasn't actually planning on using it.

      One of my coworkers had turned off wifi on his android, but still managed to have his twitter password grabbed and his account hijacked for a while, and we all had assumed that he was connecting to a rogue cell tower, particularly after the UAV-based rogue GSM tower thing.

    15. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      You must be joking because anyone capable of coming up with such an elaborate plan would be smart enough to post a confession on a public forum. At least, I like to think so.

    16. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in god's name would anyone be willing to go to that with electronics? For god's sake, just take a pad and pencil!

      Even assuming you took these security measures, you would still be susceptable to ink-injection attacks (someone draws a penis on the notepad when you're not looking) and denial of service (someone tall grabs the pad away from you and holds it high up so you can't get it)

    17. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To Blackhatters, it's like a mountain, it's there! Not to mention it does point out how vulnerable our communications really are.

    18. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Having a windows login password on a personal laptop is, unless you use EFS or truecrypt, a bad idea.

      A) someone with Ophcrack (or who sneaks SamDump onto your computer and grabs the hash) can recover your plaintext password quite quickly (10 minutes for 10char passwords with ophcrack), with no trace. As you pointed out, learning this password likely reveals info about your other passwords.

      B) Windows has for the longest time refused to allow remote connections to accounts with a blank password, regardless of other policies on your computer. A blank password is far more secure than a weak password. Blank password means no RDP, no telnet, no SMB connections (unless youre using a home edition), no management connections.

      C) Passwords are trivial to circumvent, when you have physical access (and for remote, see #2). A 1meg boot iso can completely wipe out your password; an ophcrack disk can reveal it; any linux liveboot distro can run chntpw and kill the password.

      Also, if youre on a laptop, its far better (imo) to have it set to autologon, lock the bios, and have boot time services which connect to wifi and grant you remote control (if your laptop is ever stolen. If you have a password, a thief can trivially get to your data unless youve truecrypted your drive; if its set to autologon, at least you have an attempt to grab geolocation data and control the webcam.

      Basically, if your data is REALLY that sensitive, you need to be running volume or full disk encryption, not relying on a windows logon. Windows logons are only useful for network (AD) authentication, or multiple users on a locked down computer.

    19. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by russotto · · Score: 1

      You must be joking because anyone capable of coming up with such an elaborate plan would be smart enough to post a confession on a public forum. At least, I like to think so.

      Hey! The hacker who maxed out my credit cards got my slashdot account too! Good thing he didn't change the password!

    20. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, you're not wrong Beardydog, you're just an asshole

    21. Re:Don't take electronics, maybe? by treeves · · Score: 1

      Legionnaire's disease FTW.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  13. Don't trust the network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Border router security, hard shell soft core, perimeter defense: However you call it, it's all bogus. The network must not be trusted, especially when it's got wireless components. IPSec was the right idea. Shame it doesn't get any use. Somehow the illusion that you can make the network trusted is even more prevalent among users and operators of mobile networks.

  14. Really surprised... not. by ewanm89 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is DEFCON, it's like putting every army and mercenary group in the world in one room without disarming them first. There is a reason why the DEFCON wireless network is described as the most hostile network on earth, it's more hostile than the internet itself.

    1. Re:Really surprised... not. by tgd · · Score: 1

      This is DEFCON, it's like putting every army and mercenary group in the world in one room without disarming them first.
      There is a reason why the DEFCON wireless network is described as the most hostile network on earth, it's more hostile than the internet itself.

      I smell next years' big summer Hollywood blockbuster!

      What's Michael Bay up to?

    2. Re:Really surprised... not. by antdude · · Score: 1

      That is why I avoid Sin City during that week so my old school bone conduction analog hearing aid, CASIO Data Bank 150 calculator watch, body, etc. won't get hacked/exploited. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Really surprised... not. by cjb658 · · Score: 1

      I went to Defcon 16 and brought my laptop. I set up Wireshark on it and connected to the unprotected Wifi (I think the SSID was Warzone). A few minutes passed. Then an hour. Nothing happened. I didn't see so much as an arp flood, port scan, or even an attempt to connect to my Samba shares. I even enabled the guest account so people could download stuff from me without a password.

      I was sorely disappointed.

    4. Re:Really surprised... not. by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      Every user of the (real) DC WiFi is on their own VLAN. You shouldn't see anything.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
  15. HORRAY !! GOOD NEWS EVERYONE !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We wanted this stuff cracked, and now it is !! HORRAY !! Now it's on to the next unproductive task !! Like submitting crap disquised as news to slashdot !!

  16. If you give a mouse a cookie... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    If you put candy in a bowl in a room full of children- they will eat it. If you put whiskey in a room full of frat-boys- they will drink it. If you put technology in a room full of hackers- they will hack it. If you put Michael Jackson in a room full of children- he will behave admirably. I don't see much surprise here.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:If you give a mouse a cookie... by morgosmaci · · Score: 1

      If you put Michael Jackson in a room full of children- he will behave admirably.

      You mean sit in the corner and add a lovely decomposition smell to the room?

    2. Re:If you give a mouse a cookie... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Funny

      Decomposing plastic has no odor.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:If you give a mouse a cookie... by PIBM · · Score: 1

      I guess you could say he wouldn`t do a thing..

    4. Re:If you give a mouse a cookie... by jemtallon · · Score: 1

      Michael Jackson behaving admirably... http://i.imgur.com/Okk86.jpg

  17. G is like san Re:Define "4G" by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Most Asian languages use a suffix to indicate respectful reference. Japanese uses -san as in Suzuki-san or Yamomoto-san or Admiral Nakudo-san. Similarly Hindi uses ji. As in Obama-ji met the Senator Liberman-ji.

    Most cell phone companies use the suffix G to add respectability to what is otherwise a meaningless number.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:G is like san Re:Define "4G" by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      Long way to get to that, but I'll say it was worth it.

  18. For once, helps to be Canadian! by thejaded1 · · Score: 1

    ... or any other country with atrocious data package rates.

    I shut my Android's data option off before arrived, primarily for costs reasons, but also for security reasons. I'm sure there were plenty other foreign travelers who had there data disabled for duration of their stay.

    --
    :wq
  19. Fucking Steve Jobs! by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    I'm sure he's responsible for this somehow. Probably because he can't innovate!!

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  20. Featuer Phones for the Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon can't figure out why I tried a smartphone and went back to a "regular" phone as soon as my contract was up. The data plans are too expensive, they want you to pay extra for tethering, they have data caps, and the devices are way too intrusive (see iPhone location scandal or Android's WiFi surveillance). You couldn't pay me money to carry a smart phone around unless there was one I rooted and installed a custom version of *nix on it (like some WiFi routers).

  21. We need Authentication/Encryption NOW by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

    This points that the last bastion of security (secure transport layers provided by the transporter) is no longer viable. MITM is apperently practical on most wireless networks, even the adnvaced cellular ones. In that case, you MUST authenticate every location every app goes to. This means EVERYONE needs certs. I wish there was more info on Moxie's new tool because it may be an absolute necessity in the very near future. (Unless the CAs are going to start giving out free certs.)

    --
    I do security
    1. Re:We need Authentication/Encryption NOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol wrong. One of the 0days The Beast system used was a remote exploit in TextSecure!

    2. Re:We need Authentication/Encryption NOW by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      You make it out to be way worse than it is. If you go over cellular, should just SSH back to your home connection. The wireless insecurity isn't much to worry about at that point. WiMax is a huge joke security-wise anyways. WiMax was cracked last year already in this regard. Seems he spent the year building better tools.

    3. Re:We need Authentication/Encryption NOW by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Its worse than that. Last year GSM presentation revolved around taking over GSM codec part of the phone, and ALL android phones run codec in same memory space as main CPU.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  22. You do know what DEFCON is, right? by gosand · · Score: 1

    I can't even come up with a sufficient analogy to describe how wrong your comment is.

    Like entering a bicycle in a Formula 1 race because you don't like going fast?

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  23. FYI by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 2

    It's WiMax that's fallen. It was already cracked open as of the last Defcon. Some other cool stuff is being done with it too. The WiMax authentication system is a joke.

    1. Re:FYI by YoopDaDum · · Score: 2

      It's WiMax that's fallen.

      Could you point to a reference for this? The disclosure email doesn't mention WiMAX at all. I'd be surprised if they'd get a MITM attack on WiMAX (see below from more discussion). If it's WiMAX, more likely they owned a specific device. But breaking a specific device is a very different thing than breaking a protocol.

      It was already cracked open as of the last Defcon. Some other cool stuff is being done with it too. The WiMax authentication system is a joke.

      Following you comment I tried to find more info on that "crack" and found this WiMAX hacking Defcon presentation at last year Defcon 18. There's no cracking of WiMAX there, just sniffing into some devices and a Clear specific location based services security issue (which is not WiMAX but Clear stuff). No cracking of WiMAX to see there, so if I missed the right announce I'd appreciate a pointer. Because the coolest thing in the presentation was the guys bérets. Ok I'm a bit harsh, the LBS info was interesting too.

      Regarding WiMAX authentication, we must be talking about different things if you believe it's a joke.
      The way WiMAX operates is that network and devices have X.509 certificates. When a device is not provisioned the device and network mutually authenticate using EAP-TLS, which is considered safe. Based on this encryption is set-up using AES-CTR (from memory), at 128 bits. This is also considered safe.
      The unprovisioned device can normally only access a subscription portal, where you give your credit card info and get a subscription. Then the device is provisioned, and reboot in normal mode with Internet access enabled.
      The guys doing the WiMAX session at Defcon 18 found a hole in the subscription portal. Using OpenVPN you could bypass it and connect outside and get service for free. This is indeed a security breach, but this has nothing to do with WiMAX itself. This part is operator specific and not standardized. But we're not talking about the WiMAX authentication (EAP-TLS) here, just how an operator handles its subscription portal.

      Now once the device is provisioned (with a login and password among other things), it will use EAP-TTLS for authentication. This normally both do device and network level authentication using the same X.509 certificates as with the first EAP-TLS step, and on top of it verifies the login and password for service access. Again, EAP-TTLS is considered secure.

      So I don't see any "WiMAX authentication" weakness. To do a MITM attack at the WiMAX level, you would need an owned WiMAX BS with either a real certificate signed by the WiMAX Forum, or a working BS with no proper BS certificate and pawn badly implemented MS that do not authenticate the network (there were some...). Both seem unlikely to me. If there were WiMAX femto BS available it may be more practical, but for WiMAX only macro BS are deployed as far as I know. Somewhat, I don't see these guys owning a cell site...

      Still, if anyone has some pointers please share. But for now, from what I know of WiMAX and what I saw in last year presentation I think it's very misleading to say that WiMAX has been cracked.

    2. Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Aug/84

    3. Re:FYI by YoopDaDum · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the pointer!

      I checked the sources listed in the email for more info. Many still doubt the claim (one guy pointing out the lack of WiMAX femto as I did), others defend it... One of the defenders claiming knowing the guy who did it said this: "The WiMAX MitM is possible because of Clear/Sprint's absolutely retarded network configuration, not any problems with the spec it's self.". More credible than seeing EAP-TLS/TTLS and AES broken ;)

      Later on someone mention using a femto, but it's not clear if it's for the Verizon CDMA attack (easy to find a CDMA femto) or WiMAX. Attacking a femto makes the most sense (physical access to the box allows more attacks). But even if there's no commercial femto, maybe they could get their hands on some second hand reference board? (some people made femto prototypes for WiMAX). That shouldn't work as a WiMAX device MUST check the BS certificate too, and a second hand WiMAX femto should not have a proper one. But as said, some devices are sloppy in authenticating the network.

    4. Re:FYI by YoopDaDum · · Score: 1

      If certificates are managed properly no MITM attack is possible at the WiMAX radio level. Then because WiMAX is pure IP you can't have ARP redirection or other L2 attacks. That leaves IP level redirections?...

  24. Pfft, no 4G in the US what are you talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do hope the authors realize that 4G is not LTE, but the technology that comes after it. Without reading the article it sounds like Verizon just had it's ass kicked.

    What's commonly advertised as 4G right now is still 3G.

  25. Don't worry by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    the carriers will fix this by rolling out... 5G!!!

    1. Re:Don't worry by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      the carriers will fix this by rolling out... 5G!!!

      That will probably just be a research project, and the real action will be with 6G. Then, 20 years after the invention of 6G, we will still be suffering from 4G's address space limit.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  26. I heard about this by dave562 · · Score: 1

    People were talking about this at the pool on Saturday night. FWIW someone mentioned that the Verizon network had the same IPSEC key for all of their towers. The attack vector was probably along those lines.

    As a Verizon user with a Blackberry I wasn't particularly concerned. If someone is interested in my SMS messages, more power to them. The only other app running on my phone besides email is Gmail, and that uses SSL. I suppose they could capture the login session and crack it at their leisure, but I went ahead and changed my password after the con.

    1. Re:I heard about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, that is bad. Really bad, as in every TLA authorized to operate in the united states should be coming down hard on both anon/lulz/whoever and verizon.

      We are talking about the possibility of shutting down a nationwide wireless network. That is critical infrastructure.

  27. Sure, but don't bring your top-shelf stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By all means, take electronics.

    Take your second-string laptop with a fresh, patched, minimal install of your OS and nothing else. Take a new pay-as-you-go dumbphone with a blank address book.

    And when it's over, re-format the laptop and recycle the phone.