Weak cryptography means that car engine immobiliser technology has become easy for crooks to circumvent. Nothing weaker than 128-bit AES is considered sufficient protection for e-commerce transactions, but car manufacturers are still using proprietary 40-bit and 48-bit encryptions protocols that are vulnerable to brute force …
Proprietary crypto again?!?!?!
"Texas Instruments claimed its proprietary cryptographic systems might be stronger than AES."
Do I have to explain the utter and complete FAIL in that sentence?
what can you say?
How about fuckwit arseholes.
Horses for courses.
"....Nohl was able to crack the Hitag 2 car immobiliser algorithm.....in around six hours...."
Which if you want something that'll never be cracked is useless. If, on the other hand, you want something that stops an opportune thief making off with a car, it's entirely adequate.
In this particular case, if you wanted to nick it you'd be better off going with the time-honoured method of bringing along a trailer or low-loader and taking it away. Ok, it means that once the thieves have it they can get it running without having to banjax the immobiliser gear, but who gives a flying f***? I don't see that the smug feeling of knowing the thieves are out a few hundred quid for a new ECU is any great comfort.
The point of an immobiliser is to deter the opportunist. If someone *really* wants your particular motor badly enough (i.e. there's enough in it for them) they'll have it, even if it's kept locked in a garage with all the wheels removed and stored seperately.
I am forcibly reminded of a demonstration run by an aftermarket immobiliser / alarm firm in the States, who promised that anyone who could drive away their brand spanking new Corvette, equipped with their latest and greatest, could have it. An engineer turned up with a roll of duct tape and a Corvette wiring loom and bagged himself a new car.....
Thought the baddies...
... were sitting in back of a van near target vehicle with crypto breaking code running. Once code was found and the car was unlocked then one bod gets out the van and drives the car off. Van then drives off separately.
A few hours waiting in a van for the chance to drive off in a 'free' 50k plus car is not a bad rate of return.
He cracked the *algorithm* in around 6 hours - presumably once he's got the algorithm, subsequent crackings would go a lot faster.
For an average car, stolen by joyriders/ram raiders, etc, then 6hrs to defeat the immobiliser is sufficient deterrent.
For a £500,000+ worth of sports car, then thieves may well consider stealing it in a low-loader, hiding in a lock-up somewhere, reprogramming the immobiliser, and then shipping off to the Far-East.
Replace the ECU
That was the case in older cars, but now the trend is that all the ECUs "talk" over the bus, and have to agree that they are all in the correct car; i.e. all the ECUs have to "match". You cannot just change one easily. Think about the number of ECUs (engine, gearbox, dashboard, radio, aircon, electric steering...)
Of course you can guarantee that if the proper garages can change an ECU that has "failed", then the crooks will be able to do it sometime!
I disagree. 6 hours is short enough that any car is vulnerable. People routinely park their cars for 8 hour (or longer) stretches of time: At work, whilst they sleep, long term airport parking...
What it basically boils down to is that cars with these devices are now as vulnerable as every other car out there. It just takes time.
@ Steven Hunter
"What it basically boils down to is that cars with these devices are now as vulnerable as every other car out there." But some cars can be nicked with a bent coat hanger and a bit of wire, so a car with an immobiliser that takes computer time and radio kit to crack isn't really as vulnerable, is it?
It's all about insurance and proof, really.
"The point of an immobiliser is to deter the opportunist. If someone *really* wants your particular motor badly enough (i.e. there's enough in it for them) they'll have it, even if it's kept locked in a garage with all the wheels removed and stored seperately."
No, it's not. Major function is to prove that a) it was locked and b) there was immobilizer installed because c) insurance money. Losing the car is just a minor function.
Its function is also to prevent theft by simply driving the car off and it doesn't do even that. Major failure by any sense: A thief have only to crack the security (with a easily reproducible software, cost zero) and then he can open the doors and drive car away: No difference to what the owner can do. And probably at less cost that factory wants from new keys from owner.
Tell me again that how that isn't a total failure?
Especially when the insurance company isn't paying a penny if there's no signs of breakage, but claim that you sold the car and you are a criminal when you try to collect the insurance money.
Some have even succeeded to jail the car owner for fraud with argument "These immobilizers are impossible to circumvent, thus owner has fraudulently sold it".
_That's_ the way it goes.
First time take always huge amount of time
"For an average car, stolen by joyriders/ram raiders, etc, then 6hrs to defeat the immobiliser is sufficient deterrent."
For the _first_ time. It shouldn't take any longer for next times than legal owner to open the car, a couple of seconds. Once security is broken, it will stay broken.
And once the software needed to do this is on the internet, anyone can do it in that time. Even me. Essentially same as no locks whatsoever: Immobilizers stop only honest people.
All of sudden, mechanical locks seem secure again: You can't bypass them with small piece of software.
Cracking the encryption algorithm doesn't make the encryption any less secure unless the agorithm has some sort of weakness in it. Knowing the encryption algorithm gives you little, what you need are the encryption keys. I'm not sure how long it would take to brute force the 40-bit keyspace if you know the algorithm, but for the manufacture that uses the VIN as a key it would be pretty short.
This isn't about "unlocking".
This is about the immobiliser - the chip in the key that says whether or not the car's going to start when you turn the key.
So it's not 6hrs in a van waiting for the indicators to flash and the car to unlock, but 6hrs in the car turning the key.
I still don't understand what was wrong with the PIN-style code that '90s Peugeot/Citroen cars used as an immobiliser.
(And why is there a "nicking your keys" icon?)
re: high-end car
It was six hours to figure out how to defeat the immobiliser. The method will presumably now be available on some car-stealing website for anyone to use.
Mechanical locks you say?
Just to give the Anonymous Coward nightmares about security, might i suggest these youtube videos of mechanical locks being bypassed:
A video showing a decoding tool and instant key cutter for Audi's two track keys. Combine this with a reprogrammed ecu that has had the immobiliser switched off (less than 5 mins to swap the ecu) and you could drive the car away.
And for the really crappy immobiliser systems that just have an rfid tag in the key that spits out a 128bit number to a reader in the steering column, if you could get close enough to the key to read it you could potentially even bypass it with an ipod:
See pages 13 - 16 for details on building your own very clever but ghetto rfid interceptor/replayer using an ipod/phone/media player.
Yes it stops an oppotunistic thief however you answer why thefts are increasing. Low loader takes it away and now the thiefs have a way of breaking the immobiliser in their own time whereas previously they had to do other things.
Basically it speeds things up for them once it's back at "base"
Also not a good idea
A person I know has just scrapped a perfectly good car because the fuel pump broke... he can't just get one from a scrappy because all the bits talk to each other and he would have to change every computer in the car.... so the car is now scrap - for want of a second hand fuel pump - what an environmental disaster... the replacement car needed making, this one needs cutting up and melting down... all that energy and just because some idiot thinks that they can be clever and defeat a thief - when frankly the thief could still walk away with the car if they wanted.
You can get books on all the modern encryption algorithms, doesn't really help with cracking keys unless the implementation itself is flawed
Hmmm a bit silly.....
Why not take the ecu from the original broken fuel pump and mount it on the "new" pump? And there are places that can copy over the data from one ecu to another for a very reasonable price.
About 2 years ago, my now aging 02 plate vectra started having issues with the ECU. I had the guy at the garage suck air in through his teeth and the £ signs appeared in his eyes then told me it was going to be £1900 to fix it...
I went to a Vauxhall dealer , £750+VAT for a ECU, £300+vat to program it,,, then £250+vat to fit it... They would only cover it under warrantee if they fitted it... (3 bloody bolts and 2 clip on connector blocks)
This place on the interwebs, they would refurbish my old broken ecu for 50 quid, or if it was beyond repair they would sell me a refurbished ECU and transfer the EEprom data from mine to the "new" one fort £120...
And which bright spark decided the best place to attach a computer to a car was to bolt it to the engine block?
@ Steven Hunter
And of course, that is 6 hours of a current spec laptop. Make that 4 hours for a good desktop rig, right now, (for a car that has been towed away) or about 30 minutes in ten to twenty years time when these become the easy touch. For a high-spec car right now I wouldn't accept 128 bit as being adequate.
NXP. There's a familiar name
The solution, of course, is to take the people who undertake such studies to court for their criminal attempts to circumvent lawful protection mechanisms and disseminate their studies to the car thieves of the world. There's clearly nothing else to do.
As for TI... well. I have an encryption system here that 'might' be stronger than AES too. My license fees are quite reasonable.
check your reading comprehension, Ru
> The solution, of course, is to take the people who undertake such studies to court for their criminal attempts [...]
If you'd read the article, you'd see that car thefts had already (predating this study) been on the rise. The guy(s) who put this study together is/are obviously in the full disclosure camp. By having one of these "white hats" release their results basically explains how the "black hats" have been savvy to this sort of attack for a while, and points the way towards better security all round.
That wasn't so hard to understand, I hope?
Check your memory, Frumious Bandersnatch
If that fails, drop the words "NXP", "security", "broken" and "lawsuit" into your search engine of choice.
I can't really see this hack taking off. Brute force might work over a persistent network connection but as far as I am aware not many immobilisers are networked.
I would be happy for someone to correct me and explain how this might work in the wild.
To be fair
Six hours is still quite some time to have to stay near the car unnoticed. It's also more likely that rising car crime is more to do with our current economic mess than immobiliser problems.
Still no excuse for not doing better.
Six hours the first time, or six hours every time?
Now he's cracked it, can he now defeat the algorithm an awful lot quicker the next time?
Like DVD or Blu Ray?
It took some work to break the first time but now anyone with a copy of AnyDVD (and a load of other software) can do it in real time.
Why hang around? All your crim needs to do is park up in a place like an overnight garage of a luxury hotel. He (/she) then sets going his downloaded L33tposhmotorhackzxzwarez* application to wirelessly bruteforce as many cars as possible.
Then he just leaves his car & equipment and buggers off on foot, to return in the small hours with a gaggle of chavy mates & harvest whichever cars have already been unlocked by then.
And you could make much more than £50k a night doing that.
* should I copyright that name?
keyless (fob) ignition
I *like* card based systems but wireless keyfob based systems can and will be hacked by people sitting in a van with wireless sniffers. Its a no risk - low cost strategy that thieves of valuable (high end) cars will use.
Once the car security key is found (VIN?) the van can act as the fob as long as it keeps within 20 or so metres. DVLA will even provide VIN for ~3UKP :-)
This all reminds me of the tale of a fleet of new ford police cars delivered to a midlands force. All the cars were parked in the undergound car park with the press et.al. As the press officer was extolling the virtues of the new cars, a "guard duty" plod used his then analogue radio and managed to unlock almost all the brand new police cars, flashing the headlights etc.
The trick of using a CB "key rattle" to open a ford had been know for well over a year - but that force had never come across it till then - press had field day.
Old school sometimes better
This is why I like my code I have to type in by hand. Not immensely secure, but not connected to anything by any kind of radio or IR signal, just a number that I have to remember.
Of course, the real security here is having a car so old it has a keypad immobiliser. Nobody will get much joy from riding in that...
This attack was known far earlier
In 1994 I applied for a patent on an immobiliser that guarded against this. In order to describe the improvement I first described a 'strawman' design for a poorly-designed system that would be easy to attack. I then described how to fix it.
The lawyer who drafted my application told me that my strawman matched a design from Texas Instruments.
TI proprietary crap
I'm surprised TI didn't sue you.
Did you get it? Have you made the device or licensed the design? Or are you waiting to troll?
It takes less than 6 hours if you bash the owner over the head and have it away with the keys
err, isn't the whole point of security that its only as strong as the weakest link and in pretty much all cases this will be the mortal fleshy thing holding the magic key...
... With different risks, and different amounts of effort likely to be expended by the police
Did you sell the car or was it stolen?
"err, isn't the whole point of security that its only as strong as the weakest link... "
It's all about proving that your car has been stolen, really. At least in this case: Like said in other posts, securing any car that it's impossible to steal, is very difficult. But when it's as easy to thief to drive away as the owner, then "immobilizer" is worthless piece of crap.
Also: If you can't prove it's stolen, you don't get money from insurance and that's the real loss.
The little is required, and must contain chicken and/or stewart.
Why does the Register recognise one new line as a new paragraph?
As the gap here shows, i'm still on the same paragraph, yet the forums think it's a new one???
Happens to my rubbish all the time. Perhaps the Register is only tested towards IE and not Firefox or something similar.
I'm upvoting this post
...based simply on it's title.
The text, on the other hand...meh.
RE: Someone Else, but the same someone else
So am I...
... and I only re-read it (and noticed the actual words) because of the upvoter above...
The title is not required, and mustn't contain letters and/or digits.
"one unnamed manufacturer used the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) as the "secret" key for the immobiliser."
It's Ford isn't it, utterly embarassing
Ive seen quite a few cars with the VIN number displayed on the car window (bottom of the front window usually). If Ford do this then they might as well have a big steal me sign!
Makes Me Laugh
For a time a car theft ring near me used flatbed trucks and fork lifts used to transport pallets of brick and block. They just hoisted the car on the truck, reattached the lift and drove off. The cars were cut up and sold for parts. The only reason they got caught was the genius forklift operator bragged to the wrong guy his lift was big enough to lift a car.
My car's immobiliser needs to be physically touched to a pad near the ignition, which would seem to be rather more secure. Of course the lid is made of fabric, which is rather less secure, but there you have it...
Could be handy to know
I just imported a car from Japan and the b*gger only came with one remote key fob. Although made by Nissan, the NFC system used is a Renault one who want a metric arm and leg to program me a copy. I wonder if I can do it myself.
Interestingly they claim to be able to only issue four of a particular fob before the ECU has to be replaced which would suggest in this case the VIN itself is not the encryption key, but rather they have a secret list of unique keys which get assigned to each vehicle, which is not a bad thing I guess if it means the key and the car can both keep track of how many times they've spoken to each other.
Nissan with Renault NFC
Nissan is 50% owned (at least) by Renault, so no surprises here. And R are real bastards when it comes to new keys, for my 11-year-old Megane they charge £75. I said fuck it, key loss insurance is cheaper.
the best deterrent...
Is a cracked dashboard, scratched windows and dinged fenders....and a mangled bumper. (yes, I'm describing my car) If you want to keep a vehicle from being taken for a joyride, swap a couple of plug wires.....
if you own a 15 year old banger.
Most cars built in the last 10 years are un-servicable by joe- public which means its almost impossible to do even simple things like this.
I used to ground the crank posistion sensor via a hidden switch..
I was shocked to learn that all I needed to purchase a new key for my expensive German car (not Mercedes), complete with imobiliser prox chip in the key was the VIN - and quite worringly the VIN is displayed in the window of the car...
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp