Slashdot Mirror


Gemalto: NSA and GCHQ Probably Hacked Us, But Didn't Get SIM Encryption Keys

An anonymous reader writes: Last week The Intercept published a report saying agents from the NSA and GCHQ penetrated the internal computer network of Gemalto, the world's largest maker of SIM cards. Gemalto has done an internal investigation, and surprisingly decided to post its results publicly. The findings themselves are a bit surprising, too: Gemalto says it has "reasonable grounds to believe that an operation by NSA and GCHQ probably happened."

They say the two agencies were trying to intercept encryption keys that were being exchanged between mobile operators and the companies (like Gemalto) who supplied them with SIM cards. The company said it had noticed several security incidents in 2010 and 2011 that fit the descriptions in The Intercept's documents. Gemalto had no idea who was behind them until now. They add, "These intrusions only affected the outer parts of our networks – our office networks — which are in contact with the outside world. The SIM encryption keys and other customer data in general, are not stored on these networks." They claim proper use of encryption and isolation of different networks prevented attackers from getting the information they were after.

26 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. But can we believe them? by raburton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    as per the subject

    1. Re:But can we believe them? by jools33 · · Score: 2

      If they really did get all of our SIMs private keys (which seems quite likely) the costs will be extreme to replace all SIMs - so it seems to me that this is what they want us to believe to keep costs down.

    2. Re:But can we believe them? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Why would the company selling SIMs not want everyone to replace their SIMs?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:But can we believe them? by GoddersUK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Initially I thought we could probably believe that they believed it. But then TFA said this:

      ...we are conscious that [they] have ... legal support that go[es] far beyond that ... typical. And, we are concerned that they[NSA, GCHQ et al] could be involved in such indiscriminate operations against private companies with no grounds for suspicion....

      This seems to be a bit more than simply "you can't prove a negative"; it seems to be a warning carrying overtones of much that's been left unsaid. The reference to legal support seems to suggest that Gemalto have been on the receiving end of a visit from the men in dark glasses. "No grounds for suspicion" sounds like a ominous reference to suppressed truth, rather than just Russell's teapot

    4. Re:But can we believe them? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      GCHQ and the NSA were bragging in their internal documents that they have those encryption keys. If true, Gemalto would need to replace billions of SIMs (they manufacture about 2 billion a year) and there is zero chance they could recover the cost from GCHQ.

      So no, we can't believe them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:But can we believe them? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      But can we believe them?

      Can you name a single reason why we should believe them?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:But can we believe them? by phayes · · Score: 2, Informative

      Belief in the fundamental good nature of Mankind?

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    7. Re:But can we believe them? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      You realize that no one would give them money for the replacement sims? they would be required to replace them for free like in any recall

      Not just that - it might be worth it to the carriers to get the SIMs from anybody else.

      Nobody buys their SSL certs from Diginotar anymore - there is a smoking crater on the crypto landscape where that incompetent business used to be.

      Gemalto is left with having to prove the negative. We only need believe that their security and forensics people are more competent than the NSA/GCHQ attacker and cover-up people are, and continue to trust them on that basis. Gemalto cannot take a different position than they are now, no matter how confident they are/aren't.

      Why aren't phones generating their own keys when they're activated at the store? Burn a fusible link if necessary. This would be more secure _and_ cheaper for the carriers. Oh, because NSA has plants on the GSM committees?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:But can we believe them? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why aren't phones generating their own keys when they're activated at the store? Burn a fusible link if necessary. This would be more secure _and_ cheaper for the carriers. Oh, because NSA has plants on the GSM committees?

      No, because the subscriber identity is linked to the SIM card (it's in the name...),
      and not to the phone. You can switch a SIM card into any phone (some simlock
      issues excluded) and just keep going with your one subscriber identity.

      Or put another SIM card in your phone and use a completely different one.
      It's great when traveling.

      It's a feature - it's even a "we actually want this" kind of feature.

    9. Re:But can we believe them? by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      this is what they want us to believe to keep costs down.

      You won't believe how old the technology is in a SIM card. It's actually quite ancient.

      Think about it - your SIM probably has a 32k storage area, yet if you saw the actual die, it's remarkably big for what it is (just an 8-bit microcontroller and storage) - something that would in normal circumstances literally the size of a grain of sand if you used recent, but not cutting edge, fab technology.

      Instead, the dies are relatively big (measured in the mm scale) - it's because SIMs are so disposable so the manufacturers basically buy up ancient fabs and equipment for basically nothing. (It's probably sub-micron by now, but not the deep-sub-micron we use for bleeding edge stuff). Students in VLSI design often use micron-scale technology as it's basically extremely cheap to run. Even the masks used don't have to be particularly precise (a modern mask for a fab is on the order of $100K, each, and you often need 20 or more masks) so those are really cheap. And probably reused in the end, as well.

      SIM cards are stupidly cheap because of this - which is the entire point - that $10 they charge for a SIM card is pure profit for the most part.

  2. meanwhile at Fort Meade by alen · · Score: 2

    a bunch of NSA geeks are high fiving each other and can't seem to stop hooting and hollering with awesomeness

    1. Re:meanwhile at Fort Meade by TWX · · Score: 2

      Maybe they'll high-five each other into a workers' compensation claim, exacerbating that old carpal tunnel injury...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  3. seperate networks doesn't mean secure at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Air gapped networks aren't secure just because they're air-gapped - there's lots of techniques:

    https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/10/jumping_air_gap.html

    http://www.welivesecurity.com/2014/11/11/sednit-espionage-group-attacking-air-gapped-networks/

    and many other types of 'infected' media methods like USB keys. Sure it takes longer, but agencies are very patient.

  4. When groups like this attack you... by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...it's probably a wise assumption that they're not going to stop until they get what they're looking for.

    Cute story, but intelligence agencies didn't target them for their super secret oatmeal cookie recipe.

    1. Re:When groups like this attack you... by DigitAl56K · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. Their explanation is basically, "we did notice a couple of breaches in the outer layer of our network, this was probably that, nothing serious was taken". Meanwhile the NSA is loading firmware-level rootkits into hard drives via numerous exploit techniques that can remote update and survive reformats, etc.

      Yeah, buddy. Just because you didn't notice the intrusion did not mean it didn't happen. If the NSA wants in they're getting in, and they're good enough not to get caught in most cases.

      Why would the Snowden materials say they got in if they didn't? It's not as if they were leaked intentionally.

  5. Let NSA+GCHQ buy Gemalto since their own their ass by ad454 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    North Korea hacks Sony => Cyber-Terrorism
    USA & Great Britain hacks Gemalto => Patriotic-Duty

    Of course Gemalto will say anything they can to limit economic damage, but without proper and transparent oversight of secret agencies they is no way to validate any claim by Gemalto that their 3G/4G SIM secrets were not stolen.

    The best course of action is for Gemalto to simply be bought out official by the NSA and GCHQ, since they already own their asses, oops I mean assets.

  6. They have Ki's by Macfox · · Score: 5, Informative

    Chances are they have the IMSI Ki keys. This is the info that is given to the carriers with each IMSI(SIM). That's all that is needed to dupe a SIM or decrypt coms. The vast majority(probably all) of these will use the default A3 /A8 encryption, so this will be a walk in the park (load IMSI+Ki into new card) to spin off duplicate SIMs for the next few years. Once you can dupe a SIM, you can then fool the VLR/HLR into redirecting calls/SMS or access Voicemail. No need to monitor the local airwaves.

    --
    Area51 - We are watching...
  7. No single point of failure is permissible by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if the security of the cell network really falls on the security of a single company then that is unacceptable.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:No single point of failure is permissible by xdor · · Score: 2

      Your right, we should make this the responsibility of a single government agency. That way we don't have all this nasty hacking going on.

    2. Re:No single point of failure is permissible by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      The NSA loves centralization. So by all means... play right into their hands. Its so much easier when you put all the eggs in one basket.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  8. Interpretation by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Translation of what they really said:

    The investigation into the intrusion methods described in the document and the sophisticated attacks that Gemalto detected in 2010 and 2011 give us reasonable grounds to believe that an operation by NSA and GCHQ probably happened

    The attacks were sophisticated, thus the fact that we were compromised was justified. We will play the victim card straight off. We presume that because the attacks were sophisticated that it was the NSA and GCHQ, although any hacker group and nation-state would give their left arm for our encryption keys. However NSA and GCHQ are scary acronyms, and so we were supposedly up against the most powerful hacking group in the world, again, justifying the fact that they succeeded.

    The attacks against Gemalto only breached its office networks and could not have resulted in a massive theft of SIM encryption keys

    The attacks resulted in a theft of our SIM encryption keys, although not a "massive" one, whatever "massive" means.

    The operation aimed to intercept the encryption keys as they were exchanged between mobile operators and their suppliers globally. By 2010, Gemalto had already widely deployed a secure transfer system with its customers and only rare exceptions to this scheme could have led to theft

    Rare exceptions to our scheme led to theft.

    In the case of an eventual key theft, the intelligence services would only be able to spy on communications on second generation 2G mobile networks. 3G and 4G networks are not vulnerable to this type of attack

    Intelligence services were able to spy on communications on 2G mobile networks, due to this one known particular theft of SIM keys that we managed to discover. Even the most modern cell phones fall back on 3G and 2G mobile networks if 4G is not available, so this could affect any phone.

    None of our other products were impacted by this attack

    Products of ours were impacted by this particular attack, but at least it wasn't every single product we have.

    The best counter-measures to these type of attacks are the systematic encryption of data when stored and in transit, the use of the latest SIM cards and customized algorithms for each operator

    We are trying to come up with better counter-measures to prevent them from continuing to access our encryption keys.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  9. Re:Let NSA+GCHQ buy Gemalto since their own their by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    North Korea hacks Sony => Cyber-Terrorism
    USA & Great Britain hacks Gemalto => Patriotic-Duty

    Or more accurately:

    North Korea hacks Sony, gets some personal info that might hurt several thousand employees => Cyber-Terrorism

    USA & Great Britain hacks Gemalto, gets keys that can decrypt the communication of millions => Patriotic-Duty

  10. Nothing to see here, move along, move along... by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, sure, Gemalto, as if we are going to believe you, you bunch of wussies.

    Here is how it probably went. Cut to Gemalto HQ, and a bunch of crypto and forensic geeks working overnight, going through all the server logs with a fine comb, trying to figure out what really happened, surrounded by cans of Cola and half-eaten pizzas.

    Suddenly a phone ring. Pointy-haired manager picks up the phone.

    - (PHB) : "Hmmm? Oh, sure Sir, we are making good progress, we may have found... What? Oh."

    (Long silence, someone is talking to PHB in hushed, urgent tone)

    - (PHB) : "Yes, I understand, sir, but...", (much more quietly, almost whispering) "Oh, that contract too? You mean, every US carrier? Every single one of them? And most UK ones as well?"

    (More talking on the phone)

    - (PHB): "Yes sir! Right away sir!".

    PHB hangs up the phone and slowly turns to the geeks, who have been watching him intently, sensing something is very wrong. PHB swallows hard, trying to look cool.

    - (PHB): "Er... Ahem... Thanks for all your hard work, chaps, but upper management has given the all-clear. Nothing really happened and everything is fine. You can all go home now. No, it's OK, the taxi ride home, the drinks and the pizzas are all on me. You will all get a big fat bonus for all the extra hours, with our sincerest thanks."

    Meanwhile, somewhere in a US telco HQ:

    - (Different PHB): "Hi, Admiral Rogers? How are you doing? Good, good, thank you. Listen, about this SIM thing -- yeah, that one -- it's all set. I got in touch with ____ and ____ at Gemalto and they wisely decided nothing had really happened. Yes, a couple of Brits did, too, along with, you know, ____ and ____. Yeah, him too, believe it or not. (Laughter) So, all of this to say, you guys should be in the clear, nothing ever happened, blah blah blah. Sure. Nah, no biggie, always ready to help. No, no problem at all. You are welcome. Nah, don't worry about it, I'll let you know, say hello from me to ____ and ____, OK? Thanks, bye".

    And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is probably how it happened.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  11. Re:We were burgled but they didn't take anything.. by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

    PR written directly by the NSA.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  12. Re:Let NSA+GCHQ buy Gemalto since their own their by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    There is no consistency at all. The US has said more than once that real-world military force is a reasonable response to state sponsored cyber attacks, yet we don't see cruise missiles headed for GCHQ or a tactical ICBM targeting NSA headquarters.

    Instead other countries will develop their own cyber offence capabilities and start fighting back. It's already open season on US companies thanks to the actions of the NSA. If a US company is involved in any kind of infrastructure it can expect to have relentless attacks from foreign powers. We are on the brink of WW3, except that it won't be a traditional war fought with bombs and guns, it will by a cyber war where the lights keep going out and banks collapse as their accounts are drained and depositors pull out. Your computer, your router, your phone are all just tools that will be conscripted into foreign armies to attack your country, if they have not already been p0wned by your own cyber military looking to hide themselves.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  13. Who to believe ? by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

    Every time there is the slightest hint of the NSA doing something bad, especially if it is somehow related to Snowden, everyone here seem to believe it without question. However, every time there is a response saying that it may not be as bad as it seems, there are cries of LIES.

    I'm not saying that intelligence agencies don't lie and that big corporations don't try to downplay serious problems but critical thinking goes both ways. For example, why focus on the keys, even in the office network, there are plenty of interesting stuff from accounting and employee data to network architecture and source code.