Slashdot Mirror
LTE 4G Networks Put Androids At Risk of Overbilling and Phone Number Spoofing
An anonymous reader writes: Carnegie Mellon University's CERT security vulnerabilities database has issued an alert regarding the current status of LTE (Long-Term Evolution) mobile networks, which are plagued by four vulnerabilities that allow attackers to spoof phone numbers, overbill clients, create DoS (Denial of Service) states on the phone and network, and even obtain free data transfers without being charged. The vulnerabilities were discovered by 8 scientists which documented them in their research.
Scroogeled again!
"Only Android devices are affected, iOS users are safe"
Ah, Android, is there anything you don't fail at?
I don't expect everyone to have perfect English (I don't), but editors should do some proof reading before they post articles. The vulnerabilities were discovered by 8 scientists *who* documented them in their research. or better yet: These vulnerabilities were discovered and documented by 8 scientists as part of their research.
I have for a while now been tempted to leave Android and I've decided to do so on November 15, which is the day AT&T releases the new Windows Phone 950. Call me mad, but I'm tired of the Android shenanigans, the balkanization between carriers, and even devices within a single carrier. I've got a Nexus 6 at the moment, and it still does not have Marshmallow. I want to wait for the OTA rather than flash it myself, but come November 15, this device is gone.
4G is a vulnerability in itself, given how quickly you can use your month's worth of data...
So, if it's us who can get ripped off, they'll do nothing to fix this. If it's them who can get ripped off, they'll try to get lawmakers to outlaw that so they don't have to do anything to fix it.
Should we continue to expect telcos to be inept and indifferent to this, and not give a crap if their customers are getting ripped off?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
"Only Android devices are affected, iOS users are safe"
Ah, Android, is there anything you don't fail at?
Android is open! And it still has higher marketshare than iOS!
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Let me guess... you didn't read the paper. Oh look, my guess was right while yours were not.
To be fair, that wasn't actually a guess. Every assumption you made was wrong, so it's pretty obvious that you didn't bother looking at the paper to see if you were even close to correct.
The security issues are not even needed to get over-billed in Canada. With stock Android 5.1 or above (including the latest Marshmallow), use on either of the two main budget carriers can result in roaming data charges even when roaming data is disabled.
In seams, because of a programming decision as to how Android tells if it is roaming inside of a shared NVNO region and the odd decision of these two carriers to mimic in network names when using partner carriers the phone will ignore the users selection to not use roaming data and thus incur charges in the range of $1/MB.
"create direct peer-to-peer connections between two users without being monitored by the carrier, which, in turn, allows for free data communications"
That sounds like a app that would be nice to have if you're in the middle of nowhere without cells, but want to stay connected to friends in your party.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
That could be the answer to alot of this. The privacy tech in there seems to be potentially able to add a spigot of sorts to control data flow from the phone. I was researching the phone and was excited to see the DTEK technology. Might make it harder to root, but honestly I would much rather have a secure phone than data leakage all over the place. Surprised Blackberry came out with this. They always had pretty secure software, so I imagine they brought that to Android. I'm waiting it out until after reviews are in of course, just in case it does disappoint. But looking at what has been shown so far I am impressed. Might be the thing to end this crap with overbilling due to data usage.
Ms needs to say no to att only and yes to unlocked. Come on $15 in mex and can sucks hell 2gb is like a new car
he mad
Here's a link to a page that actually describes the "vulnerabilities" they found: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id...
All of them only apply to Voice over LTE environments, which are different from traditional mobile phone networks in that the LTE network is purely IP traffic so it's effectively a voice over IP call using standard protocols like SIP the same as an internet-based VoIP service would.
As someone who's been working in VoIP for over a decade I just have to laugh at this crap.
Let's start:
The Android operating system does not have appropriate permissions model for current LTE networks; the CALL_PHONE permission can be overruled with only the INTERNET permission by directly sending SIP/IP packets. A call made in such a manner would not provide any feedback to the user. Continually making such calls may result in overbilling or lead to denial of service.
Translation: A VoIP app doesn't require phone permissions if it's not accessing any of the OS' phone subsystems. No shit, sherlock.
The only way this could result in billing or denial of service is if the carrier was not properly authenticating the SIP traffic and was just assuming that anything from that phone aimed at the right IP address must be a legit call. That's 100% a carrier fault, not any flaw with the system. Do they propose that Android should be specifically watching for SIP traffic and require an app have the phone permission to be able to send it?
Apple reports that iOS is not affected by this issue.
I smell bullshit, but I don't have an iOS device to confirm. I doubt Apple requires that VoIP clients have special permissions over anything else.
Some networks allow two phones to directly establish a session rather than being monitored by a SIP server, thus such communication is not accounted for by the provider. This may be used to either spoof phone numbers or obtain free data usage such as for video calls.
This is carrier logic if I've ever heard it. Using the data service I pay for to send IP traffic (which happens to contain voice or video) directly to another user on the data service they pay for is somehow a vulnerability? Again I'm not sure how this is platform-specific.
Spoofing numbers again would require that the carrier have their network configured in a stupidly open and trusting fashion. None of my customers can spoof numbers unless I allow them to (hint: I don't) and it wasn't rocket science to set things up that way.
Some networks do not properly authenticate every SIP message, allowing spoofing of phone numbers.
Repeating themselves here, while this time acknowledging that it's the network's problem.
Some networks allow a user to attempt to establish multiple SIP sessions simultaneously rather than restricting a user to a single voice session, which may lead to denial of service attacks on the network. An attacker may also use this to establish a peer-to-peer network within the mobile network.
Well at least this time they blame the network from the start. I wouldn't limit users to a single session, that restricts 3/4 way calls, but reasonable limits are good there. Still not sure what would be wrong with endpoints directly contacting each other via the data service they're paying for.
I have no doubt that some carriers' networks are truly insecure enough to allow the spoofing and fraudulent usage described here, but that's entirely down to their own stupidity because none of these things are hard to prevent at the network level, even the ones that aren't actual problems.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
Will this stop them of dreaming of electric sheep?
Or did the poster mean "Android phones"?
The Softpedia article claims
"Only Android devices are affected, iOS users are safe"
The paper cited only describes the vulnerabilities in terms of being researched on Android. Nowhere does it say that iOS cannot have these problems.
I didn't even see anything to this effect in the CERT postings.
Of course if you give something away people will take it. Apple only cares about profit share - who wants the poor and the Luddites (and a few thousand geeks)? Apple commands 92% of smartphone profits. Game over, man.
And nobody cares about open other than a few thousand geeks who are statistically irrelevant.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
LOL, "real" Android. Android was created "open" by design so it would be adopted by phone manufacturers to save OS development money. Open, that's what all you nerds brag about; but then you complain there's only one Android made by Google that nobody even buys and we should ignore all the insecure, unsupported versions that 98% of people own? Logic fail!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
...plagued by four vulnerabilities that allow attackers to spoof phone numbers, overbill clients, create DoS (Denial of Service) states on the phone and network, and even obtain free data transfers without being charged.
OH NOES! You can hear those carriers leaping into action when they found out that last part.
I wonder if that makes it a 'meta-vulnerability' :-)
I don't know what the fuck you're smoking, but *all* platform updates *regardless of platform* come straight from the OEM, not the carrier.
Yes, iOS has had, er, ONE that could maybe have been an Exploit (but likely actually not); but Android has had about a Googolplex (haha) of them.
Why do you think that is? And don't say it's because it is the more popular platform; because that is the epitome of a strawman argument. iOS is PLENTY popular enough to be worth exploiting. So it must be something else.
Perhaps it's because the malware writers know that, on Android, the Exploit will be available on a significant number of handsets for months, even years, while conversely, on iOS, an Exploit will quickly be patched, and the patch quickly rolled-out, to most, if not all, handsets.
Android is a failed experiment as far as distribution of software fixes and updates goes. And don't blame the Carriers and OEMs. Google could put its foot down; but doesn't. Version after version; year after year; exploit after exploit.
Why?